NEWS: War Vet Sues Michael Moore

Why is Moore such a bad guy in everyones Eyes suddenly. I was a friggin idiot about politics. If anything Moore got me interested into looking into stuff more deeply. Lets just say he's the Fox News of the Left Wing....however he hasn't made a movie in 3 years, and we never hear about him exept when stupid shit like this comes up.

Which is surprising, you think with MORE and MORE people against the War he'd come out with another book or movie trying to make money off of it, but he hasn't. That seems kinda weird to me.

That's pretty accurate. And a very, very bad thing.

LiquidYogi said:
....however he hasn't made a movie in 3 years, and we never hear about him exept when stupid shit like this comes up.

QUOTE]


He's just like herpes. Comes back every few years and irritates the crotch out of everyone.

I agree...and there's no known cure for him.

I know a cure. I also know with great certainty that he won't be a problem ever again after this cure.

Mostly because his investigative reporting is poor, unto a travesty. I.E. Fahrenheit 9/11. Terrifying if true, which it could be, but his film has a number of investigative flaws.

1. Most of the evidence comes from singular direct (one person only) or singular hearsay (a singular someone who was told the evidence from someone else) witnesses. Unfortunately, totally un-corroborateable. Meaning you either accept the individuals recollection/credentials or you don’t. And you either accept the lack of an ulterior motive (fame, money, mental illness, disgruntled-ness) or you don’t. But it cannot be confirmed one way or another.

2. Much of the “hard” evidence is un-verifiable, or simply questionable. I.E. Immediately after stating that the U.S. shipped a large number of possible Arabic accomplices out of the country after 911, he shows a long flight list. However, the flight list shows neither names, nor dates…only a location; Saudi Arabia…repeated over and over. Basically, it is meaningless as evidence.

3. Next, the use of constant “emotive” scenes after making a statement…even though the emotive scenes may have nothing directly to do with the statement. Case in point, the individual in this lawsuit. He was shown immediately after Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

This type of unrelated emotive scenes are used to sink the previous comments in, attempt raise an emotional response to the previous scene in the audience (as opposed to an intellectual response) and to place the previous comments in context (a context of which the emotive scene may never have intended during filming.)

As a general rule for gauging documentaries, the more of this type of “emotive filler” used to tearjerk the audience and raise an emotional response, instead of an intellectual response, the less credible the documentary.

4. And finally, the near total lack of credible counter arguments to his statements. Now, he does a brilliant job of convincing us that he is really really trying to get a counter-argument…by showing up unannounced, unprofessionally, with cameras blasting in everyone’s faces and then turning to the camera and looking shocked when no one wants to talk to him. It sure SEEMS like he’s trying to get a counter-argument to his statements…and yet, Nightline, CNBC, 20/20, ETC. never seem to have any difficulty actually dredging up nay-sayers to speak on film. Hmmm…

***

All in all, he is a hack. He is un-credible (not incredible) and an embarrassment to real documentarians and journalists. Regardless of your feelings about the war, and its causes, he is an affront…because if you site him as an example of the problems with the war, you are immediately discredited…and thus all your arguments are deemed nonsense by the public.

He defeats himself, defeats anyone agreeing with his position and dramatically strengthens the opposition. If I were a conspiracy theorist (and hadn’t seen all his OTHER nonsense films) I would say F9/11 was a bit of genius propaganda created by the Republicans to destroy the opposition. Because it is so very effective in that light.

Yeah, they featured this in Michael Moore Hates America, which was actually a very intelligent, well thought-out film.

How about he do something else that would be quite a bit more biting...why doesn't he sue the Federal Government for lost wages seeing as he lost limbs to an illegal war? That's much more respectable.

I'm always floored by the raging, fucking blatant hypocrisy of the Right: "Oh, we've got to stop these trial lawyers with tort reform now!! Frivolous lawsuits are destroying the American economy!"

Except when it's a frivolous lawsuit against a "liberal."

And please, Righties, don't bother trying to contradict me, or tell me how "this is different." You'll only embarass yourselves even more.

I like the sound of this cure. Course I say we sew his ass cheeks together and keep feeding and feeding and feeding him.

Um, because he specifically doesn’t agree with that stance. And besides, welcome to the real world. We haven’t even been able to prove the internal surveillance program was illegal yet…good luck suing the gov over the war. I’m sure he is looking forward to spending the next 30 years in litigation.

I’m not sure how this guy’s individual lawsuit has any particularly political motivations, left or right. And I haven’t seen, so far in this thread, anything much about frivolous lawsuits (except comments about the amount of 75 million) from either the right or left.

Your post sounds a wee bit like an “out of the blue” opportunity to bitch about a personal agenda having nothing to do with the discussion.

And I love your “…don't bother trying to contradict me, or tell me how "this is different." You'll only embarass yourselves even more.” Comment. What’s your next line of debate? “Laa laa laa laa…I’m not listening to you!! Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!!!!”

How about you embarrass us, and defend how this is a “frivolous” lawsuit.

Hey everybody look at me! I have a picture of me shooting a gun in my avatar and I talk about killing people I disagree with on the internet! Aren't I neat?



[Edited on Jun 01, 2006 by smithers_jones]

This guy isn't going to see $75 million. That's just a number thrown out, likely by his lawyer, for shock value. He might see some cash, but it will likely be in a settlement that will be sealed and we'll never know how much he got.

I don't think this is worth $75 mill, but it's worth something.

I have seen interviews with the veteran in the lawsuit, one of his main complaints is the fact that he has been very well taken care of after the war by the federal government and veteran's affairs, while as mentioned earlier, the clip of him speaking is edited directly after a clip of someone saying "they are leaving veterans behind."

Some guy nobody gives a shit about tries to make money for no reason whatsoever. Oh, he was in a movie? He made statements on TV and was quoted out of context? Oh my god, this is unprecedented! Quick, let's throw all the money we can at him. In fact, let's just do that every single time people are quoted out of context for propaganda purposes, because Lord knows that'll stop happening.

You'd think a guy who got his arms blown off in a war might not be a crybaby piece of shit.

So is he getting better that standard care? Maybe he has Michael Moore to thank for that?

He's not going to get anything. Moore needed NBC's permission to run their footage, I think, but he didn't need the guy's. Since this is not NBC filing a suit, I would assume that he either obtained their permission or didn't need it.

When Bill O'Reilly wanted to sue Al Franken for putting his face on the cover of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," he said his lawyers explained to him that he had to prove it caused damage to his career. I assume that it's the same here, but there's no fucking way a two second clip of him saying he was in pain (which, by the way, does not in any way imply that he, personally, is anti-war, but whatever) caused damage to his reputation. It's just cooked up bullshit.

All right children, if we're going to have another Michael Moore thread, lets at least nail down the facts. Moore didn't interview this guy, NBC did, with his permission. Moore bought the clip. He's allowed to do that, and all of the "I never gave him permission!" nonsense is smoke and mirrors. He has no cause of action there, he's just talking shit. He might have a claim on some other issues if he can establish that Moore distorted the clip to such a degree as to negate the clear meaning of his words and cause him emotional distress and all that other touchy-feely stuff, but mostly this is a crap case. Incidentally, he was wounded changing a helicopter tire.

Here is a good description of what happened.

Pretty generic (and volatile and asinine) description. You usually do better.

Now, take into consideration that this individual who was taken out of context must spend months to years surrounded by military personnel who may now be actively hurtful towards him…including, potentially, the doctors upon who he is dependent for the care which will determine the quality of the rest of his life, insurance agents who will determine the benefits he will get paid – and with how much paperwork hassle (Tricare adjustors are about 50% military), support organizations upon which he will be dependent for skills training, ad nauseum.

And, before you go there, if you think Doctors (or any of the others) are of such a high moral standard that they would never let their personal feelings towards a patient/client affect the quality of their care for them…you have been lucky enough to not have spent much time around doctors (or insurance adjustors).

So, you’re saying (in theory) that if I were to go through the last dozen or so posts you have made on SG…sew them together into a statement that could get you fired or at least make your workplace so miserable you eventually quit (whether it is in agreement, or in total antipathy to what you have really said)…and happen to have the resources to show it to every employer in America…you wouldn’t have a beef?

No you arent neat, because just like Wonder Woman one would believe you have an invisible gun.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Moore ran a clip of the dude saying he was in pain. There was absolutely nothing cobbled together about it. Unless the guy said, "But that's okay because I'm proud of getting my arms blown off by a tire because I did it for AMERICA, great nation of liberty and justice for all" immediately afterwards. Then I could see being annoyed; a statement of optimism has been turned into pessimism. I'm no fan of Moore and his tactics, but to say that there's even a tacit suggestion that the guy personally is anti-war is stupid. He's upset because, darn it, that evil Michael Moore put him in a propaganda movie and he doesn't agree with the propaganda!

I'd probably be annoyed if a similar thing happened to me. Annoyed. Not, you know, filing a frivolous lawsuit. You're actually trying to tell me that people saw the guy and said, "Hey, you're the guy from Fahrenheit 9/11 who got his arms blown off! Man, I'm so angry, I'm going to make you fill out TONS of paperwork!" And he couldn't convince them he wasn't happy about it. Or, wait, no, maybe you're suggesting this is a more nuanced thing. Like, they recognize him but don't tell him and then don't put him on pain medications they otherwise would. That's gonna be a fun one to prove, since people will readily admit to that. How do you prove that he didn't receive bad treatment because he's a whiny little bitch? Seriously.

Plus, I'm amazed that so many people recognized him from a two second clip which was obviously from another source! Christ, that's bizarre. I mean, I know the right wing and members of the military just can't stop watching the Michael Moore docs, because the good lord Jesus in heaven above knows that people love watching propaganda that is offensive and insulting to them, but still, it was a pretty quick clip. I would bet that if he shut the fuck up about being in Fahrenheit 9/11, no one would know or care.

Come on, sarcasm aside, do you really, honestly think that this is not a frivolous lawsuit? Moore didn't need his permission to air the clip, he didn't do anything to imply the guy had a political position, and yet still, this damages him? I can see going to the press and saying that you didn't appreciate being put into a movie, and he did that. His story got told. Get the fuck on with it. I'm sure Bush didn't appreciate his speeches being clipped up like that, I know Charlton Heston didn't appreciate it when Moore chopped up his speeches to make it look like he said things he didn't, I'm sure Saudi people didn't appreciate the montage in Fahrenheit 9/11 that implied that heads of state meeting was somehow evidence of a conspiracy and yet somehow, these people have avoided multi-million dollar lawsuits. For things Moore actually did. And actually are, at the absolute best, morally ambiguous.

[Edited on Jun 02, 2006 by TedKoppel]

Fair enough. You may be totally right…with the exception of this statement. You have obviously never had to deal with the fucktards at TriCare