Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11

POSTED BY: Amiton
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 03:06
VIEWED: 12492
PAGE 9 of 13

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, June 2, 2006 4:37 AM

Quote:
American Manifest Destiny to bring the blessings of liberty to a dark and stormy world

Manifest Destiny is the exact same way we justified the obsessive push to the west, the slaughter of the Native Americans, and the invasion of the Philippines. Manifest Destiny isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

Specifically looking at Reagan now (the others were president (i think with the exception of Eisenhower) when european colonialism was still all the rage), but I think anyone who is willing to maintain a relationship with brutal dictators isn't worth being considered a good president, leader, person, etc. During the Reagan era we had Pinochet, Marcos, and Suharto. I'm fairly certain Saddam was around then too. None of these three were minor warlords squabbling in Africa (though those atrocities should also register on the radar), but instead were well known leaders of countries supported by the U.S.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MONOLYCUS

Friday, June 2, 2006 4:47 AM

Been looking over this thread and I decided to toss in my tuppence against my better judgement.

The big digression from the main point seems to be where we're at, so as for the main point about the movie lawsuit I'll just say that I'm sorry this guy lost his legs and all, but he's already gotten a free house and his fifteen minutes of fame out of the arrangement. Seems to me there's a lot of media whoring being done here, and it's pretty arbitrary to decide that on the one hand it's noble and on the other it ain't. I'm a pretty strict proceduralist when it comes to these things, and I'm hard pressed to see all the prerequisite pain-and-suffering that lawsuits are supposed to spring from... looks like everyone involved is making out pretty well on this deal. Maybe this is why I'm not a PR rep or corporate spokescreep; these kind of stunts just never occur to me in the course of my day.

Now back to the digression.

For the most part, I'm real proud to be associated with a thoughtful and sensitive group like the present company. Yeah, I said "sensitive" and I stand by it. You can make your own list of whatever qualities are important to you, but if we're going to be human beings and all, a little compassion goes a long way.

On the other hand, though, we've got a lot of partisan-talk that I don't see going anywhere. I'm going to rest a lot easier thinking that Hero's watered-down Ann Coulter routine is just designed to get a rise out of people and that he or she just took careful notes about attention-getting while traveling through Troll Country. If he or she is actually serious about the sociopathic entitlement issues... well, you do know what the definition of a hero is, don't you...? Any rate, one contributor's issues fit nicely for me on top of a big pile of Somebody Else's Problem, and that's where I'm going to leave it.

As for the rest of you contributors, you've said some mighty fine things, but I want to get back to the compassion issue for just a second and then I'll leave you be. There's a big scary word that came down to us from Herakleitos of Ephesos (don't worry, I never met him, either) called enantiodromia. This is a tendency of anything to resemble or become its diametric opposite as it becomes more polarised. In other words, don't allow yourself to become consumed with hatefulness while you're trying to fight the hatefulness.

I've got no love for the Far Right (as you might have gathered from my appreciation of "sensitivity"), but I think there's better uses of our time than confronting 2-dimensional Far Right effigies on message boards (run the word "sciamachy" through your search engine sometime... it means "fighting against shadows" and seems as good as anything to describe what we're doing here).

On the Right, they're fond of saying that "Cowards cut and run." Where I come from, we have another expression: "Idiots let themselves get bled to death." Don't fight when you ought to deal, and don't deal when you ought to go your own way. When someone says outrageous things like Hero is saying on a message board and you've got no idea at the end of the day how genuine they are being, it's time to do some walking away.

MAMASAID

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
My ire goes to only a very few people - I count, let me think ... Slick, Zero, Geezer2, Unwrapped, and Finn, who hasn't been christened yet.

Well, I wouldn't want to fall down on the job, so...

Pres. Bush lies, twists facts, and takes things out of context, so he should be impeached and prosecuted.

Mr. Moore lies, twists facts, and takes things out of context, and should be praised for providing a valuable public service.

Why the difference?

Could it be that Mr. Moore's lies, fact twisting, and taking out of context support your point of view? Does "right" and "wrong" finally just come down to what Rue thinks?

Ired enough yet?

BTW, I bet Mr. Moore is giggling with glee about this lawsuit. He knows any publicity is good publicity, and that this sort of controversy will just make his supporters more rabid in his defense. It's sure working here.

"If Darwin Ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

The difference, Geezer, is that Bush is the elected (sort of) leader of the most powerful country in the world, and Michael Moore is an ornery, fame hungry film maker, with no elected power. People like myself would reserve their ire for Bush not because we like Moore (which I don't; he does bad for my issues by being an ass) but because he has real power.

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:28 AM

Hey Monolycus,

Are you new around here? I personally think this issue (the lawsuit) is not news but merely a smokescreen for real news. However, I think I needed to respond since this kind of deception, if unchallenged, becomes credible.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

MAMASAID

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:32 AM

Hero...you ramble endlessly. I agree with you on your libertarian bent (and don't understand how at all you would categorize yourself with Republicans these days). You say you are a "good old Republican" which is odd, but I understand. The problem is that there is no such thing these days. The Republicans these days are not the states rights, libertarian, small government loving Republicans of yore. They hate gays, as you seem not too, they like to meddle and tell us what to think, etc. You need a new label.

Also, America was at best ambivalent in entering the European Theater of the war. When it came to picking sides during the 1930's, America felt more brotherhood with Germany over France, Poland, and the Sudentland of Czech. And I belive it was the Democratic president (which, may I assume you have a great dislike for) FDR who brought us quite unexpectedly quickly into the European Theater of World War II.

Get some direction to your talking and have some consistancy, man.

Citizen, I often find myself agreeing with you as well, but you have the tact of an elephant.

MONOLYCUS

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Are you new around here? I personally think this issue (the lawsuit) is not news but merely a smokescreen for real news. However, I think I needed to respond since this kind of deception, if unchallenged, becomes credible.

Newish. Been lurking awhile. And I agree, this story is bread and circuses.

I do understand the urge to respond, hell, I responded my own self... I just can't imagine something as cartoonish as the "Amerika Uber Alles" rant becoming credible unless sensible people respond unsensibly to it. I think it is designed to provoke, in the same way that the Danish cartoons of Mohommed were designed to provoke, so that people who hold otherwise indefensible prejudices can point to how "unreasonable" and "hysterical" everyone else is.

I've seen this game many, many times and I keep seeing good people allowing themselves to get diverted and discredited by it.

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 6:14 AM

MONOLYCUS

I was curious, so I went back to skim through the posts.

With one exception, the people on the liberal side posted wide-ranging but thoughtful discussions. They didn't discredit themselves in any way.

The extreme, vile, deranged postings came from Hero, with Geezer throwing in.

And as for myself, the exception, I've given up trying to argue logically with idiots. I've taken up posting my piece and then amusing myself with making up nicknames and trying to bait them. All in fun, of course.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

DALLASFIREFLY

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:42 AM

It's a frivolous lawsuit, one that won't make it far. Interesting that Republicans are usually the ones whining about frivolous lawsuits tying up our legal system. Loss of reputation? What reputation? Is this guy a celeb or a public figure? Everyone who appears on camera in documentaries has to sign a waiver authorizing use of their interview, despite this guy claiming he didn't give Moore permission to use the footage, he almost certainly did, perhaps not personally to Moore, but to one of the people involved in F 9/11. If this guy signed off, that will the end of the case. The waivers never say, we can use this part of your interview, but not this part. The entire interview would have been authorized, so the guy has no case of any merit, assuming that Moore's people did their job and got a signed authorization/release. He's just pissed off and trying to get attention, and/or money. Time will tell of course, but I would be surprised if this guy gets one penny for his troubles. I wonder how many millions he tried to get out of Moore before going public?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

AMITON

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:25 PM

Quote:

It's a frivolous lawsuit, one that won't make it far. Interesting that Republicans are usually the ones whining about frivolous lawsuits tying up our legal system. Loss of reputation? What reputation? Is this guy a celeb or a public figure? Everyone who appears on camera in documentaries has to sign a waiver authorizing use of their interview, despite this guy claiming he didn't give Moore permission to use the footage, he almost certainly did, perhaps not personally to Moore, but to one of the people involved in F 9/11. If this guy signed off, that will the end of the case. The waivers never say, we can use this part of your interview, but not this part. The entire interview would have been authorized, so the guy has no case of any merit, assuming that Moore's people did their job and got a signed authorization/release. He's just pissed off and trying to get attention, and/or money. Time will tell of course, but I would be surprised if this guy gets one penny for his troubles. I wonder how many millions he tried to get out of Moore before going public?

That's a big presumption, DallasFirefly. I'm pretty sure that Michael Moore has gooten in trouble for not securing proper releases for his infomercials in the past (I can't in good conscience call them documentaries anymore). I could be wrong, but I also think that most of the bigger management people involved with the distribution of F 9/11 backed out. I'm pretty sure Disney dropped all ties with it. Miramax has always been kind of a maverick company, too. I don't think they'd put themselves out too much to make sure that an independent film by someone as sure to drum up as much press as Michael Moore, not to mention in a film squarely aimed at discrediting the Bush Administration.

You could very well be right that a release was secured, but the best odds that I would give it in this case are even. The case has more than a likely chance of being thrown out, but I wouldn't bet it's going to be over the presence of a release *given to Moore, et al.* to use his likeness. If the release comes into play, I would say it's more likely the one given to NBC and whether that broadcast is then considered public domain.

Amiton.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:52 PM

Monolycus- We come to this board to discuss things, not to shut up. Where would be the fun in staying quiet? It's always a sad day when anyone - right, left, green, or purple- leaves the board. Unfortunately so many right-wingers have left the board that I may have to play devil's advocate. YIKES!

---------------------------------
Be prepared to see a BIG CHANGE in SignyM!

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE