REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11

POSTED BY: AMITON
UPDATED: Sunday, June 4, 2006 17:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7660
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:07 AM

AMITON


For my own personal feelings, I've never liked Michael Moore and he irritates me to no end. With that in mind, this makes me very happy.

From F*x News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html

Quote:


Iraq Vet Sues Michael Moore for Misleading Interview in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
By Jennifer Fermino

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming he recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said Tuesday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

Damon wasn't expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug.

"I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is," said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -- "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."

In "Fahrenheit 9/11," the bandaged National Guardsman is shown laying on a gurney complaining that he feels like he's "being crushed in a vise. But they [the drugs] do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it."

His image appears seconds 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."

Damon -- the dad of an 8-year-old girl and a 4-year-old boy -- doesn't come close to feeling that way.

"He couldn't have picked the worst guy to say that about," he told The Post.

"I'm the most fortunate disabled guy. I've even had a house built for me [by a nonprofit group, Home for Our Troops]."

Particularly outrageous to Damon is the fact that Moore never interviewed him or asked his permission to use the old clip.

"I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller]," he said.

NBC is named in the suit -- which was filed in Suffolk County, Mass., on Friday -- along with Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax Corp., Lions Gate Films and other production companies involved with the picture.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit.

That part, which wasn't shown in the Moore movie, is a far more accurate depiction of Damon's feelings, he said.

Lawyer Dennis Lynch said he took the case last year and they held off filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."

Spokeswomen for NBC and Harvey and Robert Weinstein would not comment because they haven't seen the suit. Lions Gate doesn't comment on pending litigation, a rep said.

Michael Moore and Miramax reps didn't return calls for comment.



Pros, cons, what have you. Please discuss

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:16 AM

RIVER6213



Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."


I don't think this is right.

River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:26 AM

AMITON


No, River. I think that's more than a little excessive as well. I'm not blindly happy about this all. For example, I know the current administration is out of line for a lot of their policies, especially foreign policy. At the same time, I wouldn't shed a tear if Michael Moore was completely discredited, bankrupted, and had to return every penny he's made off of this movie. $85M might be appropriate if this were somehow turned into a class-action kind of deal...wishful thinking, but it makes me feel better.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:40 AM

SASSALICIOUS


Michael Moore is irritates me, which is why I haven't seen any of his movies yet. Keep meaning to, but it just never happens.

I think this guy is suing for way way too much. I tend to think this entire country is lawsuit-happy. And that movie came out around 3 years ago? I know it was when I still lived in the dorms. It seems like his lawsuit filing is a little late if he really experienced that much anguish. Maybe he didn't see the movie until recently, but someone he knew must have seen it and should have told him. I kind of wonder about his actual motives in deciding to file the lawsuit now.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:54 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:

Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."


I don't think this is right.



The damages in this case are directly related to the success of the movie. Moore made alot of money with this movie, so asking for alot of money is reasonable, especially if all the allegations contained in the news report are accurate.

In essense Moore took this man's likeness without his permission, then cropped it in such a way as to completely misrepresent this person's belief's. As a result the veteran has suffered damage to his reputation among his friends and been made the subject of international scrutiny he did not seek and would not have consented to. Further, it was done under the worst possible circumstances.

In essense Mr. Moore preyed upon an innocent and unknowing wounded soldier, suffering untold anguish and exploited him for political purposes and financial gain. But then Moore is just following the Democratic playbook. Look how they treat the blacks...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:58 AM

STORYMARK


I'll agree that Moore has become pretty irritating, to the point of undermining the statements he makes. And this comes from someone who supports many of the same positions (gun control, Bush sucks, ect.)

But, if you want to check out one of his movies, I would recommend "Roger and Me", which was his first feature length doc, made before he became a media whore. It's about the economic crash his home town experienced after GM shut down the plant the town's economy revolved around. It's still political, but it's more grounded and believeable than the screeds he put forth in Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 911.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I wonder if Damon was coming up to a statute of limitations for lawsuits. You know, strike while the iron's hot, make hay while the sun shines, get while the gettin's good, never let an opportunity pass you by.

There's a lot of details I'm hazy on. Did NBC broadcast it? Does that put it in the public domain? Does NBC have copyrights on it?

Then too, did Moore imply the vet himself felt left behind? (by the US, not by god). Or, in context, was he just an example of those Moore said were being left behind, but not implying any personal position on the part of the vet.

I can imagine a newscast like this: the NO Superdome crowds in the background of a news clip with one or to faces particularly visible. This clip being used later in a documentary where the filmmaker says "these people abandoned by government..."

Would one of those identifiable backdrop people used to illustrate the clip have the right to sue claiming they didn't FEEL abandoned?

Not defending either side (though the lawsuit does seem opportunistic), but these details bug me.



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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:01 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
[B
In essense Mr. Moore preyed upon an innocent and unknowing wounded soldier, suffering untold anguish and exploited him for political purposes and financial gain. But then Moore is just following the Democratic playbook. Look how they treat the blacks...

H



You're right. The Republicans are much better in that regard.

They manipulate and exploit everyone.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Isn't this an example of why Bush is so eager for tort reform?

heh heh heh


Yes, it seems VERY opportunistic. I doubt that this guy's reputation is really worth $75 million. But whoever "owns" the material, Michael Moore should have made sure to ask permission of the interviewee to use it in his film, not just of NBC.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Ah Zero,

We must have cross-posted. I see you're posting your usual swill.

So, do you think you can answer any of my questions? Just curious, is all.

Edited to add - SignyM is right. Anyone can sue. And if you're going to sue, you might as well sue big. The fact that 'someone sued' isn't really news, b/c, I suspect, he was just getting his paperwork in before time ran out. Now, if he WINS, that WILL be a story. Assuming they don't toss it out as frivolous, see you in a couple of years on this.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:15 AM

RIVER6213


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:

Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."


I don't think this is right.



The damages in this case are directly related to the success of the movie. Moore made alot of money with this movie, so asking for alot of money is reasonable, especially if all the allegations contained in the news report are accurate.

In essense Moore took this man's likeness without his permission, then cropped it in such a way as to completely misrepresent this person's belief's. As a result the veteran has suffered damage to his reputation among his friends and been made the subject of international scrutiny he did not seek and would not have consented to. Further, it was done under the worst possible circumstances.

In essense Mr. Moore preyed upon an innocent and unknowing wounded soldier, suffering untold anguish and exploited him for political purposes and financial gain. But then Moore is just following the Democratic playbook. Look how they treat the blacks...

H



Yes, the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was a splendid piece of audio/visual manipulation, and I enjoyed it. Without a doubt there were some things in that movie that are totally questionable, but on the whole the message of the movie still rang a certain measure of truth. It's not like the current administrations actions haven’t in any way dispelled the image that the movie has placed on it. No, it only confirms it. A bunch of crook they are.

Sure the people that were hurt by this movie should sue, but $85 million dollars? I don't think so.

Also, don't even get me started on what I think about your comment regarding the Democrat’s treatment of blacks in America. It’s not a party issue. Saying that suggests that it was totally politics, and not the PEOPLE who screwed with the blacks here in America to the point where they are so fragmented, and used by all the other races and used politically by BOTH parties. Don’t get me started on this subject because I won’t let it go, nor will I back down.

Anyway. $85 million dollars is too much. I smell a rat. There has to be a reason why this is all coming out now.

River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:21 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


85 Million is WAAY to much.

Certainly when you consider what a war widow gets from the US Governmnet.

If she is lucky, she gets 250,000 for insurance, and then social security - OH and then she gets 2 weeks to vacate military housing if she is in it.

Michael Moore is an ass. But he asks those questions the rest of us should have asked long ago.

So whats this about Democrats treating blacks badly? WTF are you talking about?

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM,

I think once the broadcast is aired, the broadcaster 'owns' the rights to it. I know there've been issues on versions of the situation - example: people being filmed (w/out their permission) being dragged out of wrecked cars by EMTs and then being aired on the news. Who has rights over the image? However, as I said, I believe that once a broadcaster gets permission and airs footage, they own the rights to it and the person(s) in the footage don't have legal standing.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:28 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Sure the people that were hurt by this movie should sue, but $85 million dollars? I don't think so.


You never sue people for what you really expect to get. Starting at $85 million with a very sypathetic client (war vet w/no arms sitting in court proud of his service) starts the negotiations in at least 7 figures. I'd be looking for $8.5-12M on a case like this.

But thats not because its a bad case...its because thats what it'll take to settle it now. If they fight, they may well win $85M but it'll take years to do it.
Quote:


Also, don't even get me started on what I think about your comment regarding the Democrat’s treatment of blacks in America.


The Civil Rights movement, like many other liberal movements like Equal Right, Unions, etc, has very noble origins from good, often religeous folk coming together to right a very real and apparent social injustice. They were very successful. The Civil Rights Movement was hijacked in the late '60s and '70s and progress was slowed down. Liberal Democratic Black leaders have made millions fighting injustice. Its a fight they cannot win lest they lose their livlihood so now they work to retard progress. Thats why other minorities have surpassed blacks in so many areas.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Yes, those good old boy republicans who put troops on black marchers were certianly WAAAYYY better than democrats.


So, Zer0, can you answer any of my questions?

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:10 AM

HKCAVALIER


Looks like the case hinges on what Moore allegedly implied was this man's oppinion about the President. Good luck proving that one!

The argument is moronic. Moore put a suffering soldier on film and I'm supposed to believe that the soldier endorses Moore's oppinions because of it?

Whoopsie, am I on the wrong planet again???

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:44 AM

AMITON


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
85 Million is WAAY to much.

Certainly when you consider what a war widow gets from the US Governmnet.

If she is lucky, she gets 250,000 for insurance, and then social security - OH and then she gets 2 weeks to vacate military housing if she is in it.



Just as a point of interest, FMF, this is a little off. I don't have my most recent notes from when I was a Family Liason for an Active Duty death handy right now, but the benefits are a little better than that.

The insurance is up to $400K (tax-free) now, as well as the unpaid salary, allowances, and leave balances, which is usually at least a few hundred. Then there is a death gratuity that is something like $700. GI Bill benefits usually carry over to the dependents if there isn't already free tuition at a state university in that particular state (or the state of the Home of Record). Social Security pays out for the each of the dependents up to the age of something like 17, which adds up for a while. The housing and base access and organizations was recently increased from six months to one year. There is also a bill lost somewhere in the legislature to increase the life insurance for death in a war zone to $750K or so.

Like I said, I don't have my notes with me right now. The active duty death benefits really aren't bad, and I don't know of another insurance policy that will pay out in the case of suicide (even though they're not supposed to). Not that it compares to the insane sum of money being asked for in the suit, nor does it replace the lost family member, but none of the families of friends of mine that have died have been in very bad shape after the loss of their loved one.

Amiton.

ETA: If the spouse is in military housing they have one year to vacate and/or housing allowance. Even if they move into civilian housing, the pay for the allowance continues for the year whether they were in government quarters or not. (Did that make any sense at all?)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:58 AM

AMITON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I wonder if Damon was coming up to a statute of limitations for lawsuits. You know, strike while the iron's hot, make hay while the sun shines, get while the gettin's good, never let an opportunity pass you by.

There's a lot of details I'm hazy on. Did NBC broadcast it? Does that put it in the public domain? Does NBC have copyrights on it?

Then too, did Moore imply the vet himself felt left behind? (by the US, not by god). Or, in context, was he just an example of those Moore said were being left behind, but not implying any personal position on the part of the vet.

I can imagine a newscast like this: the NO Superdome crowds in the background of a news clip with one or to faces particularly visible. This clip being used later in a documentary where the filmmaker says "these people abandoned by government..."

Would one of those identifiable backdrop people used to illustrate the clip have the right to sue claiming they didn't FEEL abandoned?

Not defending either side (though the lawsuit does seem opportunistic), but these details bug me.



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



Rue,
I'm not going to try to claim to have the "real" answers to your questions =) I do have some thoughts, though.

First, I don't think your Superdome analogy transfers properly. This soldier wasn't part of a mass image described with an overgeneralization. He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but that *has* to be actionabale. Not to the tune of $85M, but what exactly would be an adequate figure to actually *punish* the behavior? I don't even have the answer to my own question. My debate skills are deteriorating faster than I had previously believed...

Why three years? I don't know. I do know that a *huge* percentage of the military that I'm personally acquainted with were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie, and not one of them were willing to go see it in the theater because they wanted him to fail before he really got started. When the antics that he pulled in making the movie came to light, quite a significant amount of time had passed. I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out, and I don't think they started production until after F9/11 was released.

There's also the statement (if it's true) that there was a year of good faith attempts by the soldier's lawyer to keep this out of court. If that's true then the time frame still seems long, but not unrealistic. There is a lot of things that make this seem opportunistic, and I'm sure at most levels it is, but it doesn't invalidate what is being said in my opinion.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:59 AM

SOUPCATCHER


This is my snarky solution to the whole thing.

116 minutes - length of Fahrenheit 9/11 ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm )*
10 seconds - length of the Peter Damon clip ( http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/222345p-191015c.html )

So video of Peter Damon represents 1/696 of the movie. Easy. Just pay him off 1/696 of the domestic net and be done with it (edited to add: The reason why I went with domestic net is because, as Americans, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks so there's no skin off Peter Damon's nose for any non-US opinions ).

$6 million - production cost of Fahrenheit 9/11 ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm )
$15 million - total outlay **
$119,194,771 - domestic gross

1/696 of $104.2 million is $149,705.13

Just cut him a check for $150K and everyone's happy (except for the lawyers - screw 'em).


* IMdB has a slightly higher number but I'll go what will maximize the payout
** from all the various Serenity box office speculation I recall that a movie isn't considered profitable unless it pulls in 2.5 to 3 times the production costs

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:00 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Gee, um as a Navy wife, your numbers are the ones that are off.

Having recently had friends that have had loved ones killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you that what you have detailed is not happening.

The SGLI has only recently been increased to a maximum of $400,000. And not all service members carry that much. And Wowhee! A whole $700.00 for a death benefit! I guess that is to offset the overpayment you get charged if your spouse is killed after payday.

Have you actually looked at how much SSI (Social Security) you would get for a child. I did. About $211 per child. Thats a big help.

As for the access to housing and base access. Base commanders have always had the option to allow families to stay in housing for up to 6 months. It is very rarely used. All of the widows I know where given 2 weeks. In one instance, the moving truck showed up at the door before the widow got back from the funeral.

I suppose that the fact they can be buried in a national cemetary is a plus, although I don't know many people can afford the fare to get to one.

My insurance policy pays out $500,000 even in the case of a suicide. And I pay dearly for that.

All in all, the benefits offered to the military community in both death benefits as well as wage are criminal. Especially when counted against the wages of politicians.

If one wants to support the troops - be vocal on paying them a living wage.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:12 AM

AMITON


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Gee, um as a Navy wife, your numbers are the ones that are off.

Having recently had friends that have had loved ones killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you that what you have detailed is not happening.

The SGLI has only recently been increased to a maximum of $400,000. And not all service members carry that much. And Wowhee! A whole $700.00 for a death benefit! I guess that is to offset the overpayment you get charged if your spouse is killed after payday.

Have you actually looked at how much SSI (Social Security) you would get for a child. I did. About $211 per child. Thats a big help.

As for the access to housing and base access. Base commanders have always had the option to allow families to stay in housing for up to 6 months. It is very rarely used. All of the widows I know where given 2 weeks. In one instance, the moving truck showed up at the door before the widow got back from the funeral.

I suppose that the fact they can be buried in a national cemetary is a plus, although I don't know many people can afford the fare to get to one.

My insurance policy pays out $500,000 even in the case of a suicide. And I pay dearly for that.

All in all, the benefits offered to the military community in both death benefits as well as wage are criminal. Especially when counted against the wages of politicians.

If one wants to support the troops - be vocal on paying them a living wage.



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



I'm not sure what to tell you, FMF. Well, other than the Commanders at the bases where your friends have been are jackasses. I'm sorry that there are people, especially high-ranking officers, that treat their people and their families that badly.

The numbers I gave are almost verbatim from a case I handled in January. Are they enough? No, and sadly they likely never will be. That particular spouse drew over $2000 per month in Social Security benefits for at least the next 5 years. There was no "overpayment" in that case for the salary. Perhaps the AF and the Navy handle pay very differently, but the AF is paid at the end of a pay cycle vice the beginning. Hence the additional payout of uncollected salary and allowances.

The casualty affairs office paid the entire expense of the casket, transportation, and burial costs at a National Cemetary in San Antonio from Montgomery. All of the families of the deceased that I've known in the last 15 years were offered and accepted the full 6-month housing assistance. I'm *really* sorry that you're friends have been treated as poorly as they have. If ever there were a wasted chance to make a good impression for the military, it sounds like you've seen it pretty bad. I'm sorry to see that.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:22 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:


Have you actually looked at how much SSI (Social Security) you would get for a child. I did. About $211 per child. Thats a big help.


'Family Values' in action.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Just cut him a check for $150K and everyone's happy (except for the lawyers - screw 'em).



I'm with ya on that; sounds reasonable.

If you ain't a shark Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:57 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Gee, um as a Navy wife...

All in all, the benefits offered to the military community in both death benefits as well as wage are criminal. Especially when counted against the wages of politicians.




Not to play up my sig too much but... Did you marry for love or money? If it was love than there is not much you can do about it. People do not always make the best decisions financially in matters of the heart. If it was for money than perhaps you should have hooked up with a politician.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:29 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


My respnose has nothing to do with my marriage. I am a lifelong Navy dependent. I am and was well aware of the status quo. Being aware of it and living with it, does not make it right.

Military families are the most ignored entity in American society. The current climate is all about "supporting the troops" but it is all lipservice. What the troops REALLY need is pay that is at least equal to the civilian world. They need to know that their families are well cared for. They need to KNOW that when they are done serving their country - that they can find a well paying job, and that their families are taken care of in case of their death - especially if they die on duty.

That isn't happening. I would suggest to you, that this is ONE topic you do not want to debate with me.


Amiton- you are right NOTORIOUSLY the Air Force takes better care of their people. I tell anyone that listens to go AF if they are going to go at all.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:52 PM

DC4BS



Um... Back on topic: F-9/11.

This is for all those who say "Wow, he was SO right on the money with that movie":

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Prety good read.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:04 PM

CHRISISALL


Of course Farenheit 911 is full of crap, but the attention it brings to the morally corrupt present administration* is worth it. It's like holding up a devil sign with an arrow; the questioning is the point, I think.



* Please note I said 'present', I know there were many others.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:13 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Did you marry for love or money?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.

Browncoats don't marry for money. They marry for love and figger out a way to get the money. Even legal ways.
What moon are you from?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:13 PM

DC4BS



I'm not arguing that.

The forward to the article also says that Bush was dishonest too. But that 2 wrongs don't make a right...

It even recomends a couple of FACTUAL books to read discussing the issues with the Bush presidency.

Basicaly, if Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd want to check with at least 3 REPUTABLE scientists just to make sure.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:20 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dc4bs:


Basicaly, if Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd want to check with at least 3 REPUTABLE scientists just to make sure.


Funny, all I wanted was ONE actual WMD to make sure...





Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:37 PM

RIVER6213


Of course less than of half of Fahrenheit 9/11 was a mix of extrapolations from some info they got somewhere mixed with real truths, but come on! Look at the current government and look at how our administrations been operating. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 showed a pretty dark side of our current administration that sort of defiles the image of America and mom's apple pie. It paints the administration as a dark entity that pretty much ignores the rule and does what it wants regardless of the consequences. And like I said earlier, this administrations actions make a person believe Moore’s movie hook, line, and sinker. Our president’s actions make Moore’s movie believable

The fact that we who live here in the states aren’t rioting out in the streets about all of what’s occurred over the past few years just goes to show that our current government or at least the top people know we are sheep, and we will do nothing about anything until we personally are affected. As long as our beer and televisions aren’t interrupted, we basically will go along with the program, and people who aren’t making much money, are too busy trying to make ends meet rather than go out and protest.

Anyway, I’m surprised it took someone this long to get around to suing Moore, but I’m glad he made the movie. It’s not all B.S.

River


P.S. Thank god I have duel Citizenship

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Amiton,

"He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote."
Was he? That part is very unclear. From the quotes I read, with the words he used, he was pretty obviously NOT talking about the war. That's what made me think he was, crudely said, background material. Simply a man in serious pain, portrayed BY THE FILMMAKER as being dumped by the system he served.

"that *has* to be actionabale"
Ah, but the devil is in the details, which are lacking.

"a *huge* percentage of the military ... were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie"
Roughly 80% of the military currently in Iraq STILL thinks Hussein perpetrated 9/11. Could this (trivial) misconception have something to do with that?

"I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out"
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to debate the lawsuit timing or Moore's claims?

"it doesn't invalidate what is being said"
No, it doesn't and I hope I didn't imply that it did.
My interpretation of what little I learned from the article is that there's no basis for his claim. That would invalidate them.
My supposition about why, and when, he was making his claim was that it wasn't being resolved to his $$$atisfaction in a timely way. Not knowing how that particular court works I can only draw on my labor experience, and conclude that attempting informal resolution doesn't relieve time limits. Having said that, I think he saw his clock ticking down. And anyone can always sue. If it's something covered by insurance, it's usually for a minimal few thousand dollars to make them go away rather than fight in court. But if it's not covered, then you might as well sue for big bucks. So, simply filing a bloated lawsuit is a miniscule matter. As I said before, that someone chose to sue is not news.
It will only be news if he wins.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:40 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
It’s not all B.S.


There's enough truth in it to piss off a lot of folk, that's all that I ask...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:33 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello All,

This lawsuit is not meant to be won. It is (to me) obviously designed to increase awareness of Michael Moore's 'documentary' technique.

I remember after seeing Bowling for Columbine, evidence surfaced that Michael Moore had manipulated footage of NRA meetings to show that the NRA president was saying things at times and places that they were not, in fact, said. This was done to demonize the cold, unfeeling NRA.

I have no doubt that the lawsuit will fail. Suing for 80+ million makes headlines, though. And that is the purpose of the lawsuit. This would not be the first time a lawsuit was made, not to win money, but rather to publicize an issue.

For my part, I hope more people come to understand that Michael Moore's films are not documentaries any more than Government Press Conferences are documentaries.

It's all propaganda. Right, Left. The truth is in the Center.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:36 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Yes, those good old boy republicans who put troops on black marchers were certianly WAAAYYY better than democrats.


I'm a REALLY good old boy Republican, the kind who sent troops to break black chains. You know...as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free...and such.

Party of Lincoln, TR, Ike, Reagan, Bush...all the same theme. Liberty, rugged individualism, American Manifest Destiny to bring the blessings of liberty to a dark and stormy world.

Not to take away from the Democratic Presidents. They all had good motives, some had a bit more skill then others. I have great respect for honost Democrats, not the wacky liberals, but the good honost men whose vision is the same as mine but merely choose another path...I just don't see them very often. Most are kept out of the national spotlight. I remember Bob Casey, great governor, met him once on the farm during the '88 drought...banned from the '92 Democratic Convention because he believed life begins at conception. Turns out the only big Democratic tent that year was being pitched in the nominees pants.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:40 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Browncoats don't marry for money. They marry for love and figger out a way to get the money. Even legal ways.
What moon are you from?


I thought Browncoats were tricked into marriage by those trying to get their ship or perhaps their pants.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It's all propaganda. Right, Left. The truth is in the Center.
The truth is where you find it. Maybe even sometimes in the center.

What I didn't like about MM's 9-11 film is not that it wasn't basically true; I just thought it was weak. Stock footage of various Bushes meeting with various Saudi Princes doesn't prove anything.


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:07 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

I thought Browncoats were tricked into marriage by those trying to get their ship or perhaps their pants.


My first marrage ended in the chicanerous loss of my ship, but it had a C.38 engine, and fell right out of the sky. With her in it.

Last laugh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:01 PM

AMITON


Hey Rue =) I seem to have dodged the better part of your ire, and I think I'm better for that =p Anyway...

Quote:


"He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote."
Was he? That part is very unclear. From the quotes I read, with the words he used, he was pretty obviously NOT talking about the war. That's what made me think he was, crudely said, background material. Simply a man in serious pain, portrayed BY THE FILMMAKER as being dumped by the system he served.



Hrm. Well, I think on one hand you're talking about what I said, and on another it almost sounds like something else.

Most of what I was trying to say was comparing a specific image of an individual with an image of a larger group as per your analogy. As to the veracity of how the quotes were used, you have the same information that I do. Actually, probably more because you're more willing than I am to go out and get the answers to even the little questions that bother you than I am. I can't say how misrepresentative it was or wasn't personally. Like I said, I meant that more for your analogy, and I guess I missed =p

Quote:


"that *has* to be actionabale"
Ah, but the devil is in the details, which are lacking.



Yes, the details are very lacking. In my mind, if things went down the way I described them (e.g. like the pretty picture that my imagination painted for me), then I still assert that it is actionable and should be. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the details to say that with any more certainty than I have (meaning that adequate acknowledgement has to be credited to my own imagination).

Quote:


"a *huge* percentage of the military ... were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie"
Roughly 80% of the military currently in Iraq STILL thinks Hussein perpetrated 9/11. Could this (trivial) misconception have something to do with that?



In my *particular* case, I can definitively answer that question that the misconception has nothing to do with it. The people who were relevant before the ellipsis was inserted into my quote didn't have any particular perception that Hussein was to blame for 9/11. I really can't speak for the part of the military that made up that 80% statistic, though. Statistical point goes to Rue after arbitration? =p

Quote:


"I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out"
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to debate the lawsuit timing or Moore's claims?



All I was doing here was trying to assert that there's a *plausible* excuse as to why it took so long to get the lawsuit launched. The movie came out two years ago. There were (according to the plaintiff) a year of good faith efforts to get paid without going public. If we assume that the guy 1) didn't get *really* torqued at Moore until after word got around about what was in the anti-mockumentaries and/or 2) waited until there was some serious groundswell of anti-Moore sentiment dredged up by the counter movies, and add that with the time preparing legal briefs and all that stuff that I have no idea about, two years isn't *rediculous*. Badly timed, oh yeah. Politically motivated? Probably. Staged to get the maximum effect out of it? Most certainly. But still ~plausible~

Quote:


"it doesn't invalidate what is being said"
No, it doesn't and I hope I didn't imply that it did.
My interpretation of what little I learned from the article is that there's no basis for his claim. That would invalidate them.
My supposition about why, and when, he was making his claim was that it wasn't being resolved to his $$$atisfaction in a timely way. Not knowing how that particular court works I can only draw on my labor experience, and conclude that attempting informal resolution doesn't relieve time limits. Having said that, I think he saw his clock ticking down. And anyone can always sue. If it's something covered by insurance, it's usually for a minimal few thousand dollars to make them go away rather than fight in court. But if it's not covered, then you might as well sue for big bucks. So, simply filing a bloated lawsuit is a miniscule matter. As I said before, that someone chose to sue is not news.
It will only be news if he wins.



See above

Personally, I'm sure I'm going to lose track of this story as more news filters into my poor little sheeple control screen. I don't know if the guy will win. I have no idea about how valid his basis for claim is. I don't know the law, the court, or the case anywhere near enough to have a valid opinion on it.

I *hope* he wins in a part of myself, but it's for selfish reasons. I don't think he deserves anywhere near the money he's asking for, but I want Michael Moore to suffer. I hate to say that, because it makes me a bad person in my own eyes. At the end of the day, what it comes down to for me is I'm happy that someone stood up and tried to kick the bully in the knees for the crap he spews. Honestly, Michael Moore is in the same bin with PirateNews in my existence. I know that sounds like it's meant to be funny, but it's not. Their hate filled crap sounds almost identical to me (well, the words are different, but I hope you get my meaning...)

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Amiton,

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. And it's taken me years, literally, to finally lose my patience with that lot. Have I missed anyone? Uhmm, I give PN lots of latitude, I truly believe he can't help it.

So have heart, I don't bite. Much. And I give lots of warning before I do.

That was certainly an extremely honest and revealing post of your feelings. I'll reply by saying that some part of me wants Moore to be the spokesman that's lacking anywhere else. But I thought 9/11 was tiresome, heavy handed, confused, and for me, disappointing. I really appreciate well-researched detail and 9/11 had - not so much. It was sorely lacking.
The ONE scene that riveted me - in a horrified staring at a train wreck sort of way - was Bush sitting in the classroom, looking for all the world like he literally had not one thought in his head. And he was waiting for someone to tell him how to breathe and swallow without losing track and falling off the chair.
This item will definitely fall through the cracks for me as well. I tend to lose track as things fall off the bottom anyway. And for me it is very much not news - just another over-hyped non-event. So much gets blown up and then melts like cotton candy. BUT, it gets quoted and ranted over for political purposes - mostly as distraction from real news - so I feel it needs to be addressed. B/c for whatever reason they're said, untruths, if left to stand, have a way of becoming the truth over time.



It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:25 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I'm a REALLY good old boy Republican, the kind who sent troops to break black chains.



"Break Black Chains"? No. He sent troops to preserve the nation. A noble goal, but don't confuse things. Lincoln didn't make the war about slavery until he was desperate for anything to stop the British and French from recognising the Confederacy. Plus, the Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political move. It stated that the slaves of a foreign nation were free, completely ignoring slaves still in the Union. Dont delude yourself about his motives.

Quote:

Party of TR


Imperialist whose exploitation of Cuba led to the modern Communist regime.

Quote:

, Reagan,


Bankrupted the U.S. for horribly expensive and highly redundant ways of blowing up Russians and stopping missiles.

Quote:

Bush


Don't even get me started on HIM. A well meaning fool at best, a blatant Imperialist at worst.

Quote:

...all the same theme. Liberty, rugged individualism, American Manifest Destiny


Liberty? Hardly. Rugged individualism? If you call following the party line and/or the PNAC line and/or the Corporate interests, then yeah, your right there.

Quote:

to bring the blessings of liberty to a dark and stormy world.


Did you ever think that maybe the rest of the world isn't sitting there saying to themselves "Damn, I wish the Americans would come over and impose their system on us, and blow up my home in the process." ? Did you ever think that maybe we dont have the right to tell the rest of the world what the best system is?

Quote:

Not to take away from the Democratic Presidents.


Why not? They're politicians too. They're just sponsored by different interests.


You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Now how did I miss that post?? Maybe mañana.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:47 PM

RIVER6213


The next few years are going to be very interesting.

October 21, 2016. A date you should all mark in your datebooks.

River


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 3:14 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
Did you ever think that maybe the rest of the world isn't sitting there saying to themselves "Damn, I wish the Americans would come over and impose their system on us, and blow up my home in the process." ? Did you ever think that maybe we dont have the right to tell the rest of the world what the best system is?


Nope. I never thought that for one minute. The only ones who don't want American liberty are tyrants, despots, fanatics, those people who've never known better, and those people who should know better.

In Nazi Germany only one reserve unit, made up of common folk, refused to murder a collection of Jews. On the threat of execution a handful continued to refuse, then the shopkeepers, farmers, craftsmen, policemen, etc, they opened fire on the Jews killing them all. The Jews would have thanked God had America been able to impose its values to save them. I suspect most of the German reservists would have felt the same way. I suspect that the loudest condemnation would come from those whose power gained through fear and despotic intimidation would have been lost to American imperialism.

A woman whose lived her whole life as property would welcome liberty in her heart, even if her mind does not yet understand. A child, born to die in Jihadist martyrdom would welcome in his heart a freedom and life he might never know (actually this happened at Gitmo with two young Taliban kids who refused to return home after receiving an education).

But the old men who have wrapped themselves in the power of hate and fear, they shout down American virtue and find a chorus of cowed and duped followers to join them. Not to mention the idiot liberals, leftists, and pacifists who would march blindly into chains if not for the vigilence of those who stand against tyranny.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 3:49 AM

CITIZEN


That would be the America which had a sizable movement wanting to join the war on the side of Germany. Get over yourself.

Hero you talk like an arrogant little shit.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:06 AM

RIVER6213


He DOES talk like an arrogant little shit, but I hear rants like his everyday by the self-righteous on some of those Right-wing, goose-stepping forums I hang out on just to argue with people.

Anyway, just what does any of this have to do with Moore getting his ass sued? I still think their asking for 85 million dollars is way too much. The movie itself made about 222 million dollars world wide, or so the news says.

The movie stirred things up, and it DID make us question the methods, and goals of the Bush administration...not that we did anything about it because we are sheep, but it did open our eyes a little.

River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 5:24 AM

ARABIKUM


I didn´t like the Fahrenheit movie, because it was a bad film. And I do not like the books, that Mr. Moore wrote, because I found them very tendentious. But I liked most of the Awful Truth and Bowling for Columbine for it´s social and sociological issues. And, most important, I think, it´s essential to think about such topics MM´s occasionally raising. I´m glad, there is a Michael Moore, because he´s observing the mighty ones. All that jabbering about lies and twisted facts is meant to distract you from dealing with those issues, i.E. the spreading of arms in the U.S., the climate of fear (the W.A.R. against terror….shiver…) a.s.o.

And I find an administration that is lying and twisting facts far more dangerous, than a maker of documentaries ever could be. Documentaries are always subjective. And Michael Moore does it in a very straightforward way, I think. Aren´t those things in TV more disturbing, that pretend to be objective and turn out to be not? How many of you were convinced, there are WMD´s in Iraq?


A.

Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.

Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?

Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 5:36 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
[B American liberty are tyrants, despots, fanatics, those people who've never known better, and those people who should know better.

H




So its "American" liberty we are going for. Thats funny, I thought we wanted to help other countries find their own free democracy. I hadn't realized that this was a matter of creating an American empire. Course with THE DECIDER deciding, I guess I should have seen the wide ranging dictatorship coming.



And River is right - NONE of this has to do with the lawsuit asking for 85 mil

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 1, 2006 5:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Slick,
Quote:

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?

Find a spot where I praised Moore - ANYWHERE. The best I said was - "9/11 was tiresome, heavy handed, confused, and for me, disappointing."

I don't know.... what do you think? Was that praise over the top?


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL