Sorry, I disagree with you.  While FH9/11 blew horribly, one could just as easily watch the film and have the impression that this soldier was simply describing what was happening to him as a result of his arms being blown off.  Was the use of the that footage deceptive?  Yes, but in the sense that the viewer would assume that the guy lost his arms in combat, when it was an accident.

Is it embarrassing?  I would say so.  However, emotional rhetoric is not going to help at this point.  The more this guy tries to go after Moore, the more attention Moore gets, which would be truly counter-productive would it not?

I propose the Fred Phelps strategy.  In other words, ignore Michael Moore, period!  Just walk away from him, and when somebody asks about him, just say, “I don’t know who this insignificant person is.” The Phelps family was successfully marginalized with this strategy.  I’m sure the same thing could happen with Moore.  Besides, Mr. McFatty is beyond his prime as a film maker anyway.  I doubt Sicko will have much of a following.  He’s got nothing left.  Plain and simple.

I gotta disagree with that.

This isn’t about “going after Moore” per se. This is about Sgt. Damon having a right to his day in court.

Now, in fairness, I don’t think this ruling is due to any bias of the judge (the guy is a Reagan appointee). Rather, it’s because of how frakked up the law is in regards to protecting news media expressions.

You see, the deck is stacked in favor of these rich media organizations since they have an outlet for their views. As a practical matter, average citizens have no way to counter whatever the media is saying in any meaningful way. While one can pay for commercial time/have a blog/etc. in terms of correcting the misinformation, there’s not a very good chance that the corrections will get to those who were misinformed--usually due to the inability of getting to a large enough audience.

Hell, even rich citizens with a huge public reach (like Rush Limbaugh with his radio show) get routinely and successfully smeared. So even money and reach can’t effectively counter misinformation.

That leaves court. Currently, court-written law towards news media is VERY liberal, in that the courts try to avoid “chilling effects” on free speech.

OK, protecting free speech is nice. But the law now doesn’t just put the burden on the plaintiff to show what was said was false. Extensive protections, effectively immunities, exist that allow news media to go up to and BEYOND outright lies with no way to force them to correct themselves by virtue of the fact that these are news companies.

Heck, this case shows how whacky these protections are: you can take a news clip [with the news organization’s permission] and say whatever you want with it so long as it was originally a news clip. The fact that it was a news clips is effectively a magic amulet that prevents any harm. It’s ridiculous.

Even if you DO win, the news outlet posts a correction on some obscure part of the paper/at the last 15 seconds of the broadcast, and you have any damage award eaten by attorney fees and the time you took out to go to court.

That’s not just injustice, that’s f*cking scary that huge companies, that control the flow of information, have almost no accountability to those they hurt.

The fix is simple, though not likely going to happen: the standard that’s applied should simply be changed to that of how well the organization was equipped to prevent the misinformation. Bloggers (being a single person) would be held to the standard of (say) a Google search, whereas large organizations would be expected to have their fact checker actually check the facts, and their reporters get fired if they outright lie/make up sources/whatever.

But that’s just a pipe dream. Ain’t gonna happen.

The thing is, damages must be shown to Sgt. Peter Damon. By making the lawsuit so high, it effectively took care of Peter Damon’s plight. Without the hefty lawsuit, the media would have paid no mind. But they did...and Sgt. Damon’s viewpoint has been corrected.

This doesn’t mean I don’t agree that he is due some just compensation. Or that media makers should be more responsible with how they represent their subjects. They should. If they screw up, ethically they should retract a piece of info. And not on page 9EE in tiny print or in the credits of a film. There used to be a law about giving people an equal voice when they are reported on. Not anymore (the Supreme Court threw it out).

Free speech? Indeed, we don’t want to crap on the First Amendment. But when it interferes with someone else’s life and pursuit of happiness...exceptions should be made.

This isn’t about censorship...it’s about potentially destroying someone’s life. Take the Duke rape case for instance. Now the stripper (Crystal Gail Mangum) says she’s not sure if a penis penetrated her or not. The rape charges were dropped...and the entire case will inevitably be dropped...but the three accused have a stigma attached to them for life. Their names were all over the media...whether they were being defended or not.

It’s very interesting how the law protects the real criminals and hurts victims. And it’s amazing the damage that liars and ignorant people who take liars’ words for gospel can do.

[NOTE: I think my browser is messed up, so if this was posted twice, please ignore].

The thing is, damages must be shown to Sgt. Peter Damon. By making the lawsuit so high, it effectively took care of Peter Damon’s plight. Without the hefty lawsuit, the media would have paid no mind. But they did...and Sgt. Damon’s viewpoint has been corrected.

Well that’s the thing: not only has the misrepresentation NOT been corrected with the majority of those who saw F9/11, but the good Sergeant has also been maligned and further smeared as a result of the lawsuit [as we’ve discussed previously on Moorewatch].

As you note however, it did in fact take a lawsuit to even get enough publicity to get the record set straight to the (meager) extent it has been. As for damages, because of the insane level of protection news organizations get, he’ll never have the chance to prove anything, because he’s been denied his day in court.

I don’t agree with the idea of “equal time” the Court struck down: it was never really equal time to start with, as the new organization would: 1. only have one dissenting opinion (whereas any one issue can have up to and beyond a dozen different takes), 2. would shade the counter-point, and 3. be forced to say something they didn’t want to.

Of course, that gets to the heart of it: by shading that news cast, Sgt. Damon was made to say things he didn’t say/want to say. The First Amendment was never construed as allowing people to lie or malign or put people in a false light until the Supreme Court wrote law giving the news media extra protection.

And with this protection, these media conglomerates use (Sgt. Damon) and abuse (the Duke Case Defendants) people with NO PRACTICAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

What gets me, every time, is how the same Mooreons who dump on FOX News, Wal-Mart, and other Multinational Corporations because they allegedly “screw the little guy”, can then turn around and favor, fawn over, and forgo criticism for these Multinational Media Corporations (including Moore’s) that demonstrably go about routinely screwing the little guy.

Well guys, it looks like this year, Santa brought us a new psychotic extremist Libtard for Christmas.

... Did he leave the receipt? Can we exchange it for a pack of gum?

Watt-

According to exit polls, corruption was the primary culprit in the Republicans’ losses in the elections. If this is the case, it demonstrates a certain degree of integrity on the part of right-leaning voters. Apparently, corruption isn’t something they tolerate. In addition to that, Joe Lieberman defeated the democratic candidate by a wide margin, which shows that the left didn’t have the resounding victory you claim they did.

It’s interesting that you assume Rann is a Republican. Where did you come up with that? Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, but I didn’t see “Republican” in his name.

Wait a second...Fourth Reich? Are you really Diamondsaremyfriend, back from some top-secret gathering of freedom fighters whose sole quest it is to rid the world of the evil Shadow Banker Conspiracy?

Nixon resigned after Watergate, and after Ford finished the term, Carter was elected. Carter, as you probably know, was a Democrat. After the Iran-Contra affair, George H.W. Bush served one term and was defeated by William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton, as you know, was a Democrat.
Joe Lieberman won by ten percentage points as an Independent. That’s quite a victory considering his own party chose another candidate in the primaries. Besides, what difference does the margin of victory make anyway? He defeated the Democratic candidate for Senate, therefore the so-called overwhelming victory wasn’t really so overwhelming.
You didn’t use any dirty words on me. I don’t think my party affiliation is relevant to this discussion. However, I’ll say that I am not affiliated with any political party because I believe that political parties are bad for the country.

Carter got blamed for Nixon’s mess? As I recall, it was Nixon who managed to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Which specific “mess” of Nixon’s did Carter get blamed for?

Concerning Lieberman, the voters decided that having the right person for the job was more important than slavish loyalty to one party or another. That speaks well, rather than poorly, of cross-party voters.

As I said before, I think political parties are bad for the country.

And lastly, in order to keep this on topic, I believe that Michael Moore is a scumbag and it’s a travesty that Sergeant Damon’s lawsuit was thrown out of court.

Watt is obviously one of those people who bases their entire worldview on what box someone checks beside their political affiliation. He has an exacting view of what Republicans are, and will assign that view (and affiliation) to anyone he wants to have it so that he can be above them. Note, his assigning of both racist and homophobic views to Jim, with absolutely no reason or evidence, but hey… Jim’s saying something bad about a Democrat, he must be a big-time Republican, and thus completely despicable in all ways.

Watt is simply the latest in a long line of ignorant twits we’ve had come through this site. He’ll stick around for awhile, spout the party line, get insulted by people tired of it, get shot down by people with more patience, and eventually either make a big claim that he’s somehow triumphed over all of us and obviously doesn’t need to continue, or more likely will just quietly fade away, never to be seen again.

Here’s the deal Watt: I’ve just spent three infuriating days of yuletide bliss with my predominantly libtarded relatives.  For better or worse I’m somewhat obligated to be nice, or at least civil, to people who are related to me, regardless of how misinformed they are. You, on the other hand, enjoy no such protection. If you can’t find it within yourself to make logically sound posts, or at the very least, posts which contain accurate information and are at least slightly relevant, please kindly shut up and go away. We’ve all seen your toss an handfull of random talking points at the board and wait for someone to bite style before, and no one has the patience for it, nor does anyone care about your misinformed rhetoric or silly little attempts at condescension.

What in the movie portrayed him as anti-war?  I havent seen the film in a very long time, and cant remember.  What exactly did it show him saying?  Maybe I will go look for a YouTube hit.

Watt is simply the latest in a long line of ignorant twits we’ve had come through this site.

Yeah . . . a one-watt wonder on the top 100 twit parade.

The clip was from a news channel. Hence it’s a news item.

I think this is the point.  The original clip was from a news channel and was used for news.  It was lifted by Mickey to be used out of context in his movie, which was not news, by his own admission (i beleive in several articles and interviews, when mickey was originally questioned about the valididty of some scenes in his movie,) he calls his movie a satire.  (I’ve read so many articles, about mickey, this either comes from the online chat, hosted by the guardian i think, or maybe the article in playboy)

The judges ruling doesnt make sense since I could take all the news clips of mickey that i wanted, and edit them to portray him as a child rapist in my very own documentary, and he would more than likely have the right to sue me. 

The question is more along the lines of what up4 brought up “What in the movie portrayed him as anti-war?”

I would like to watch it again, but i remember coming away with the impression that he was pissed at his superiors and the president for the war/injuries.

I would like to watch it again, but i remember coming away with the impression that he was pissed at his superiors and the president for the war/injuries

I found it on YouTube…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G7XhRX7BCw

He talks about the pain of not having his lower arms, and says they do alot to take the pain away.  Thats about it.  Unless there is another scene.

I feel bad for this guy.  I think he feels he is being portrays as anti-war simply because he is in an anti-war movie.  Nothing to do with context. 

But I dont think Moore should be sued.  It should be taken out on him at the box office.  Thats about it.  I think when the judge says this is used as news, its in the widest, widest possible light.  Its no different than O’Reilly using clips from other networks.  Or Jon Stewart.  Or bloggers.  I would probably feel different if the scene was actually spliced or something to make it seem as though he said something word for word that he didnt say.  I dont think that is the case here.

Please sit back… this is a long one.

In an effort to demonstrate the process of contextual misquoting and manipulation so frequently used by Michael Moore and his ilk, I’ll be discussing the widespread corruption of the modern democratic party, and particularly, it’s far left wing.
This party has stolen more elections, covered up more scandals and told more blatant lies to the public than any other group in human history, all the while pointing fingers at Republicans and conservatives of all types. Their hypocrisy is mind-blowing, and matched in scope only by the almost super-human daftness of their zombie-like followers.

Emboldened by this year’s electoral victories in the house and senate, some far-left followers have begun revealing their party’s true beliefs, which have been so long held in strictest privacy.
The following are some statements made by one online message poster, known as “Watt” from the popular watchdog website, Moorewatch.com.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“Gays aren’t entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals under the law, because their lifestyle is a choice. I’m still miffed about the outcome of Brown vs Board of Education, too.”

Some more moderate members of the DNC have expressed concern over this type of hateful speech. Worry over being sued for such things has made them cautious. Most on the left fringe, however, are not worried, and owe this to the ethical strength of their political opponents, and their own ability to use those ethics against them.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“Republicans hate frivolous lawsuits.”

Aside from this issue, many DNC members have also started to show extreme symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression over their apparent inability to generate any meaningful policies or ideas, aside from partisan attack tactics. Also cited for the mental instabilities are internal struggles over blatant cow-towing and cooperation with global despots bent on killing American citizens. Some defend their ideology and sanity.
Mr Watt had this to say;

“Except for their own mental injuries which cause them to commit suicide. But who cares if they’re psychotic, when they can bag 650,000 more civilians for the Fourth Reich?”

But their insanity has indeed presented a problem, with some of the further left followers suffering complete breakdowns, and retreating to a fantasy world where terrorism does not exist.
Film maker Michael Moore had this to say;

“There is no terrorist threat.”

Other delusions include the idea that JFK is still alive and well, citing such sources as video footage of JFK sometimes seen on CNN and other news outlets.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“The clip was from a news channel. Hence it’s a news item.”
“So that would mean that he’s clearly not injured.”

In rare moments of clarity, some leftists see the implosion of their own ideology. One such revelation that brings them to reality is the victory of Joseph Lieberman, who ran as an independent, winning soundly when he picked up a huge voting block from his democratic rival.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“I mean when voters in your own party bail out on you, it’s obvious you’re considered more fringe”

Still, most remain faithful to the party of ignorance and hate. The DNC’s core followers seem to see victory in their own ambivalence toward the unethical behavior that has become their party’s norm. They are confident that fellow democratic voters will continue to ignore their candidates’ destructive practices, in favor of blind partisanship.
Mr Watt had this to say;

“If they cared about corruption, they sure as hell haven’t shown it in their voting patterns during the last 35 years.”

Many feel betrayed by Joe Lieberman’s jumping the party ship, and demand to know why he refuses to continue to call himself a “Democrat”.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“Yeah, I know you hate me using that dirty word on you. You’ve converted to libertarianism, am I right?”

In an attempt to cope with this defection, some in the party have turned to other long-standing DNC leaders, such as Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy. This has, of course, led to some DNC critics reminding them of Kennedy’s own past, specifically the Chappaquiddick incident, which resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne and the destruction of his automobile. Some of Kennedy’s more delusional defenders claim the loss of the car as the only actual tragedy.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“Yeah, and he got pardoned after it by Ford.”

It should be noted that the vehicle in question was an Oldsmobile.

When faced with their party’s lack of solutions, and common practice to vote down President Bush’s initiatives out of blind party hatred, the left seems too flabbergasted to find any excuse. When pressed on what effects those actions have had for the country, they will only occasionally, but very satisfyingly, own up to the truth.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“basically the reason we’re still dependent on oil and at war with Islamic militants”

So what do those on the left believe about integrity and ethical behavior in the electoral process? Not only do they not condemn the dirty tricks, vote tampering and blatant lying in the recent 2006 senatorial and congressional elections, they actually seem proud of it. Many have the same opinion on what would have happened, had the elections been absent of such revolting behavior on the part of the DNC. They believe the ends justify the means, and cannot stomach what would have happened in a clean election.
Mr. Watt had this to say;

“it would have been a loss.”

*** It should be noted that the above quotes were ALL actual
quotes by Watt.
While the insinuations are apparent, NONE of which, if
you notice, were
directly claimed to have been responses to the preceding
paragraphs or opinions.
This is the model from which Moore works, and maybe now
Watt will start to understand why Sgt. Damon is so upset
about what Moore did to him, and why the judge in this
case was, quite simply, wrong to dismiss it.

Let this be a learning exercise for you, Watt.
...that is, if you’re not so blinded by mindless
partisan hatred that you
are unable to learn, or be honest about learning, at
all.
(which is precisely the case that my money’s on.)

Can we get this thread renamed?  Something along the lines of “One Watt Sheds No Light”.  Seems to be a more popular issue.

Artmonkey’s post is on topic. He’s using the same techniques Moore used in his film to demonstrate how a person’s own words can be used against him. I suppose he could have picked you or me or even JimK, but Watt provided such a wealth of quotes to choose from that he was the perfect choice.

Artmonkey’s post is on topic. He’s using the same techniques Moore used in his film to demonstrate how a person’s own words can be used against him.

LOL (and I really did).  So I guess it would be on topic in any thread on this site that mentions Moore.  Perfect.

I love it when up4debate shows his true Mooreon colors. Note how, at this point, all he can do is sneer about people focusing on Watt rather than the actual issue at hand.

I love it when up4debate shows his true Mooreon colors. Note how, at this point, all he can do is sneer about people focusing on Watt rather than the actual issue at hand.

LOL!!!  Again, I really did!  You guys are too much.  Thanks!  This is funny stuff. 

You are right Rann, in the future I will try to comment on the threads issue.  Wait a minute… I did that!  I think things are fine the way they are Rann.  I will comment on the issue, you wait around for someone like Watt to pop up and gettem!  That way you can just copy and paste your comments from thread to thread (with a little bit of “insert name here” editing), and youre done.  Have a great new year!

Thanks for the support, guys, but I got this.

Up4, you know I like you and respect you. You’re an intelligent liberal, awash in a sea of blubbering leftist buffoons like Watt. That can’t be easy. Just getting anything you say taken seriously is incredibly difficult, simply because of the whole “guilt by association” thing. I don’t envy your predicament… seriously. But I do admire you sticking to your guns in spite of this. (Even if I don’t agree with you on so many points.)
And yes, I know you’re not a Mooreon. You’ve criticized him as much as anyone else here.

But you’re off the mark on my post. It’s perfectly on topic for this thread, and NOT because it’s a general Moore-bashing, on a Moore-watching site.

The case was dismissed because the judge failed to see how any harm could come to Damon by having his words replayed.
The judge also made the mistake of assuming that, since the original clip was a news item, then any replaying of it could not be construed as anything other than a news item, as well.

My point was to demonstrate the folly of this thinking.
By using Watt’s (and Moore’s) words, in a new context entirely, I was able to completely change their meaning, and did not even have to blatantly lie, or make any incorrect statements about their context or direction.

And since I did this in exactly the same manner in which Moore contextually misquoted Damon, I think I proved the point that the judge obviously missed.

Plus, I got to make a fool of Watt… but hey, that’s just gravy.

BTW, Rann… I don’t know if something has transpired behind closed doors (or email servers, as it were) between you and Up4debate in the past… but I do notice that you’re generally particularly harsh on him.
I’m as conservative as anyone else on this site, and I don’t understand why you do that. He’s always been pretty fair-minded in the past, and an intelligent, reasoned foil for conservative thinking.
Plus, I’ve rarely seen him sink to anger or personal attacks, even when he’s responding to such attacks upon himself.

I really think you’re being unduly antagonistic toward him, and pretty unfair to boot.
We should appreciate someone like Up4debate. He presents us with a reasonable view of the mindset of our political rivals, without the usual mean-spirited, ignorant regurgitation they are usually only good for.

We should recognize that having an opposing political view does not automatically make one evil, or stupid, or your enemy.
(It just makes them 100% wrong… lol. j/k)

In this coming new year, maybe we should all think about being a little more welcoming, and less antagonistic, to Up4, and any other liberals we may find, until they actually do something to merit our ire.
There will always be more like Watt then there are like Up4debate.
Let’s try to save our energy for them.

The case was dismissed because the judge failed to see how any harm could come to Damon by having his words replayed.

I can see how *some* harm can come to him.  People might jump to conclusions about his views only because he was in a MM film.  But I dont think its something you can sue over.

Jon Stewart has shows news clips of Republicans disagreeinf with the Bush admin.  Jon Stewart has also said he voted for Kerry.  Should those Republicans be able to sue Stewart, because maybe some people might make the connection that they must support Kerry?

The judge also made the mistake of assuming that, since the original clip was a news item, then any replaying of it could not be construed as anything other than a news item, as well.

Again, I dont know the law here, but if MM cant use that news clip in that way, there should be thousands of law suits out there.  The idea Im getting from you, and JimK is that the problem is that it wasnt re-used in what can be described as a news item.  It was an opinion peice.  Does that mean anything (movie, tv show, blog) that is an op-ed, and uses news footage is open to law suits.  I sure hope not!

I dont see how Damons words were misused.  Thats just me.  If you can quote something he said, and show me the two meanings (actual, and moore-fabricated), then we have something new to discuss.  I linked the footage.  Let me know. 

Im sure there are plenty of others who should sue over how their material was used in that movie.  The Pantagraph comes to mind.  I just dont think this one is an example of that.  Damon wasnt shown saying anything negative about his govt, his army, or his care.  Im not claiming to be the sharpest tack in the box, so if Im missing something in this clip, let me know.

Plus, I got to make a fool of Watt… but hey, that’s just gravy.

Cant really blame you for that.  At least you did more than just that.

but I do notice that you’re generally particularly harsh on him.

thanks art, but ill be fine.  i think Rann just doesnt like me because Im Canadian.  (in my best Pesci voice) Can you imagine, in this day and age…

thanks art, but ill be fine.

I’m sure you will.
But this wasn’t really about protecting you, to be honest.

See, I’m like the vast majority of conservatives that I know, in that my beliefs are not based on an anti-liberal standpoint. They’re based on a pro-American one.
And to that end, I recognize that we will ALWAYS accomplish more by working together, when possible.
And if we’re constantly at each others’ throats, that becomes increasingly more difficult to do.

Let’s face it, we’re more polarized in this country (and, indeed, around the world) in this day and age than we’ve ever been… and it’s driving us to blind hatred for each other. This is not only incredibly tiring, but very unproductive.

I was having a discussion with the fiancee’ of my mother-in-law two days ago. He’s an early-year baby-boomer, former 60’s hippie and self-styled civil-rights activist.

Now, I don’t mind discussing politics with him at all. He’s a fairly intelligent guy, and usually quite pleasant.
However, I had to take him to task on a few things… not the least of which is his rabid standpoint that anything… absolutely anything involved in the U.S. government is, inherently and incurably evil.

I tried reasoning with him. I tried explaining that when you come from such an exclusionary, single-minded and rigidly antagonistic point of view, that it’s almost impossible to get anything accomplished for the positive.
It’s kind of like dealing with islamofacists, actually.
You just can’t come to a compromise with someone who will settle for nothing less than your total destruction.

I did not use that analogy with him… maybe I should have.
He simply did not seem to be able to grasp any view that does not include his being 100% correct, and anything opposing it as 100% wrong.

LOL… he actually tried to say (I called him on it) that those of his generation were just plain smarter than any generation before or after. (especially after) And that the huge mess they left their kids was, essentially, their kids’ fault for not being just like them.

Sorry… I may have meandered off point, here.

What I mean to say is, until we start respecting each other, neither side is ever going to get anything it wants, and nobody is going to really be happy.

Plus, I’ve rarely seen him sink to anger or personal attacks, even when he’s responding to such attacks upon himself.

Then you just haven’t been paying attention. It didn’t happen behind closed doors, it happened right here, on the site, in comments.

See, I used to be like you… I used to think up4debate had something to him, that he actually did have some spark of intelligence or consideration. But really, all that is is a contrast to some of the hardcore right-wingers we have on the site, where when he disagrees with them, he comes off looking a little better.

The whole thing of him seeming more reasonable is a facade. It’s a trick, him trying to convince people he’s not a foamy-mouthed libtard like all the rest. Time and again I’ve given him the chance, some measure of respect and consideration, and time and again he’s made me feel silly for doing it. Hell, the last time he went all insulting and sneering, it was over me snarking at Canuck, Eh, and involved up4debate hauling out those insults and personal attacks you seem to have missed.

We should appreciate someone like Up4debate. He presents us with a reasonable view of the mindset of our political rivals, without the usual mean-spirited, ignorant regurgitation they are usually only good for.

No, we shouldn’t, because he’s not what he seems. Again, all that acting reasonable is fake. Posts like “LOL u guyz cant get moore you can just bash watt!” show him for what he really is.

In this coming new year, maybe we should all think about being a little more welcoming, and less antagonistic, to Up4, and any other liberals we may find, until they actually do something to merit our ire.

Yeah, well, he has. So he’s getting it.

See, I’m like the vast majority of conservatives that I know, in that my beliefs are not based on an anti-liberal standpoint. They’re based on a pro-American one.
And to that end, I recognize that we will ALWAYS accomplish more by working together, when possible.

Have you ever noticed how rarely that happens with up4debate, though? No, seriously. Think about it.

First off, despite claiming to dislike Moore, how often do we have a thread about something he’s done where up4debate doesn’t seem like he’s compelled to argue Moore’s side of it? (Sometimes with a little addendum that Moore went about it the wrong way, but still has a point.) There are a few, sure. But he’s still there arguing for him. Even non-Moore liberals doing something Moore-ish, you’ll notice up4debate is still right in there, arguing against them.

And second, how often have you seen him make acknowledgments that someone else might be right, or actually stand by someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum? Can you actually think of a time, other than a general “Well, he seems fair”. Because to my memory, what happens is that he usually arrives with his position, digs in on that position, and continues to argue that position until everyone else just gets tired of talking about it or he’s repeated himself too many times, and the thread just stops.

The only way you’re ever going to work together with up4debate is if you come around to his way of thinking. Totally. Just like your goofball mother-in-law’s fiance, let you find something to disagree with him on that he’s rabid enough about, and suddenly you’ll likely find him seeming much less rational and able to discuss things with.

Look, I couldn’t agree with you more about finding people on all political spectrums to get along with. Being in the middle of them makes that very clear. But up4debate is not one of those people. Even discounting my personal experience with him that’s gotten me fed up with giving him chances, he is not willing to compromise. He will always find some bone of contention, some reason to play devil’s advocate. He will always find some way that he can say Michael Moore and people like him have got the right idea, it’s what he does here. He defends people who the reasonable would find indefensible.

Even non-Moore liberals doing something Moore-ish, you’ll notice up4debate is still right in there, arguing against them.

Phrased that wrong. Meant that up4debate is usually still right in there, defending the liberal in question.

Just like your goofball mother-in-law’s fiance, let you find something to disagree with him on that he’s rabid enough about, and suddenly you’ll likely find him seeming much less rational and able to discuss things with.

Rann, you are the only one I get like that with.  More often than not, you simply end up resorting to name calling.  No real sense in staying rational after that. 

Meant that up4debate is usually still right in there, defending the liberal in question.

I hope you arent suggesting Im defending Watt in this thread.  Not at all.

Posts like “LOL u guyz cant get moore you can just bash watt!” show him for what he really is.

That post was a zero value contribution to the thread, I admit.  But so was everyone responding to Watt, IMO.  The real LOL (which I rarely use), was in response to your..

I love it when up4debate shows his true Mooreon colors. Note how, at this point, all he can do is sneer about people focusing on Watt rather than the actual issue at hand.

What was the last comment about the Damon case on this page before you made that comment?  Maybe you can see why I thought your comment was a little funny. 

Unless I didnt understand… what was “the actual issue at hand” you were referring to?

Rann, you are the only one I get like that with.  More often than not, you simply end up resorting to name calling.  No real sense in staying rational after that.

Yeah, that’s pretty much how I feel after several years of dealing with people like you on this site. Thus, the namecalling. As I’ve said many times, every single time I try to engage one of you in a rational, civil manner, it either gets ignored or responded to with the same level of snarky vitriol as anything else. Civility is wasted on you and your kind, so I don’t waste it.

I hope you arent suggesting Im defending Watt in this thread.  Not at all.

Oh, you did a little of that, too. But it was more using him for your own ends, sneering at the rest of the thread for picking apart his crap rather than picking apart the main thread solely. No, I’m talking about how you have to come along in almost every post and say “No no, you’ve got it completely wrong, here’s what this means and how this guy’s right” when the main post is about some Libtard Moore/Mooreish person.

What was the last comment about the Damon case on this page before you made that comment?

The one directly before your sarcasm about getting the thread renamed. The one you’ve been trying to ignore as being about both debunking Watt and being on-topic. Which is why I pointed out that you are, in fact, cut from the same cloth as he is. When you see something you don’t like, you refuse to see it for what it is, interpret it as what you want it to be so you can feel right on the subject, and blindly go on, refusing all evidence to the contrary.

Oh, you did a little of that, too.

Where?

The one directly before your sarcasm about getting the thread renamed. The one you’ve been trying to ignore as being about both debunking Watt and being on-topic.

Scroll up a little more.

Which is why I pointed out that you are, in fact, cut from the same cloth as he is. When you see something you don’t like, you refuse to see it for what it is, interpret it as what you want it to be so you can feel right on the subject, and blindly go on, refusing all evidence to the contrary.

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

See, now you’re just trying to goad me because you’re not getting a reaction. Sad little troll tactics.

Just wanted to make sure you were ignoring my question, and not just away for a while.  Thanks man.

I ignore it because you are a troll, and have just admitted as much.

You are right, you got me.  If I cant expect an on topic answer from you, talking to you is nothing but being a troll.  Take care.

I would agree with JimK that the Damon interview was “repurposed,” but I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to say it was “an intentional lie.”
Damon originally granted the interview to NBC for a piece about a new drug being used that cut down on pain for severely wounded soldiers in Iraq.  He isn’t voicing any opinion about the war or the Bush administration, he’s just talking about his physical condition.
In Moore’s sequence at Walther Reed, there’s two points he wants to make: 1.) The Bush administration is “leaving behind” veterans by not putting enough resources into their care, and 2.) The consequences of this war will be a lot of severely wounded soldiers.
In trying to illustrate this, he bought file footage from NBC including the Damon interview.  He slapped the footage into the sequence to show what it looks like at Walter Reed when severely wounded soldiers return.  Certainly he wasn’t suggesting that this particular individual did not support George Bush, not enough time is spent on the unfortunate Peter Damon to draw such conclusions.  Damon is correct to object that he should not be used to illustrate a point he doesn’t agree with, but he isn’t on for very long and the film isn’t interested in his ideology.  No surprise the judge tossed it out.
For me, there’s another problem with the footage which supports the idea that it is “repurposed.” Damon was not injured in combat.  An airplane wheel exploded and severed his limbs.  That just as easily could have happened in San Diego as in Iraq, yet now he’s the poster child for how Michael Moore insults veterans.  Apparently a nice house has been built for Damon and his family and he now seems to have lawyers interested in taking up his case.
Did Moore “intentionally” lie?  I would bet it was sloppy work by some of his staff--just as the whole incident with the altered headline from the Pantagraph was no doubt the work of an overzealous assistant who started playing around with photoshop.  I doubt Moore oversees every frame of his films, he’s more interested in concepts and structure than the details.

If you blame his sloppy work on the staff when something goes wrong, do you also give the staff credit for his bogus Palme D’or and his bogus Oscar?

If he’s not overseeing the film, shouldn’t those awards go to the person who is overseeing the film?

You do bring up good points, though.

I would blame the sloppy work on rushing the film to make it relevant to the 2004 Presidential election.  Stanley Kubrick would have taken another four years and obsessively gone over every detail until it was perfect to his conception--the best example of a control freak or micro-manager director that I can think of.  Moore isn’t that kind of director--which is why the Palme d’Or really was more about politics than the art of filmmaking.
Filmmaking is almost always a collaborative endeavor.  Any director, editor, star, writer, who goes up to get an award accepts it on the basis of collaboration.  In the case of Moore, I think you have a guy who is more interested in the political points and in entertaining the audience than in the specifics of where his footage is coming from and whether he is using it appropriately.  That’s the lesson of the Damon case or the Pantagraph graphic.

I doubt Moore oversees every frame of his films, he’s more interested in concepts and structure than the details.

This is giving alot of credit to Moore. 

I hardly believe this is the case.  If youre a director of a movie, youve seen your own movie over a hundred times start to finish, you know what’s been edited, removed, added, and altered.  Any director, (especially one who has won an award) knows every frame of his movie back and forth, especially if you’re the narrator too.

In the case of Moore, I think you have a guy who is more interested in the political points and in entertaining the audience than in the specifics of where his footage is coming from and whether he is using it appropriately

This is getting closer.  I agree more with this statement, but in the sense that Moore purposely knew what he was doing.  Youre probably right, he was rushed to make his film relavent to the 2004 elections, so he cut and edited vague segments to fit his argument.  He was in control of his film.

It doesnt make sense to fault Moore’s staff.  This is Moore’s movie, hence, he is accountable for what his movie overtly states.  If it was not what he intended, then he would not have allowed it in his film.  Im sure any director will tell you that.

I think your idea that Moore is some kind of all-controlling, obsessive artist who supervises every nuance of his two-hour films is a bit romantic.  He’s a corporate entity.  He has a large staff and a six-million dollar budget from Disney/Miramax to go out and throw something together for the 2004 Presidential season.
Look at how this played out.  He himself could not go into Walter Reed hospital because in two seconds it would have become a media event, something like when he showed up at the Republican Convention.  Likewise he couldn’t go into Iraq to get the footage at Abu Graib.  He couldn’t follow those two army recruiters around, and he couldn’t go out and talk to that Oregon state police officer.  When he shows up at the Saudi embassy to interview Craig Unger, secret service officers drop by.  Moore is a publicity-generating celebrity.  This is an impediment to his control over the images he uses in his films.
So what does he do?  He hires it out.  People slip him footage because they like his politics.  His staff combs the archives for shots of Wolfowitz licking his comb or Bush playing golf.  That six million bucks buys a lot of footage, gets music clearances, keeps staff researchers hopping, and lo and behold a film shows up.
I’ve yet to see a good account of how much time Moore spends in the editing room, but that may be because it isn’t a lot.  His background is as the editor of a weekly and then a few months with Mother Jones.  His favorite joke about “Roger and Me” was that when he started it he didn’t know an F-stop from F-troop.  This guy is not a nuts and bolts filmmaker who controls the product from start to finish.  He has a sensibility about what he wants, he has a track record and celebrity, he has seen a lot of movies, but it is always going to be easy to pick out sloppy little details that he could have done better on.  You could say the devil is in the details, but I think he’s more interested in the big picture.  In the end, the shots of Peter Damon or the Pantagraph graphic are a couple of seconds in a two-hour movie.

I think your idea that Moore is some kind of all-controlling, obsessive artist who supervises every nuance of his two-hour films is a bit romantic.

I never said that, but I do know what it takes to direct sequences and films, and I guarantee you that any director knows every shot forwards and backwards. Thats the nature of film.  You watch the same sequences, the same scence over and over again.  By the time you’ve compeleted the movive, you’ve probably watched it a few dozen times.

To suggest that Moore or any other director is unaware of what theit movie may contain is absurd.

He himself could not go into Walter Reed hospital..he couldn’t go into Iraq ..He couldn’t follow those two army recruiters around, and he couldn’t go out and talk to that Oregon state police officer..  This is an impediment to his control

This argument makes no sense.  Of course he is unable to do anything.  Like any other director is unable to gather every aspect of their film.  That’s why he is the director.  His crew gathers materials, while Moore puts them into his movie.  Moore is the one responsible for what goes in the movie and what doesnt.  Are you implying that someone else is making Moore’s movie?  if that’s the case, then isnt it decieving that Moore would put his name on it as the sole director?

People slip him footage because they like his politics.

yesy

His staff combs the archives for shots of Wolfowitz licking his comb or Bush playing golf.

yes

That six million bucks buys a lot of footage, gets music clearances, keeps staff researchers hopping,

yes

All of this more than likely happens.  However, it is Moore who has the final say on what enters his movie.  I highly doubt that any of his assistants had enough control on his movie to compose a segment that went un-reviewed by Moore. 

Can you name any directors that would allow someone else to put a segment into their movie without their review?

please excuse my mispellings..... im typing too fast and dont care for spell check

I have to agree with iggy here.  I cant see a single frame of film being in the final release without Moore knowing and approving of exactly why it has been included.

In this case though (Damon), I dont think he did anything that he should be sued over.

Sure, I can give you an example.  You would consider Francis Coppola a pretty reputable director, wouldn’t you?  He was making “The Conversation,” a film from his original screenplay that was eventually Oscar-nominated.  However, he had to get started on “Godfather II,” so he left the editing to Walter Murch.  Several scenes were totally restructured by Murch--I’ve looked at the screenplay and you could argue they were improved.  Coppola trusted Murch and let the film go out without revision.
Likewise on “Roger and Me,” Moore himself admitted that when he saw the cut at the Toronto film festival it was the first time he saw the final cut.  It was probably some last minute fiddling he hadn’t seen, but he trusted his editor enough that he was in Toronto when it was going on.
But to get back to the point about the Damon sequence, here’s a contrasting example which should illustrate what I am trying to say.  I think the best film so far about post-traumatic stress syndrome and the Iraq War is Patricia Foulkrod’s “The Ground Truth.”
How did she make the film?  She went to Walter Reed, met wounded veterans, took them out to dinner without a camera around, got to know them, developed their trust, whittled down her subjects from about 20 to three or four.  Then she started following them around with cameras, talking to their loved ones, doing research.  And she came up with a beautifully crafted film that has made it into the top 15 for Oscar consideration.  You can get it at Netflix.
Now she’s a careful filmmaker and I doubt she would ever toss in file footage of Peter Damon without clearing it with him and knowing the particulars of his case.
How many have heard of this film?  It has no laughs, no cheap shots at the president, no “Cocaine” on the soundtrack, so only the documentary lovers and people who hear about it through word of mouth will see it.
But if you’re Michael Moore and you want to stop a war and take down a president--plus make a tidy sum at the box office--which way do you make films?

He was making “The Conversation,” a film from his original screenplay that was eventually Oscar-nominated.  However, he had to get started on “Godfather II,” so he left the editing to Walter Murch.  Several scenes were totally restructured by Murch--I’ve looked at the screenplay and you could argue they were improved.  Coppola trusted Murch and let the film go out without revision.

Ill give you this one.. Prove to me that Moore gave up his directing rights to someone else, and ill concede that all the scenes in the movie may not have been reviewed personally by Moore.  (Because right now, im under the impression that Moore was the only director of the film.  If this is wrong, than I could be wrong)

I didn’t mean to imply Coppola gave up his “directing rights” to Murch.  I’m just saying filmmaking is a collaborative undertaking and that good directors know when to give up control and who to trust.  Moore is the only director of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” moreso than most directors.  (The phenomenon of the “director’s cut” DVD suggests that directors lose final control of their films quite often.) I think he did review the final cut. He apparently was a maniac about seeing it with live audiences in the first couple of weeks to check how people were reacting to it. But you can review the final cut or you can REVIEW the final cut.  I think he was in a rush and sloppy.  He didn’t ask tough questions about where that Damon footage came from, who the guy was, what his circumstances were--and so Disney got a lawsuit.  Moore probably doesn’t care, he’s had lots of lawsuits on earlier films, his sights were on political power, not ethical use of subjects.

(The phenomenon of the “director’s cut” DVD suggests that directors lose final control of their films quite often.)

I dont doubt directors can put everything into thier film that they want due to time, money, politics, etc.  However, we are talking about a private documentary (wasnt it Moore’s company funding the movie?).  There are no director’s cut with these types of movies (without assuming that the documentary has a bias to begin with.)

Moore knew what he was doing, regardless if he knew where the Damon interview came form or what context it originally was in.  He is known for his out-of-context-editing. 
With your logic, almost every shot in the film can be blamed on sloppiness.

What about Gore’s assumed victory celebration footage
or the appearent motorcade ‘getaway’ footage
or the pipeline construction footage
or the taliban entourage meeting under gov Bush watch in Texas?

are these sloppy as well?

Your idea of sloppy might be a little different than mine. If I was using a sequence to argue that the Bush administration was leaving veterans behind and careless about the human cost of war, I would be damn sure I had footage of guys who would agree with that position.  Ethically I don’t want to use someone against their will and pragmatically I don’t want the lawsuit later on and the embarassing news articles.  Moore didn’t care, was rushing, so I’m saying he was sloppy.
Now I’m not as familiar with your four examples, but I think you’re arguing with their logic rather than their sloppiness.  I will take a shot at it.
When I first saw the film I never thought the Gore celebration was a victory celebration; I’m not sure why people draw that conclusion, nor why it’s a big deal.  Moore hedges there by saying “Was it all a dream?” I have read a couple of comments about the pipeline/Taliban argument, and yes, there might be some sloppiness there insofar as it’s unclear what he’s arguing and some of chronology is misleading.  Not sure if a couple of graphics could fix it or not.  You’ll have to tell me what’s wrong with the motorcade getaway because I haven’t seen the criticism of that sequence.  Were there not eggs tossed at the car or not?

It is my belief that moore’s mihandling of some clips was not due to sloppiness due to time constraints.  He is great at editing footage out of context.  You call it sloppiness, Ill call it deliberate editing.

You’ll have to tell me what’s wrong with the motorcade getaway because I haven’t seen the criticism of that sequence.  Were there not eggs tossed at the car or not?

-Moore claims the motorcade sped up to get away from the crowd (false)
-Although I did not reivew this assertion, Moore claims multiple people threw eggs (apparently false)
-Moore claims the president never did the traditional walk (false)

These claims by Moore are all made by using footage (or lack of footage) and narration.  These claims are are false, is this more sloppiness on Moore’s part?