Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is Michael Moore correct in the things he says, or is he a jerk that enjoys lying for the sake of the democratic party, or is he something else altogether? Discuss.

Both, he's made sound points, but for every sound point he's made he's twisted the truth.

No matter though, anyone who goes to Micheal Moore for unbiased information is fishing in the wrong lake. He's a filmmaker, first and formost, if more people would keep that in mind the better everyone would be.

^

He's an "entertainer" who's also a hardcore leftie--that's it. And he stretches the truth worse and more often then a fisherman.

indeed he does, but i suppose there are some people who look into what he's talking about to find out whether he was lying or not and are educated about what hes talking about inadvertently

As my grandmother would say - he looks like he needs a good wash.

It's as simple as this - yes, he has an axe to grind, and he makes no secret of that. However, if you consider the powerful people he has implicated, or flat-out accused of incompetence, and you consider the fact that nobody has ever tried to sue him for libel, or if they have, they weren't successful - it can only mean one thing: He was telling the truth.

It might be a subjective truth, and you might not agree with his conclusions, but it doesn't change the point that his facts are correct.

I'm not sure if he's lying when he says his opinions , but I sure wouldn't want to take this guy on in a Survivor-Style "Living in the Sewers for 60 Days" type of contest.

alex jones is miles better

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
Is Michael Moore correct in the things he says, or is he a jerk that enjoys lying for the sake of the democratic party, or is he something else altogether? Discuss.


Moore is an independant he says.

The facts he presents are narrated and cuts and pastes so that there is a representation of the truth HE wants you to believe.



He's the poster child for Super Size Me.

BF> Ah, yes. Exactly. Subjective documentaries.

Dreampanther> Hmm, interesting point, that.

But if Mr. Moores lies, why does his opponents first and foremost attack the MAN not his arguments (as is done here)? Attacking the man neither proves you right nor Moore wrong. At most it sounds childish and as if his opponents don't really HAVE any counter-arguments.

I once saw a documentary on Fox News. Now THAT is twisting the truth in a way so most Europeans sat with their mouths open, not knowing whether to laugh or cry.
I remember thinking, that Mr. Moore may be stretching the truth, but if Fox News is what Americans see, then I guess the ultra-conservative Americans ask for truth-stretching...

Originally posted by The Omega
Why does his opponents first and foremost attack the MAN not his arguments (as is done here)? Attacking the man neither proves you right nor Moore wrong. At most it sounds childish and as if his opponents don't really HAVE any counter-arguments.
Why does Moore Love, Inc. first and foremost attack the OPPONENTS not their arguments (as is done here)? Attacking his opponents neither proves you right nor the opponents wrong. At most it sounds childish and as if Moore Love, Inc. don't really HAVE any counter-arguments.

Originally posted by Soleran

The facts he presents are narrated and cuts and pastes so that there is a representation of the truth HE wants you to believe.



indeed...the perfect example being in bowling for columbine...he made it look like you could walk into a bank...open an account...and get handed a gun

when the reality of that scenario was that he had several background checks of mental health and criminal records conducted...not to mention the fact the weapons were not actually kept at the bank but held elsewhere...

moore would have you believe he walked in and said "i want to open an account" they said "certainly...here...have a free shotgun"

and thats the way he cuts his films...i always find it astonishing when he gets nominated in "best documentary" catagories...

Michael Moore is a deceiver.

oh great, another michael moore thread. hey, guess what? the fat man just makes movies and meanwhile we have that panzer skank ann coulter whoring herself on fox news, bill oreilly with his own segment on foxnews, and that fascist prick chris chris matthews on msnbc. yet everyone bitches about moore. im sorry, what news station is he invited to preach his propaganda? of thats right, NONE.

Originally posted by PVS
oh great, another michael moore thread. hey, guess what? the fat man just makes movies and meanwhile we have that panzer skank ann coulter whoring herself on fox news, bill oreilly with his own segment on foxnews, and that fascist prick chris chris matthews on msnbc. yet everyone bitches about moore. im sorry, what news station is he invited to preach his propaganda? of thats right, NONE.

good point well made...although we also have plenty of threads about them...usually made by you

Originally posted by jaden101
good point well made...although we also have plenty of threads about them...usually made by you


Nah... not enough Coulter bashing in this forum.

Originally posted by PVS
oh great, another michael moore thread. hey, guess what? the fat man just makes movies and meanwhile we have that panzer skank ann coulter whoring herself on fox news, bill oreilly with his own segment on foxnews, and that fascist prick chris chris matthews on msnbc. yet everyone bitches about moore. im sorry, what news station is he invited to preach his propaganda? of thats right, NONE.


Are you saying that in the past he has never been invited to do a one on one with anyone...................aside from HBO?

Originally posted by Soleran
Are you saying that in the past he has never been invited to do a one on one with anyone...................aside from HBO?

since i am not his agent, i will not make an absolute statement. however anyone who has seen him in an opinion segment or have his own segment? please say so

Originally posted by PVS
since i am not his agent, i will not make an absolute statement. however anyone who has seen him in an opinion segment or have his own segment? please say so

You hate bush and also Moore?--Odd. The 2 things usually go hand-in-hand.

Originally posted by PVS
since i am not his agent, i will not make an absolute statement. however anyone who has seen him in an opinion segment or have his own segment? please say so


I have only seen him on Bill Maher which was awhile back and Nader came out and then Bill had to tell Moore to politely STFU since he was doing his theatrics.

So he has been on Bill Maher HBO.

Thats all I know of atm owever I am sure O'Reilly would invite, now that would be entertainment.

Originally posted by Soleran
I have only seen him on Bill Maher which was awhile back and Nader came out and then Bill had to tell Moore to politely STFU since he was doing his theatrics.

So he has been on Bill Maher HBO.

Thats all I know of atm owever I am sure O'Reilly would invite, now that would be entertainment.

Michael Moore always gets owned whenever he's a guest on Letterman.

Originally posted by PVS
since i am not his agent, i will not make an absolute statement. however anyone who has seen him in an opinion segment or have his own segment? please say so
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/

micheal moore is a disillusioned honest man in an illusioned and brainwashed part of the world.

I define Moore as being Brilliant and Completly Biased

Originally posted by GCG
I define Moore as being Brilliant and Completly Biased

I think thats funny Moore is a smart guy I kinda of him as a Howard Stern with a different medium....................shock jock with movies.

Doing it deliberetly to catch your eye and your dollar bills, then laughing all the way to the bank cuz he is so wealthy.

Originally posted by Soleran
I have only seen him on Bill Maher which was awhile back and Nader came out and then Bill had to tell Moore to politely STFU since he was doing his theatrics.

So he has been on Bill Maher HBO.

Thats all I know of atm owever I am sure O'Reilly would invite, now that would be entertainment.

He's been on O'Reilly's show.

I don't think Michael Moore is a film maker. I think he is a politically involved individual who uses movies, books and other media to get his point across.

More power to him, I saw. I agree with many things he says.

He is deffinitivly right about the misstreatment and 'racism' which is happening to black people in America - always glad to see someone stand up to the mainstream belief that ''everything is just fine''

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't think Michael Moore is a film maker.

He is.

-AC

i always find i ironic that Michael Moore produces and distributes films about how people in america are brainwashed and force fed their ideals etc.

He's become one of those figures that- while there may be valid reasons to dislike him - is often disliked because it's the cool thing to do.

The same thing happened with Bush, in all fairness. There were/are very valid reasons to dislike him and his work, but I think the whole "F*ck Bush" mentality that EVERYONE adopted ended up working FOR Bush instead of against him.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's become one of those figures that- while there may be valid reasons to dislike him - is often disliked because it's the cool thing to do.

The same thing happened with Bush, in all fairness. There were/are very valid reasons to dislike him and his work, but I think the whole "F*ck Bush" mentality that EVERYONE adopted ended up working FOR Bush instead of against him.

-AC

makes me wish there were more cries of "GO DUBYA" prior to november '04

Originally posted by Df02
i always find i ironic that Michael Moore produces and distributes films about how people in america are brainwashed and force fed their ideals etc.

i also find it highly ironic that he campaigns against the perpetuation of rich people staying rich because they can afford to send their children to the best schools and universities so they get the best education and thus the best and most highly paid jobs

while at the same time he lives in a $2.5 million house in New York and sends his own children to the most exclusive private schools

funny, i dont recall him ever bashing people simply for having wealth. could you perhaps produce any dialogue to support your statement?

Originally posted by jaden101
i also find it highly ironic that he campaigns against the perpetuation of rich people staying rich because they can afford to send their children to the best schools and universities so they get the best education and thus the best and most highly paid jobs

while at the same time he lives in a $2.5 million house in New York and sends his own children to the most exclusive private schools

^ Exactly!

And I had no idea he had kids. --

Originally posted by PVS
funny, i dont recall him ever bashing people simply for having wealth. could you perhaps produce any dialogue to support your statement?

funny...i read both stupid white men and downsize this...in both he attacks business leaders because of their wealth...several times

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
^ Exactly!

And I had no idea he had kids. --

Does anyone besides me find it incredibly odd that the man is saying "Exactly!" when he never even knew about the information presented by Jaden?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Does anyone besides me find it incredibly odd that the man is saying "Exactly!" when he never even knew about the information presented by Jaden?

-AC

What makes you think that? I've seen Downsize This (unfortunately) and he even attacked the Payday candy bar corp.--what gives?

I just didn't know that his fat ass had kids.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Does anyone besides me find it incredibly odd that the man is saying "Exactly!" when he never even knew about the information presented by Jaden?

-AC

Nah ; cause thats the main part of the drifter's mentality.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I just didn't know that his fat ass had kids.

It was the "Exactly!" you see...

-AC

again, ill ask when does he bash people exclusively for being rich? i see him bash on elitism, classism, and greed, but i never read/heard him declare that people that are rich all suck. i guess either i missed a passage or you're putting words in his mouth, so please...that dialogue....surely since you're well read in his literature and he's just so obviously against wealthy people just for being wealthy you can easily present it.

Originally posted by PVS
again, ill ask when does he bash people exclusively for being rich? i see him bash on elitism, classism, and greed, but i never read/heard him declare that people that are rich all suck. i guess either i missed a passage or you're putting words in his mouth, so please...that dialogue....surely since you're well read in his literature and he's just so obviously against wealthy people just for being wealthy you can easily present it.

what constitutes as greed? having a 6-7-8 bedroom house for a family of 3?

And Michael Moore has never 'bashed' people for being rich, but he does do exactly what Jaden said, 'bash' people for the perpetuation of wealth caused by rich people being able to afford the best schools... creating children with the best education, meaning theyll be rich etc.


but it doesnt stop him getting rich and buying in to the circle of wealth by sending his daughter to the best schools

Originally posted by Deano
alex jones is miles better

agreed.

Originally posted by Df02
what constitutes as greed? having a 6-7-8 bedroom house for a family of 3?

And Michael Moore has never 'bashed' people for being rich, but he does do exactly what Jaden said, 'bash' people for the perpetuation of wealth caused by rich people being able to afford the best schools... creating children with the best education, meaning theyll be rich etc.


but it doesnt stop him getting rich and buying in to the circle of wealth by sending his daughter to the best schools

Originally posted by PVS
so please...that dialogue....

Here is what WD has to say about Michael Moore... (liberals rolling your eyes at me shush up!)...

The man has every RIGHT to comment, criticize, and trash our American government. We cannot stop him from doing it. It is his right and freedom to do it. I respect him for doing it.

Now, if you expect me to accept what he says and agree with everything he claims....Ehhh no! I'm not some deluded Canadian/European Liberal Anti-American clown that sucks up every thing he claims. Nor I'm some Super American Patriot that refuses anything Moore claims. I just happen to be your average person who thinks Moore is nothing more than a guy with cap and camera trying to make himself feel important.

I don't need Michael Moore to tell what is happening with our government....I can read it by myself thank you very much. And I will draw my own conclusions...I don't need Moore to do it for me. Here is what I think is fair...If Moore has the right to criticize Bush and think is fair that Moore should accept criticism as well.

As for those of you who don't like it when people make fun of Michael Moore.....well, he's fat, ugly, and annoying it's not a lie is the true.....plus he's too fat...Yeah!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just happen to be your average person who thinks Moore is nothing more than a guy with cap and camera trying to make himself feel important.


Yep, that's all he is--he was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and it worked out to his advantage to the point where he's appearing at red-carpet events.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As for those of you who don't like it when people make fun of Michael Moore.....well, he's fat, ugly, and annoying it's not a lie is the true.....plus he's too fat...Yeah!

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Yep, that's all he is--he was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and it worked out to his advantage to the point where he's appearing at red-carpet events.


Oh, I wouldn't even dispute that.....which is also why I don't like that other idiot clown looking of Morgan Spurlock. "Fast food is BAD for your health, don't eat too much"

....

Really Spurlock? You can't be *beep* serious!

I gotta admit though, that movie turned me off of McDonald's for a while.

Michael Moore definitely isn't for the democratic party, per se, he rips on them more in his books than on anyone else. Other than that, I haven't found any fallacies in his work and having spent 20 minutes with the guy he's pretty nice and easy to get along with.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Michael Moore definitely isn't for the democratic party, per se, he rips on them more in his books than on anyone else. Other than that, I haven't found any fallacies in his work and having spent 20 minutes with the guy he's pretty nice and easy to get along with.

Are you shitting me?

You actually met that fat loser hippie?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Michael Moore definitely isn't for the democratic party, per se, he rips on them more in his books than on anyone else. Other than that, I haven't found any fallacies in his work and having spent 20 minutes with the guy he's pretty nice and easy to get along with.


Haven't found any fallacies in his works..............................it must have been that 20 minutes you spent with him, he kept your head in the gutter

^ He sure did.

Yup, it's easy when you're polite, cordial, and banging the chief editor of the school paper. plus living in colorado helps.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's become one of those figures that- while there may be valid reasons to dislike him - is often disliked because it's the cool thing to do.

The same thing happened with Bush, in all fairness. There were/are very valid reasons to dislike him and his work, but I think the whole "F*ck Bush" mentality that EVERYONE adopted ended up working FOR Bush instead of against him.

-AC

Agreed. Even though my age group is too young to vote, I remember hearing the "Go Bush" mentality from many kids during both elections, only to hear "**** Bush" from the same people a month later.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
Is Michael Moore correct in the things he says, or is he a jerk that enjoys lying for the sake of the democratic party, or is he something else altogether? Discuss.

He's a jerk.

Screw the hippies!

GO DUBYA.

Yeah!!! GO DUBYA!!!!

Isn't that a picture of Saddams gas work there.

Actually, Pol Pot's killing fields, pictures from Dachau and Auschwitz were too graphic and current Iraqi pictures are too. But I think I made my point.

You did indeed. Moore in a 20 minute meeting is cordial, freindly and funny.

Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore, whether its postive or negative, by talking about him, you credit him with exposure - the kind of publicity they seek, we are giving them.

Originally posted by GCG
Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore, whether its postive or negative, by talking about him, you credit him with exposure - the kind of publicity they seek, we are giving them.


Yup and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy...................but then again we could just talk about nothing so no one gets extra exposure That will show them all!

I guess the answer to this thread is that he is neither Correct in his approach to the docs, but he is neither a liar with the half-truths he shows us.

I wish that I would have caught this thread at the beginning.

As long as it is I can't read it all so I will put in my opinion.

I am not a big fan of Bush and I didn't vote for him, either time. Saying that, I also want to say that I think that in light that our country was attacked (wether or not he had warning) that Bush kept the country together. And I think that ANY president would have done the same ( I am NOT talking about the war, that is a different disscussion completely)

I did not watch all of the documentary M.M made because I could tell from the begining that it was leaned and I already have a set opinion. From the first scene of Bush w/ the class of children I knew the movie wasn't for me.

I think that M.M is riding a cash cow now w/ a sequel. He made his point he needs to get over it.

Originally posted by PVS
again, ill ask when does he bash people exclusively for being rich? i see him bash on elitism, classism, and greed, but i never read/heard him declare that people that are rich all suck. i guess either i missed a passage or you're putting words in his mouth, so please...that dialogue....surely since you're well read in his literature and he's just so obviously against wealthy people just for being wealthy you can easily present it.

i could easily present it if i owned his books...but seeing as i've only read them (dont want to buy them...helping perpetuate a wealthy man's wealth...BAD) i obviously dont have the dialogue to hand

but then that would also be plagerism wouldn't it...

as for putting words in people mouth...



i can only guess this is what you think that i claimed michael moore said

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, I wouldn't even dispute that.....which is also why I don't like that other idiot clown looking of Morgan Spurlock. "Fast food is BAD for your health, don't eat too much"

....

Really Spurlock? You can't be *beep* serious!

Perhaps people need the obvious force-fed to them. *Waits four minutes*

Originally posted by Tangible God
I gotta admit though, that movie turned me off of McDonald's for a while.

Yep.


The clincher was '...for a while'.

If Moore is a pawn of the Democratic party, let's look at the damage he does in comparison with a Republican counter-part:

Moore manipulates the truth, and a few conservative Americans get pissed off. Bush manipulates the truth, and a few thousand Americans die.

Do you see the difference?

He's a film-maker, so he's entitled to his opinion. His movies support his opinion, but Bush's actions are not supported by facts. Again, there's another difference.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The clincher was '...for a while'.

I was about to mention that! When I read it, it felt like he needed an ellipsis before the 'for a while' part.

It is an interesting question when it comes to truth and untruths in a matter like this. Anybody that does a great deal of studies in humanities (Lit, Political history and aspects of political science, history, philosophy etc) will say interpretation is important. Looking at facts, correlating and presenting a theory that can stand up to scrutiny. Now everybody interprets different.

Moore has clearly had an agenda in his films - he is not a purely fact presenting documentary maker - he wants to present and influence. As such he has looked at is sources and put them together in a way that aligns with his views - what he believes and what he wants others to believe. Is this lying? I wouldn't say so. Is it the truth then? I wouldn't say that either. He is to involved, to clear in his purpose to take his works at face value - they need a pinch of salt. I think he would be much better if he took a more measured, scholarly approach - and he would most probably be able to say the same thing.

After all, alot of his material on Bush is drawn from unanswered questions (to which he gives us his opinion) - holes that give him a degree of reasonable doubt in his arguments against the Republican administration, holes that he isn't alone in noticing or studying. There is a fair plethora of books lately at my university bookshop - by doctors and professors and so forth on the subject that are of quality and standard that they can be used by students all the way from the bottem upto and beyond pHD level. They deal with the sames themes and subjects as Moore, but in a different, but the outcome isn't always so different (except in tone.) What he does and the way he does it is a valid avenue I believe. He couldn't get away with downright lies, and he has taken the facts as he sees them and presented them in an easily consumable way. I would still prefer a far more serious approach, but there is room and a use for the "raging pamphleteers" of the industry.

I liked Spurlocks film, it showed how stupid consumers are and really how we treat ourselves..............................

Moore's audience if they don't fact research after the documentary's will come out as brainwashed as Bush fanatics.

Oh and Moore is or at least was in 92 registered as a Democrat in NY.

I think Michael Moore has good intentions (well at least in his mind he does) but I think he goes about accomplishing his goals all the wrong ways. Whether his information is right or wrong, and his phony certificates are accurate or not, he really infuriates CEO's. He does it in the most annoying way possible.

I'm a democrat, but even I get mad watching his documentaries. If someone like Moore came into my place of business like that and started saying things just to make people mad, I would not maintain my composure; camera or no camera.

That man is such a f*cking hemorrhoid.

Botankus> Two flaws in your post: First you assign "Moore Love Inc" to a group of people who merely does not yell liar (a little along the same lines as "If you're against the war in Irq, you love Saddam Hussein).
Secondly people who, like me, do not see Mr. Moore as altogether wrong do not need to come up with any counter-arguments, if Moore's opponents can't come up with any in the first place.

PVS> Living in Europe I do not see Fox-TV, but have seen a documentary on this station. Who are these people you mention?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Michael Moore has good intentions (well at least in his mind he does) but I think he goes about accomplishing his goals all the wrong ways. Whether his information is right or wrong, and his phony certificates are accurate or not, he really infuriates CEO's. He does it in the most annoying way possible.

I'm a democrat, but even I get mad watching his documentaries. If someone like Moore came into my place of business like that and started saying things just to make people mad, I would not maintain my composure; camera or no camera.

That man is such a f*cking hemorrhoid.

I can definately agree with you there. If he really is a person who wants a better country, then I admire his passion. However, I constantly question his motives, because he seems to love the limelight. There is one thing about him though: he loves confrontation.

Micheal Moore in attitude, from what I've observed, is just an obnoxious jerk. He presses things over and over, and does things just to piss people off. He's like a learned village idiot, if that comparison makes any sense. He enjoys picking fights when he knows he's already won. However, I want someone to just punch him in the head or something, because one of these days it will happen.

I dont know what this is all about or who this guy is,but I have a feeling this guys a liar........

Originally posted by K.Diddy
I dont know what this is all about or who this guy is,but I have a feeling this guys a liar........

You need not go any furthur, because your feeling is correct.

Originally posted by K.Diddy
I dont know what this is all about or who this guy is,but I have a feeling this guys a liar........

He is an author and documentary maker famous for such works as "Dude, Where's my country" "Stupid White Men" "Bowling for Columbine" "Fahrenheit 9/11""Roger and Me" and so on.

He is controversial in that he takes a popularised, inflammatory approach in his works which are clearly meant to influence. As I said above I wouldn't say he is a liar, but you probably wouldn't want to use him as the main sources on a political essay (unless it was relevant to him.) He has been described as a "raging pamphleteer" - something he is proud of as he then had it put on the back of one of his books. That is his style. He tries to awaken a persons social conscience in confronting, loud, flashy ways.

Not for everyone, but it is a valid style. And I would say if it got people to think "well, I'm not sure if I can trust what he says, maybe I'll check it out for myself" then he is doing a good job. His style doesn't sit perfectly well with me, but if it motivates people, and people at all, to look a bit deeper and draw their own conclusions, then he is doing something worthy.

Originally posted by The Omega
Botankus> Two flaws in your post: First you assign "Moore Love Inc" to a group of people who merely does not yell liar (a little along the same lines as "If you're against the war in Irq, you love Saddam Hussein).
Secondly people who, like me, do not see Mr. Moore as altogether wrong do not need to come up with any counter-arguments, if Moore's opponents can't come up with any in the first place.
How about we both agree that he's the last man on earth we'd want hovering above a toilet we were sitting in - and call it a day?

Looks like Tubbo has a lawsuit in his hands:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/02/entertainment/main1676768.shtml

although i dont defend MM's brand of manipulative splicing of video clips, i really dont think there is any case at all.

"Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military. "

to suggest or imply through connecting scenes is not slander. its scummy, but legally legit i believe

PVS read my mind.

I was just about to start typing pretty much the exact same thing

I'm not a lawyer or have profound knowledges of civil cases. But if someone were to put me on camera and then say I'm a Spiderman fan simply because I like comic books...I wouldn't call that implying...is just plain distortions about me.

They migth settle before going to court. So far nothing is certain.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm not a lawyer or have profound knowledges of civil cases. But if someone were to put me on camera and then say I'm a Spiderman fan simply because I like comic books...I wouldn't call that implying...is just plain distortions about me.

They migth settle before going to court. So far nothing is certain.

but the point is that moore never said anything about the guy's stance on the war. he manipulated video clips to imply it.

so, if someone took a clip of you saying "i love it" and then showed a spiderman poster, the implication is there, however nobody actually said that you love spiderman.

if he should be penalised for that then the same should go for every media outlet including fauxnews and especially every politician who ever ran mud slinging ad campaigns for elections.

It's still a distortion of the facts. From what I keep reading about the case is that Moore used stock footage from an interview Sgt. Damon gave to NBC News. Damon didn't consent (sp?) Moore to use that interview for his movie. He might get something he may not. Most likely...I think this will be settle before going to court or the judge will dismiss the case based on not enough evidence.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Damon didn't consent (sp?) Moore to use that interview for his movie.

well if that is true then he does have a case. but only for using that clip without his consent...then again he gave his consent to the media initially...so im not sure what the legal guidelines are for such a situation are. all the implication however is irrelevant.

As far as I know, the interview is copyrighted to NBC, and Damon consented them to have the interview...so Moore would only need to get NBC's consent to use the clip.

I doubt a news network like that would give an interview without first having the interviewee fill out a number of consent forms and waivers and such. The network owns the footage and can effectively do what they wish with it.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
It's as simple as this - yes, he has an axe to grind, and he makes no secret of that. However, if you consider the powerful people he has implicated, or flat-out accused of incompetence, and you consider the fact that nobody has ever tried to sue him for libel, or if they have, they weren't successful - it can only mean one thing: He was telling the truth.

It might be a subjective truth, and you might not agree with his conclusions, but it doesn't change the point that his facts are correct.

True.very true.It could not be said any better than that.

Originally posted by Deano
alex jones is miles better

Yeah Alex doesnt try and stretch the truth either.Plus he is not pro-democrat like Moore is in the fact that he has attacked Clinton every bit as visiously in the past as he has Bush.

ok, here is a clip of the scene in question from f-911 (copy and paste link)

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MM-Cavuto.mov

and the movie clip after the no-spin doctors at fox cut out all the time between
cavoto's interview and the comment on troops being "left behind".

(copy and paste link)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MM-Cavuto-1.mov

call me crazy, but all i can hear cavuto describing is the pain he feels from his injuries. for the life of me i can see how that can even mistakably be taken as "im against the war".

Regardless, Moore is a douche bag.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah Alex doesnt try and stretch the truth either.Plus he is not pro-democrat like Moore is in the fact that he has attacked Clinton every bit as visiously in the past as he has Bush.

Dude, his first two books were pretty much nothing but clinton bashing.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Dude, his first two books were pretty much nothing but clinton bashing.

Micheal Moore hates everybody.

No, he had some very good points by pointing out that there is wwaaaaayy too much bipartisan consensus and corporate influence in politics.

I fully believe that after abraham lincoln, bill clinton was the greatest republican president we've ever had.

America hasn't had a good president in forever.

Originally posted by Kritish
Regardless, Moore is a douche bag.

Originally posted by Kritish
Micheal Moore hates everybody.

michael moore worships satan

michael moore rapes kittens

michael moore eats babies


wow, now i'm useless too

Originally posted by Kritish
Micheal Moore hates everybody.

Actually he hates salads....

he ate dr. atkins

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Actually he hates salads....

If there's anybody that needs one it's him.

Quick, edit "not" to "now," PVS, or else by using a negative modifier, your point is reversed!

Originally posted by botankus
Quick, edit "not" to "now," PVS, or else by using a negative modifier, your point is reversed!

fixed

claimk

its 2006 why is anybody still talking about this guy?

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,19163,00.html

Michael Moore Gets Served!

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has been sued by a veteran of the Iraq war. Sgt. Peter Damon, 31, claims Michael distorted a TV interview of him that made him look like he was anti-war in the Michael's 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, has stated that Moore didn't have his permission to use pieces of the on-camera interview he gave in 2003 to an NBC Nightly News correspondent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. Damon's appearance in Fahrenheit 9/11 resulted in a "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation" for him, court documents state.

Damon is suing for $75 million and his wife is seeking another $10 million for the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."

The lawsuit states that " creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication of a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community."

Damon, a double amputee, lost both of his arms while stationed in Iraq when a tire on a Black Hawk Helicopter he was servicing exploded. Another reservist was killed.

In Moore's film Damon is shown lying on a gurney, covered in bandages. He says he feels as if he's "being crushed in a vise," adding, "but do a lot to help it. And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Originally posted by PVS
ok, here is a clip of the scene in question from f-911

(copy and paste link)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MM-Cavuto.mov

and the movie clip after the no-spin doctors at fox cut out all the time between
cavoto's interview and the comment on troops being "left behind".

(copy and paste link)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MM-Cavuto-1.mov

call me crazy, but all i can hear cavuto describing is the pain he feels from his injuries. for the life of me i can see how that can even mistakably be taken as "im against the war".

Depends on the topic. he's totally wrong on the subject of gun control, to the point where he almost admits it.

He's right on the money when it comes to corporations.

He's right on 90% of the time...go Michael and fight the Machine!!!

Originally posted by partonsd
He's right on 90% of the time...go Michael and fight the Machine!!!

you're happy with 90% ?

actually hes right on the money with gun control in a lot of places and he knows the sad truth that the problem doesnt realistically have a solution.

I've always known Michael Moore was a bully, so being a liar doesn't come as a surprise.