Injured Iraq Vet Suing Michael Moore for 85 Million...

[jn_powell]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/entertainment/movies/14709855.htm
BOSTON - A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

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

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

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

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.
This is interesting. I think 85 million is extensive without a doubt, but I am glad to see he is trying to do something about being misrepresented by Moore. I wonder though if he has any real grounds since the interview was given and had to be signed off on the first place (if I am not mistaken). They did not put words in his mouth, just left some out. I think this will disappear and we won't hear too much about it, but you never know.

[pinger]

Guy should be suing the US military first

It is interesting because presumably Moore got permission from NBC to use the footage.

Typical over litigious response though. I hope our country in never the lawyers bitch like the US

[disturbed2]

Guy should be suing the US military first

It is interesting because presumably Moore got permission from NBC to use the footage.

Typical over litigious response though. I hope our country in never the lawyers bitch like the US
Why sue the military? becuase he's a double amputee?

[pinger]

Why sue the military? becuase he's a double amputee?

So you are saying the injuries and "hurt" he has sustained from a 10 second clip in a Michael Moore movie are greater than having both his arms blown off?

[jn_powell]

So you are saying the injuries and "hurt" he has sustained from a 10 second clip in a Michael Moore movie are greater than having both his arms blown off?
Perhaps you should read the article. He supports the war effort and was a volunteer, like all of our military. He did not go into this not knowing what could happen. He did, however, go into an interview with a national news correspondent, not knowing his words would be "twisted" out of context to support a point of view opposite his own. The military holds no responsibility for what this thread is about, so please drop it.

[Sketcher]

And people STILL claim Moore is a legitimate film maker...:err:

[Swindler]

Any legal experts know if his claim has any merit? I'm assuming that since the footage belongs to NBC, it would be their property.

[rand0m]

id like him to sue that fat fuck Moore.

Besides this shows just how manilpulative his stupid film is, i wonder what else has been twisted to try and prove his stupid point in that film.

[jn_powell]

The clip does seem to have been used out of context (a tactic commonly employed by Moore), but if Moore used the footage with NBC's permission, he probably can't be sued. The soldier might or might not be able to sue NBC for selling the footage, depending on what sort of release he signed.

Of course, if Moore was stupid enough to use the clip without permission, which seems unlikely, then both the soldier and NBC could probably sue him.
I was thinking the same thing. Moore may be alot of things, but I don't think stupid is one of them. He makes documentaries for a living so I would think he would have his bases pretty well covered. We shall see.

[TFS]

He can sue depending on how specific the agreement was between Moore and NBC on how he can use the footage. If he was allowed to use the whole segment and never mentioned cutting it down any like he apparently did, he has grounds to sue for slander. If NBC gave Moore permission to only use the specific lines that appeared, then he might be fucked, but it's still a dirty play by Moore and speaks volumes for his lack of character, and I doubt NBC entered that kind of deal.


If nothing else this should get wide-spread coverage just to show once and for all what kind of a jerk Moore is and how unreliable he is as a source for anything.

[Liberator13]

If nothing else this should get wide-spread coverage just to show once and for all what kind of a jerk Moore is and how unreliable he is as a source for anything.

Amen.

Moore is a conniving some of a bitch who twists words around... here is the perfect example.

[bergshadow]

Man, how the tone changes around here depending on the target of the lawsuit.

Emotional distress, for 85 million, because someone used news footage of you in a documentary?

That guy, and the folks here, think that the people appearing in news footage used in a polemical documentary are presented as personally endorsing the documentary's point of view?

Get a grip.

[pers]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/entertainment/movies/14709855.htm

This is interesting. I think 85 million is extensive without a doubt, but I am glad to see he is trying to do something about being misrepresented by Moore. I wonder though if he has any real grounds since the interview was given and had to be signed off on the first place (if I am not mistaken). They did not put words in his mouth, just left some out. I think this will disappear and we won't hear too much about it, but you never know.

losing both arms and money to lawyers, what will he do if he loses? i am sure he is funded for this lawsuit.

It would be interesting if moore actually wins and claims damages from him. Anyways I hope he loses, I mean if it was for 1 million, okay, 85 million, wtf… try getting that from the us military for losing your arms and they will blow you away.

Anyways, americans are pretty funny, they sue you for anything, even mothers sue their sons and daughters etc. i watched judge judy several times, in a compensation culture people sue for the most retarded reasons.

[Sketcher]

Emotional distress, for 85 million, because someone used news footage of you in a documentary?

It's not the fact that he used the news footage, it's HOW he used it. He made it look like a soldier was against the war when he clearly isn't.

[Swindler]

Anyways, americans are pretty funny, they sue you for anything, even mothers sue their sons and daughters etc. i watched judge judy several times, in a compensation culture people sue for the most retarded reasons.

It's in our constitution. We have no choice but to sue people, it's patriotic.

[TFS]

I take it Pers and Bergshadow have never heard of a moral victory.

[jn_powell]

we know little about this case, he may well be talking bs, you taking one side of the story and making your choice already, some morality you have.
What more do you need to know? I gave an interview and a piece of that interview was taken out of context, placed behind another unrelated quote by someone to make it seem related, and used to trick those watching the film into believing he was bashing the administration instead of talking about his painkillers. It is pretty straight forward and factual. It is all on tape. I don't think this man deserves, nor do I think he will get 85 million dollars, but at the very least he has opened the window a little wider to Moore's trickery for the untrained eye.

[bergshadow]

It's not the fact that he used the news footage, it's HOW he used it. He made it look like a soldier was against the war when he clearly isn't. Did he?

Not according to the descriptions presented of the movie scenes, not in the screenplay as published, and not in the quotes from the lawsuit itself.

I take it Pers and Bergshadow have never heard of a moral victory. I have. I've seen several. I'm enjoying one now, as all the people who ranted about suing MacDonald's for third degree coffee burns do a complete back flip out their collective ass. And Clinton's, when his opponents put years of effort and tens of millions of dollars into a vendetta against his Presidency and ended up with a collection of philandering and divorced politicians trying to maintain their reputations for seriousness while bringing the entire US government to a halt over blow jobs from an adult intern.

Modern times, moral victories get swamped by PR victories.

[Just Spurplin]

Glad to see Moore being sued, just not in this case. The guy sueing has nothing to back himself up with. The footage belongs to NBC, not him. They can do whatever they want with the footage. Im pretty sure when he signed to be on, they even told him that his footage may be cut or altered to fit his show, as almost all shows do.

Like I said, I hate Moore, but looking from a legal standpoint, this guy deserves nothing. If he is really upset about the misuse of his footage, then this alone will clear his name. 85 million wont do that.

[Sketcher]

Did he?

Not according to the descriptions presented of the movie scenes, not in the screenplay as published, and not in the quotes from the lawsuit itself.

You might want to read more carefully:

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Moore manipulated this guy's words to suit his own agenda. I see no problem with the lawsuit other than that I think the veteran is asking a little too much.

[Liberator13]

Oh, I completely agree that he is asking way too much.

I think he just wants to completely fuck Michael Moore over, which is exactly what I would attempt to do in his situation.

[Kommercial]

As far as I knew, if the guy went on NBC, he gave all rights of the interview to NBC, therefore Moore only needed permission from NBC to use the footage, which I'm sure he did get.

[Sketcher]

As far as I knew, if the guy went on NBC, he gave all rights of the interview to NBC, therefore Moore only needed permission from NBC to use the footage, which I'm sure he did get.

True, but since Moore twisted this guy's words around to make him sound like something he's not, Moore can be sued for slander, which is what's happening.

[whocares]

True, but since Moore twisted this guy's words around to make him sound like something he's not, Moore can be sued for slander, which is what's happening.
Doesn't NBC's rights and the fact that Moore got permission to use the footage give him the right to use it in whatever context he wanted to?

[JaMaiCa]

If the Vet has a case I bet Michael Moore would settle out of court for a less substantial amount, that's normally how these things go.

[bergshadow]

You might want to read more carefully:
"alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war " That's what the allegation is, but aside from the allegation itself there's nothing there. No quotes, no simple factual description that supports it, nothing that would lead a disinterested observor to believe the allegation is true or even reasonable.

If this is a dishonest lawsuit, as is commonly employed by right and corporate interests in the US to discourage political foes, what should the penalty be for filing it, and against whom?

[Sketcher]

That's what the allegation is, but aside from the allegation itself there's nothing there. No quotes, no simple factual description that supports it, nothing that would lead a disinterested observor to believe the allegation is true or even reasonable.

Unless you have a link to the clip in question, it's irrelevent to argue that here. The court will decide if the clip from the movie portrays him as anti-war or not, not any of us.

[bergshadow]

Unless you have a link to the clip in question, it's irrelevent to argue that here. Then what are you doing? The court will decide if the clip from the movie portrays him as anti-war or not, not any of us. That's not quite the reaction that old woman with third degree burns who sued McD's got, on this forum from these same people on this forum, is it.

The question remains: if this vet was put up to this by the agitprop wing of the current scam in residence, people who know full well such a lawsuit has no merit (we speak hypothetically, of course), for the purpose of harassing a political foe and enabling further wrong-doing without effective opposition (a common tactic, among the corporate money crowd), what should the penalty be?

It's possible this guy is being used, and pretty cynically. I don't like the idea of the agitprop agencies using people (or the courts) like this, and I think there should be some remedy if possible.

[Swindler]

I can't seem to find a clip of the movie to see how Sgt. Damon was portrayed. I did find this interesting article.

Notice who Sgt. Damon is hanging out with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/kennedy.iraq/

[Sketcher]

Then what are you doing?
I'm going based on the word of the vet who was actually in the movie. You're going based on your opinion of the clip.

That's not quite the reaction that old woman with third degree burns who sued McD's got, on this forum from these same people on this forum, is it.

Two completely different cases, not even comparable. Try sticking to the case at hand.

[bergshadow]

I'm going based on the word of the vet who was actually in the movie. You're going based on your opinion of the clip. Yes, I am going by the descriptions of the clip itself, and what I can find of transcripts and quotes, rather than taking the word of someone who is suing for millions based on "emotional distress" and whose behavior fits too well a slapsuit strategy all too familiar.

So?

Interestingly, I can't find a transcript of the critical part of the film. I can find the first half, and some stuff near the end, but that middle section is unavailable to my poor searching skills. And this flap isn't a good enough reason to sit through a Michael Moore film - yet another circlejerk by some righties with Faux News Comprehension Impairment Syndrome, from the look of it.

The slapsuit question, on the other hand, is interesting.

[Sketcher]

Yes, I am going by the descriptions of the clip itself

You're going on your OPINION of the clip itself. Clearly, this man, whose opinion DOES matter, sees this clip as portraying him as being anti-war. And I don't think he's pulling this out of his ass. This accusation must have some merit to it or else he wouldn't be wasting his time.

And based on what we know of Moore, this accusation is not far-fetched at all.

Until there is a link in this thread going to the transcripts or clip, neither of our opinions of the clip matter.

[Quick_Draw21]

Lets say Moore did quote him out of context, does that mean that this man should recieve 85 million dollers?! Hell he shouldnt even recieve one penyy from moore. The only thing he should get is an apology and some sort of exoneration from the claim. However if the clip was signed over to him by nbcin a signed contact this guy dosent deserve jack squat. It sucks what happened to him serving in the military but those are the risks that are involved and its not someone elses responsibility to pay for it under the guise of emotional distress.

[Kommercial]

The guy said on the news tonight that if he is rewarded the 85 million, he'll be donating it toward the military, like they don't have enough money already.

[Chewy]

Wouldn't be funny if this guys claim was bogus.

[bergshadow]

You're going on your OPINION of the clip itself. No, I'm not "going on my opinion". My opinion is going on the clip itself or as close as I can get. Clearly, this man, whose opinion DOES matter, sees this clip as portraying him as being anti-war. So? That doesn't mean he's right. And it isn't as clear as all that, even - his honesty is not established. And with millions of dollars and an entire industry of election year agitprop pushing his lawsuit and biasing his opinions, I'm going to go to the clip itself, or as close as I can get, rather than just take his opinion as a valid one.

And if a jury weighs in, I'll take them seriously as well. Facts of the matter and jury verdicts make a pretty good combination, if they seem to agree. Facts weigh more, of course, if they don't.

Meanwhile, we have topics of relevance here: the amusing doubleback of all those people who jump all over such lawsuits in other circumstances, and the slapsuit tactic so often employed by the powerful in America against their foes.

[MooCowzRock]

Lets say Moore did quote him out of context, does that mean that this man should recieve 85 million dollers?! Hell he shouldnt even recieve one penyy from moore. The only thing he should get is an apology and some sort of exoneration from the claim. However if the clip was signed over to him by nbcin a signed contact this guy dosent deserve jack squat. It sucks what happened to him serving in the military but those are the risks that are involved and its not someone elses responsibility to pay for it under the guise of emotional distress.
Hard to say that. If it was you being "used" for political purposes, having your image being used in such an embarrasing way and a way you didnt want it to be used, you would not accept a simple apology. This guy doesnt have much to live with, having half his limbs cut off. And them Michael Moore comes by and takes advantage of him. He may not deserve 85 mil, but he definitely deserves more than a penny.

[Liberator13]

This is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Michael Moore used a clip of this veteran in a way that the veteran didn't mean it. Cockface Moore used it in such a way that would make viewers believe this man is against the war, which he is not. Just because NBC owned the clip does not mean Moore should be able to use it out of context. Thats horseshit.

I don't give a shit who it is, you do not take clips of people talking and present them in such a way that misleads viewers from what the clip was actually discussing. Do we really not have any fucking ethics anymore? Have we really stooped this goddamn low?

Goddamn some people piss me off.

[whocares]

This is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Michael Moore used a clip of this veteran in a way that the veteran didn't mean it. Cockface Moore used it in such a way that would make viewers believe this man is against the war, which he is not. Just because NBC owned the clip does not mean Moore should be able to use it out of context. Thats horseshit.

I don't give a shit who it is, you do not take clips of people talking and present them in such a way that misleads viewers from what the clip was actually discussing. Do we really not have any fucking ethics anymore? Have we really stooped this goddamn low?

Goddamn some people piss me off.
Okay, it was unethical (in case this is true), but it is really worth a lawsuit...?!?!

[Liberator13]

Okay, it was unethical (in case this is true), but it is really worth a lawsuit...?!?!

I don't care about the money, I'm glad somebody is finally calling Moore out. I doubt the veteran will win. I don't think he should get 75 mil and his wife 10 mil, but I do believe they should get something. An apology on TV would be nice, but Moore doesn't have the balls to do that. And since he is such a money-whore, I don't see him giving anything to him at all.

[MooCowzRock]

Okay, it was unethical (in case this is true), but it is really worth a lawsuit...?!?!
Maybe the lawsuit is really just the most effective way to show the world how unethical Michael Moore can be. Do you think as many people would hear this vet if he just spoke out against him? It could be frivilous, but it is strategic.

[bergshadow]

. Cockface Moore used it in such a way that would make viewers believe this man is against the war, which he is not. He did? No evidence of that visible yet.

One can be a good sheep without actually baaing in unison every single time, y'know.

It could be frivilous, but it is strategic. Now we're talking. Whose strategy, in this election year, would be involved?

[Liberator13]

He did? No evidence of that visible yet.

One can be a good sheep without actually baaing in unison every single time, y'know.

Excuse me?

Did you not read the article?

He is for the war.

Moore put the clip in there at a time that makes it seem as if he is speaking out against the war, which he is not.

[csite]

the media always twists your words, it's been long done, thats why generally people release a public statement after wards claiming they said/meant something totally different.

Didn't this happen with Michael jackson interview too with martin bashir... this guy is just pissed off he doesn't have any arms left! There have been many anti moore videos trying to discredit him, where was he then?

If i was moore i would counter claim for both his legs.

[Liberator13]

Or he's pissed off because Michael Moore took a clip of him talking and used it in a way that made it look like he was wounded in a war that he was against, while, in reality - something I wonder if some of you know - he is for the war.

[MooCowzRock]

Now we're talking. Whose strategy, in this election year, would be involved?
Just the vet's strategy, no politician's. Michael Moore mis-used his name and image and whether he gets paid or not, he wants to make it clear to everyone what Michael Moore did to him. A lawsuit does a good job of that.

[bergshadow]

Just the vet's strategy, no politician's. No possibility of other's strategies maybe nudging things along a bit? Bigtime lawsuits on such flimsy grounds seldom attract lawyers without some guarantee of payoff, even if a person is unbalanced enough to want to file them. They're a lot of work.

[Liberator13]

No possibility of other's strategies maybe nudging things along a bit? Bigtime lawsuits on such flimsy grounds seldom attract lawyers without some guarantee of payoff, even if a person is unbalanced enough to want to file them. They're a lot of work.

Or maybe he personally wants to embarrass Moore...

[Chewy]

Or maybe he personally wants to embarrass Moore...
Interesting that you will not wait for this to run through court before passing a verdict

[Cousin Eddie]

Michael Moore has deep pockets!!!!!! $$$$$$$!

of course those pockets are mostly filled with snack foods :D

[bergshadow]

Or maybe he personally wants to embarrass Moore... The lawyer? At this much investment of time and effort?

I can't find much about him. Nobody seems to care about the context of this lawsuit, at least not in news reports - Is this the same guy? There's a similarity in style and location as well as name, maybe somebody can check? http://catholiconline.org/featured/headline.php?ID=18 an article
http://www.nakedwriting.com/archives/2002/06/a_souless_hijac.html a response to that article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1788632,00.html a style comparison, showing the righty agitprop lingo and approach - the "Rove touch" is visible:
Sgt Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said he had been struck by the soldier's story when he met him at a St Patrick's Day parade. "You see a man that has lost both his arms, is obviously disabled, a man that supports his country and the policy in Iraq, and you hear about his name and image being used in a manner that is contrary to everything he believes in. There's a lot of harm been done. Michael Moore took my client's good name and reputation and defamed him using WMD - weapons of mass defamation."

[TFS]

Interesting that you will not wait for this to run through court before passing a verdict
I can't count the number of times with my shoes off that you, bergshadow, csite, and others have mindlessly passed judgement on soldiers in questionable situations as guilty without knowing half the facts or anything substantial about the military before trials were under way in the matters.

Someone said something about being a good sheep and baaing in unison. Was he posting in the mirror?

[Chewy]

I can't count the number of times with my shoes off that you, bergshadow, csite, and others have mindlessly passed judgement on soldiers in questionable situations as guilty without knowing half the facts or anything substantial about the military before trials were under way in the matters.

Someone said something about being a good sheep and baaing in unison. Was he posting in the mirror?
So have you, based on video evidence but there have been a great deal number of times I stated that we should wait to pass judgment.

[Garihm]

Does anyone have the movie at hand to find this scene to verify that Moore made it seem he was anti-war? People like Bergshadow don't think this is legit but since I don't have this movie at home I'm just curious now.

[bergshadow]

I can't count the number of times with my shoes off that you, bergshadow, csite, and others have mindlessly passed judgement on soldiers in questionable situations as guilty Not once, in my case, as far as I know. Your fatheaded misreadings and misinterpretations are not my fault. I've even tried correcting them, at times.

The weird thing about this situation is that the movie is there - this isn't about the unknown, or shouldn't be. Where is the transcript and argument and such? I can't find one, and I've looked, a little anyway.

Does anyone know, for example, whether Moore even identified the guy in the movie?

[TFS]

I love how you continuously accuse me of misreading you, but it seems a lot of other people do too. Maybe it's not us, but you instead. The reason your attempts to "correct" me have failed is because you're wrong. The same reason they fail anytime you try to correct anyone who disagrees with you have failed.

And no, Chewy, you haven't said you'd wait, not in several past cases. I seem to recall a few threads where you have explicitly stated people were guilty despite no footage being even evident. You've been just as quick to jump the gun as anyone else.

By the logic you're putting forth, no one has a right to complain about Bush because he has yet to be convicted of anything. But I know that won't stop any of you, and it shouldn't. It shouldn't stop anyone. There's nothing wrong with his lawsuit at all. It's a moral issue for this guy, obviously, as 85 million is obviously there just to direct attention to this whole incident and Moore's sleaziness.

It's just silly that you would try to attack people with that kind of claim that judgement shouldn't be passed when everyone, including you guys, does it all the time.

I know we don't have hoof and mouth disease here in the states, but it looks like foot in mouth is a pretty common ailament here.

[MooCowzRock]

So have you, based on video evidence but there have been a great deal number of times I stated that we should wait to pass judgment.
Nobody is really passing any judgement yet, though. We are just discussing the issue while it is going on, considering possible motives and the arguments on both sides. I dont think anyone really has a solid opinion on it yet...

[Chewy]

And no, Chewy, you haven't said you'd wait, not in several past cases. I seem to recall a few threads where you have explicitly stated people were guilty despite no footage being even evident. You've been just as quick to jump the gun as anyone else.

To clarify the issue even further, in one video I stated that “based on the footage as seen” it was clear that there was activity before, but it was a debate on the ethics of what portrayed in the video caption. It was also a challange debate:

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=781059&postcount=2
But nice try.

Oh and of course there was this one... (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=1886515&postcount=1) You were rather conbative about it with me until every active Servicemen agreed with me... then you said this (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=1891386&postcount=87)... and it made me cry to hear it. :redface:

[kududoodoop]

85 million is a fucking lot and is obviously milking it.

but if he was misrepresented he has every right to fight it.

[wataba]

I can't seem to find a clip of the movie to see how Sgt. Damon was portrayed. I did find this interesting article.

Notice who Sgt. Damon is hanging out with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/kennedy.iraq/

The senator from Massachusetts spoke to the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

He was flanked by Brian and Alma Hart, whose son John was killed in Iraq, and Army Sgt. Peter Damon, who lost both arms serving in Iraq.

Kennedy called the invasion of Iraq "a war of choice, not of necessity" and laid out what he called a timeline of the "drumbeat to war" that he said began in the earliest days of the Bush presidency.


That does seem quite odd...

[bergshadow]

I love how you continuously accuse me of misreading you, but it seems a lot of other people do too. Maybe it's not us, but you instead. Nah, the misreadings are not that complicated. It's you, baby. Reread, if you doubt.

IIRC I have yet to "pass judgment" on a soldier at all, let alone in a questionable situation. It's you who feels judged, for some reason, by ordinary observation of fact. For example, I pointed out that US soldiers were and are killing lots of Iraqi civilians. That's a fact. You took it to be some kind of claim that US soldiers were setting out to kill Iraqi civilians intentionally, were irresponsible madmen, were evil and bad. I never said that. You insisted I had. And so forth. You insist on reading what you think must be there.

So if I point out that pregnant Iraqis trying to get to hospitals at night are getting killed at US checkpoints so often that many women afraid to travel end up giving birth at home unattended by doctors (who are also afraid to travel), with consequent large increases in mortality and complication, what is your reaction? Same as the last time I mentioned that unfortunate fact? It happened again yesterday - one of the unusual few incidents that made the papers immediately, rather than weeks later in articles.

Meanwhile, I have passed no judgment on this lawsuit. I have passed judgment on some of the reactions to it, but hey - It sounds pretty unlikely offhand, but I can't find a transcript of the key passage, and haven't seen the film, and have to go off descriptions and such - which do not support the validity of the suit, but that's just an observation. I have noted the inconsistency of the righties' reactions to it compared with other such lawsuits, which is flagrant, and the dubious circumstances around this one, and so forth, but the people on this thread who have "passed judgment" on it - favorable - have been mostly those with unbalanced attitudes toward Moore himself.

It turns out this vet has been objecting to the film, lawyer in tow, for over a year - so the timing of the lawsuit, heading into the crucial campaign season, is possibly deliberate.

[TFS]

To clarify the issue even further, in one video I stated that “based on the footage as seen” it was clear that there was activity before, but it was a debate on the ethics of what portrayed in the video caption. It was also a challange debate:

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=781059&postcount=2
But nice try.

Oh and of course there was this one... (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=1886515&postcount=1) You were rather conbative about it with me until every active Servicemen agreed with me... then you said this (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=1891386&postcount=87)... and it made me cry to hear it. :redface:
Actually, I recall that exact thread very well. I stated in my very first post there that those soldiers were out of line from the get-go, as the evidence was very clearly laid out and not arguable. Perhaps if you post a link to the thread so my posts can be seen in context, you'd have a point.

And those were British forces, and the guy filming it was cheering them on. It was a very vulgar display.

I'm referring to other threads where only part of a video was known to us and it only showed people shooting Iraqis during fire-fights while fire was being taken. There was one Iraqi who was crawling on the ground, injured, but what he was crawling to was not shown in the video, nor whether or not he was one of the Iraqis firing at the soldiers during the time the video showed. I distinctlt recall you (and bergshadow, slightly less distinctly) saying they were out of line when we only had maybe 20 seconds of film in relation to something that transpired over the course of about 10 minutes at least.


And there is only one time any other serviceman has disagreed with me about anything to do with the military and that was maverick about how the insurance works back when he first joined the forum. Every other time, they have either not commented or lent support to what I was saying.

Now, unless you have links to entire threads where something other than what I described in how servicement respond to what I say, don't bother, because frankly, my dear, what you just said was full of shit.

[bergshadow]

I distinctlt recall you (and bergshadow, slightly less distinctly) saying they were out of line when Not me. Never said that, indistinctly or otherwise, about any soldiers in a video.

It would probably be a good idea if you started taking what I say as what I say, instead of rephrasing it and rewording it and so forth. You usually make major changes in the sense, and I think you lose track of the original.

[TFS]

Not me. Never said that, indistinctly or otherwise, about any soldiers in a video.

It would probably be a good idea if you started taking what I say as what I say, instead of rephrasing it and rewording it and so forth. You usually make major changes in the sense, and I think you lose track of the original.
It's not interpretational art, buddy. If you can't convey your opinions correctly, it's not my fault. So quit brushing me off like that's what's happening.

[Sketcher]

No, I'm not "going on my opinion". My opinion is going on the clip itself or as close as I can get.
As is the veteran. How is his opinion less valid than yours?

Again, based on what we know of Moore, the accusations made by this veteran are not far-fetched at all. You just seem to want to deny anything you don't want to be true.

So? That doesn't mean he's right.

And you are? What makes your opinion anymore valid than his? Again, if you cannot provide a link to the clip or transcripts from the clip, you cannot argue that he was not represented as anti-war in it.

[whocares]

If he's pro-war or anti-war does not matter. What matters is, was the original clip used to quote him out of context? If he said anti-war things on the original clip, even if he's pro-war then I see nothing wrong with it.

[Sketcher]

If he's pro-war or anti-war does not matter. What matters is, was the original clip used to quote him out of context? If he said anti-war things on the original clip, even if he's pro-war then I see nothing wrong with it.

He wasn't even talking about the war:

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

It's just another attempt of Moore to manipulate something to suit his own agenda.

[Chewy]

Actually, I recall that exact thread very well. I stated in my very first post there that those soldiers were out of line from the get-go, as the evidence was very clearly laid out and not arguable. Perhaps if you post a link to the thread so my posts can be seen in context, you'd have a point.
Your right you stated that my bad.



I'm referring to other threads where only part of a video was known to us and it only showed people shooting Iraqis during fire-fights while fire was being taken. There was one Iraqi who was crawling on the ground, injured, but what he was crawling to was not shown in the video, nor whether or not he was one of the Iraqis firing at the soldiers during the time the video showed. I distinctlt recall you (and bergshadow, slightly less distinctly) saying they were out of line when we only had maybe 20 seconds of film in relation to something that transpired over the course of about 10 minutes at least. That was the one I stated was a challenge debate with sticky... based on the video as provided. That would be like using a forum wars debate.



Now before we stray terribly far off topic...

I’m no fan of Moore, never have been. I find him a sensational propagandist, I’ll wave judgment till this passes through court.

[TFS]

Your right you stated that my bad.

Not a problem.

That was the one I stated was a challenge debate with sticky... based on the video as provided. That would be like using a forum wars debate.

I must be thinking of another thread, then, because I recall a video like that in a thread that was not a challenge debate. It was just made open for everyone to comment in and that debate rose from it, but was not (initially at least) a challenge debate (may have even started as one but grew to be open to everyone).

Now before we stray terribly far off topic...

I’m no fan of Moore, never have been. I find him a sensational propagandist, I’ll wave judgment till this passes through court.
That's fine. I'm just saying don't point fingers at anyone else about passing premature judgement because it's something we've all done in the past. The best thing is just to recognize that it's wrong to do so now and instead of pointing fingers like it seemed like you were doing is just to state what it looks like to you, but that until a verdict is in, you (and everyone else) could very well be mistaken.

It looks to me, like sketcher said, that this is not a far-fetched claim. Depending on the exact terms of the contract Moore had with NBC and the actual original content that was specified in the contract before it was chopped to fit Moore's mockumentary, this guy either has a good (not strong) case or an incfredibly weak case.

He'll probably lose either way, knowing our courts and the amount of legal power Moore can afford.

The 85 million is excessive, and I doubt he'll ever come close to that amount in any case, but it does bring needed attention to this issue (not the case, the issue of Moore's ethics) to the limelight for all, be they supporters or detractors of Moore, to see.

I would not at all call this case frivilous. It could be detrimental to this guy's career and/or reputation, and if seen by currently deployed soldiers is detrimental to morale, which is vital for survival of combat.

Like I said before, just drawing this much attention to Moore doing this kind of thing is a moral victory, if nothing else. Even if a judge dismisses the case as frivilous, the damage done to Moore's reputation will help a lot of people stuck under his influence open their eyes that much more.

[Swoop187]

Good i hope that this makes Moore broke.

Good for him, Its about time that sack of shit Moore pays.

[Chewy]

I must be thinking of another thread, then, because I recall a video like that in a thread that was not a challenge debate. It was just made open for everyone to comment in and that debate rose from it, but was not (initially at least) a challenge debate (may have even started as one but grew to be open to everyone).
There were one of the one of the Black Hawk helicopter shooting 'farmers' but when a longer video was presented it was clearly they were transferring arms in the field, I recanted my comments on that one with the new information. Another was a bombing of people that were running through the streets that on was inconclusive.



That's fine. I'm just saying don't point fingers at anyone else about passing premature judgement because it's something we've all done in the past. The best thing is just to recognize that it's wrong to do so now and instead of pointing fingers like it seemed like you were doing is just to state what it looks like to you, but that until a verdict is in, you (and everyone else) could very well be mistaken.

It looks to me, like sketcher said, that this is not a far-fetched claim. Depending on the exact terms of the contract Moore had with NBC and the actual original content that was specified in the contract before it was chopped to fit Moore's mockumentary, this guy either has a good (not strong) case or an incfredibly weak case.

He'll probably lose either way, knowing our courts and the amount of legal power Moore can afford.

The 85 million is excessive, and I doubt he'll ever come close to that amount in any case, but it does bring needed attention to this issue (not the case, the issue of Moore's ethics) to the limelight for all, be they supporters or detractors of Moore, to see.

I would not at all call this case frivilous. It could be detrimental to this guy's career and/or reputation, and if seen by currently deployed soldiers is detrimental to morale, which is vital for survival of combat.

Like I said before, just drawing this much attention to Moore doing this kind of thing is a moral victory, if nothing else. Even if a judge dismisses the case as frivilous, the damage done to Moore's reputation will help a lot of people stuck under his influence open their eyes that much more. We all pass judgment at times its natural what alerts me is that the size of the suite, it just seems like a huge attention grabber.

I remeber the law suite against him over the newspaper headlines things but I don't recall the outcome what was the final of that one?

[TFS]

There were one of the one of the Black Hawk helicopter shooting 'farmers' but when a longer video was presented it was clearly they were transferring arms in the field, I recanted my comments on that one with the new information. Another was a bombing of people that were running through the streets that on was inconclusive.

No, I'm talking about a ground-fight. Might have even been Afghani. I think there was something about a soldier cheering when the guy crawling was shot if that helps. The point was, lots of people were saying they were wrong, etc, and all they had to go on was 20 seconds out of 10 minutes.

We all pass judgment at times its natural what alerts me is that the size of the suite, it just seems like a huge attention grabber.

It is, you're right, but not in the manner that the McDonalds thing was an attention grabber, or that Cindy Sheehan is an attention grabber. He's not doing this to whore media attention for himself. He's doing this to bring attention to Moore's BS, which is a good thing, no matter the outcome.

It's like how continuously taking note of Bush's crap was the only way people were able to get the point across and finally get people to notice the BS.

Not entirely the same, but you know what I mean.

I remeber the law suite against him over the newspaper headlines things but I don't recall the outcome what was the final of that one?

Didn't hear about this.

[Sketcher]

Didn't hear about this.

I can't remember exactly what the newspaper headline said, but Moore actually edited a newspaper headline. The newspaper looked through their archive and there was never a headline that said that - especially not on the date Moore said it was from.

[Swoop187]

I can't remember exactly what the newspaper headline said, but Moore actually edited a newspaper headline. The newspaper looked through their archive and there was never a headline that said that - especially not on the date Moore said it was from.

Moore edits everything. Look at his movies (they arnt documentaries). He will ask someone a question and then completely ass rape and turn the quesion around to make it look like that person answered a different one and supports his point.

That fat slob should be banned from ever making a movie ever again.

[jn_powell]

And exactly which article of the US Constitution allows us to "ban" people from doing things we don't like? :rolleyes:
The very next one if Bush has his way. (Gay marriage)

[Swoop187]

And exactly which article of the US Constitution allows us to "ban" people from doing things we don't like? :rolleyes:

Yea, I know he can do what he wants but to classify his films as documentaries is wrong.

[Swoop187]

The very next one if Bush has his way. (Gay marriage)

Marriage defined as union between a man and a woman NOT man and man or woman and woman but MAN AND WOMAN. You can bitch all you want but dem the rules and the majority of people favor those rules.

[TFS]

The very next one if Bush has his way. (Gay marriage)
Hey, 6 pages before the first unnecessary, unrelated Bush-bashing comment was made, and it was made by a Texan. That's gotta be a record!:D

[jn_powell]

Marriage defined as union between a man and a woman NOT man and man or woman and woman but MAN AND WOMAN. You can bitch all you want but dem the rules and the majority of people favor those rules.
How am I bitching? First off I would like to know where you get that majority statement. I would venture that if you polled every American the vast majority would be like me, they would be in the "I don't give a shit" category. If they want to get married, have at it. The Constitution is designed to protect people's rights...not take them away. I would hate to see this beautiful document soiled with petty bullshit like " we don't want dem queers gettin' hitched'. By the way, your definition of marriage is one with a basis in religion, and last I looked the Constitution also has some rules about religion and government.
Hey, 6 pages before the first unnecessary, unrelated Bush-bashing comment was made, and it was made by a Texan. That's gotta be a record!:D
Well I would not call is Bush bashing. I just think it is funny that anyone would care enough about two people wanting to get married. In any event this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. I apologize for the tangent. BTW, I did vote for Bush.

[Swoop187]

The very next one if Bush has his way. (Gay marriage)

Besides if were going to bend the rules for a minority then whats the point of a democracy?

[jn_powell]

Besides if were going to bend the rules for a minority then whats the point of a democracy?
There is no rule Constitutionally, so what the fuck are you talking about. States should be allowed to make their own rules about things like this and the federal government should stay the fuck out of it.

[Swoop187]

How am I bitching. First off I would like to know where you get that majority statement. I would venture that if you polled every American the vast majority would be lik me, the would be in the "I don't give a shit" category. If they want to get married, have at it. The Constitution is designed to protect people's rights...not take them away. I would hate to see this beautiful document soiled with petty bullshit like " we don't want dem queers gettin' hitched'. By the way, your definition of marriage is one with a basis in religion, and last I looked the Constitution also has some rules about religion and government.

Well I would not call is Bush bashing. I just think it is funny that anyone would care enough about two people wanting to get married. In any event this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. I apologize for the tangent. BTW, I did vote for Bush.

Thats not the point, You give an inch they take a mile. Its enough that these liberals want to shove homosexuality down kids throats.

I will take you up on your speculation and say that MOST Americans are against gay marriage due to there religious beliefs. The ones that dont vote or dont care dont care enough to make gay marriage legal. its either or and its not worth the effort to make gay marriage legal.

I would make a deal though with gay people if it was up too me. They can get married BUT they have to stop with the shoving of gayness down peoples throats.

[Swoop187]

There is no rule Constitutionally, so what the fuck are you talking about. States should be allowed to make their own rules about things like this and the federal government should stay the fuck out of it.

What the fuck are you talking about? If the majority of people dont want gay marriage in there state then why should gay marriage be legal in that state? what kind of a democracy would that be?

[jn_powell]

What the fuck are you talking about? If the majority of people dont want gay marriage in there state then why should gay marriage be legal in that state? what kind of a democracy would that be?
Dude, first of all I said it should be up to the states to make the decision, which means that those who are elected democratically make the call. That is how our government works. Obviously states like Texas are not going to let gay marriage be legalized in this state, but places like Vermont or Massachusetts might be a different story based on the view points of the voters in that state. Secondly please stop with the double posting. And thirdly we are getting way off topic here so why don't we just drop it?

[wataba]

Thats not the point, You give an inch they take a mile. Its enough that these liberals want to shove homosexuality down kids throats.

Whoa that's hot. Anyway, since when has this been happening? You're totally exaggerating and misinterpreting the issue.

EDIT: Also, I don't really see how the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman would effect you or I, unless either one of us is gay. It really doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't to you. You say they're the minority and that we basically shouldn't give a shit what the minority says because then it wouldn't be democracy....but there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority.

[Chewy]

Thats not the point, You give an inch they take a mile. Its enough that these liberals want to shove homosexuality down kids throats. Well its an effort to make kids as a matter of fact Liberals are on an incentive plan to do this… three more and I get a free set of Oven Mitts.

[Swoop187]

If you've seen a number of documentaries, you will have noticed that almost all are biased to one point of view or another. The entire reason people make documentaries to to bring attention ("to "document", hence the name "documentary") an issue that they care about. If they weren't passionate (read "biased") about the issue in the first place, they wouldn't be making the film.

Moore just happens to be the most well known, and the more his opponents attack him, the better known, and more successful, he becomes. How many people do you think saw Fahrenheit 9/11 simply to see what all the fuss was about?

The best thing Moore's opponents can do is ignore him. When they attack him, they are helping him.

NO i watch "real" documentaries, the type you see on the History Channel or Discovery. A real documentary is to educate with truth and look at all realms of truth. Moores films are nothing but propaganda. There is a big difference between propaganda and documentary.

[TFS]

Well its an effort to make kids as a matter of fact Liberals are on an incentive plan to do this… three more and I get a free set of Oven Mitts.
Dammit, Chewy, you keep stealing them all. How am I supposed to get the free movie tickets if I can't get 4 of the little bastards to become conservative...did I say bastards? I meant darling.

[Swoop187]

Whoa that's hot. Anyway, since when has this been happening? You're totally exaggerating and misinterpreting the issue.

EDIT: Also, I don't really see how the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman would effect you or I, unless either one of us is gay. It really doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't to you. You say they're the minority and that we basically shouldn't give a shit what the minority says because then it wouldn't be democracy....but there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority.

Then why is Batwoman a lesbian then? Why is her sexual preference relevant?
Im not exaggerating anything, i think you are just down playing it.

As far as homosexuals bothering me? no they dont unless they are doing shit in public but i can see why religious people might find homosexuality offensive and if they are the majority that what they say goes. its that simple.

[Chewy]

Then why is Batwoman a lesbian then? Becuase she was born that way.

[Swoop187]

Becuase she was born that way.

lol, funny.

More like re-invented as a lesbian for political reasons.

[wataba]

As far as homosexuals bothering me? no they dont unless they are doing shit in public but i can see why religious people might find homosexuality offensive and if they are the majority that what they say goes. its that simple.

Unless it's unconstitutional.

Becuase she was born that way.

:lol:

[Swoop187]

Ohhhh, REAL documentaries! You mean like "Stolen Honor" and "Unfit for Command", the two anti-Kerry documentaries released right before the election?

Both sides use propaganda disguised as documentary, Moore just happens to be more successful at it.



Why is Superman banging Lois Lane? Why is Spiderman doing Mary Jane Watson? Why are their sexual preferences relevant?

Seeing how athleticism, toughness and aggressiveness are hallmarks of a superhero, Batwoman being a lesbian really shouldn't shock anyone.

Good so we agree that Moore is a propaganda expert. The difference is between those Kerry propagand films and Moore's films are that Moore is making money off of American civilian deaths and US soliders deaths.

As far as superheros, Hetosexual is normal and is a concept kids can grasp but homosexualtiy is NOT. Just because some one is different and chooses to be different dosnt mean that its OK.

[Chewy]

lol, funny.

More like re-invented as a lesbian for political reasons.
Super Heroes have all kinds of personal traits it makes them more personalize as characters adding another dimension to them. Take the Hulk for example he was struggling with the issues of his parents death, it manifested in a personal struggle similar to Bi-polar between the two Hulks Grey and Green. The Hulk was able to see a therapist and was able to work out some of his emotional issues. Was this for political reasons too? It added to the character IMO.

[DazednConfused]

Ohhhh, REAL documentaries! You mean like "Stolen Honor" and "Unfit for Command", the two anti-Kerry documentaries released right before the election?

Both sides use propaganda disguised as documentary, Moore just happens to be more successful at it.
You don't think some documentary makers are better about sticking to the facts and actually trying to educate their veiwers than others? I've watched plenty of documentaries on the national geographic and discovery channel. They had their minor biases, but stuck to the facts, tried to present all sides of the issue, and didn't resort to all the BS tactics Moore uses. You are right that there are all sorts of people out there with agendas that disguise their crap as a documentary, , but there is a second group of people out there who's main devotion is to making a good documentary. Those are the people that make "real" documentaries.

[Swoop187]

Super Heroes have all kinds of personal traits it makes them more personalize as characters adding another dimension to them. Take the Hulk for example he was struggling with the issues of his parents death, it manifested in a personal struggle similar to Bi-polar between the two Hulks Grey and Green. The Hulk was able to see a therapist and was able to work out some of his emotional issues. Was this for political reasons too? It added to the character IMO.

Wow you can believe what you want... super heros have been around for a long time now so why wernt there gay super heros back in the 60' and 70's???? Because now gayness is a political statement.

Im out of here, I got shit to do.

[Sketcher]

Ohhhh, REAL documentaries! You mean like "Stolen Honor" and "Unfit for Command", the two anti-Kerry documentaries released right before the election?

Those aren't documentaries either. Documentaries are meant to educate you on a subject where the creater has no agenda to gain anything. For example, my dad was just watching a REAL documentary on the History channel about specific kinds of battle cruisers.

[wataba]

Isn't it feasible that a documentary could be made to call attention to an issue (being made for a particular agenda) and yet still be even handed and based on facts... Like, if someone made a documentary about the rainforests and the people who live there, but it was made to call attention to the destruction of these rainforests..

[bergshadow]

There are lots of different kinds of documentaries. They are all "real" documentaries.

Moore is not hiding his viewpoint, or pretending to be doing something he isn't. He's "uneven handed" and based on carefully selected and edited facts, right up front.

A good many of his critics, on the other hand, are a nasty bunch of liars with unpatriotic and venal hidden agenda.
Like, if someone made a documentary about the rainforests and the people who live there, but it was made to call attention to the destruction of these rainforests.. If it only shows on the family channel, nobody over the age of 10 watches it, and it's ineffectual, no problem. If it makes a lot of money, shows on big screens everywhere, becomes famous, and interferes with the prospects of large multinational corporations, its director better hire a lawyer - and avoid flying in small planes.

[MooCowzRock]

Why is Spiderman doing Mary Jane Watson?
Droog, once again, you have failed to do your research....you are absolutely ignorant...

Spiderman is not involved with Mary Jane anymore, she died a long time ago. Right now, he is working on another MJ from another demension that isnt the real MJ. Next time, be more specific, jeez...













:D ;)

[Kommercial]

I will give Moore one thing, he's a smart guy. Not just anyone can get people questioning the whole 9/11 event, like he did.

[Devastation]

Mary Jane Watson is hot.

[wataba]

I always had the suspicion that radical left wing comic book makers were orchestrating a massive conspiracy to turn America's youth into a bunch of flaming homosexuals. Just look at all the tights and capes they wear. Coincidence? I think not.

[Chewy]

Wow you can believe what you want... super heros have been around for a long time now so why wernt there gay super heros back in the 60' and 70's???? Because now gayness is a political statement.
Life inmates art … art inmates life. I think comic books reflect some of the mainstream issue and combine them with fantasy.

I always had the suspicion that radical left wing comic book makers were orchestrating a massive conspiracy to turn America's youth into a bunch of flaming homosexuals. Just look at all the tights and capes they wear. Coincidence? I think not.Some less more ambiguous than
others (http://www.quicktimeflix.net/agd/)

[bergshadow]

I always had the suspicion that radical left wing comic book makers were orchestrating a massive conspiracy Do the Gatorade folks have any connections in the comic book industry?

[TFS]

You guys are all aware that Collosus is out of the closet in the X-Men comics now, right?

Imagine how gay that is: a big, metallic cock on a big muscle-builder in spandex briefs with a spandex vest with shoulderpads, and a thick Russian accent.

Kinda makes the village people look like neo-cons.

[pidgeball6]

Life inmates art … art inmates life. I think comic books reflect some of the mainstream issue and combine them with fantasy.

Some less more ambiguous than
others (http://www.quicktimeflix.net/agd/)
Not to split hairs or anything. But the first openly gay marvel character was Northstar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_(comics))
Obviously, marvel felt it would be easier to sell the idea of a gay mutant if they made him canadian. :p

[Chewy]

Not to split hairs or anything. But the first openly gay marvel character was Northstar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_(comics))
Obviously, marvel felt it would be easier to sell the idea of a gay mutant if they made him canadian. :p
Yeah I was hoping that would not surface...:redface:

Marvel was not very kind to Canada giving us Puck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_%28comics%29)and Major Mapleleaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Mapleleaf)
the only grand superhero we were offered was Wolverine.. who left Canada for the US... :cool:

[BastardChild]

Here's the transcript from Fahrenheit 9/11 for those who wanted it, starting with the quote from McDermott that Damon objected to being quoted shortly after. I took this straight from the movie so I apologize if it's off at all, but I highly doubt it is.

Rep. McDermott: They say they're not gonna leave any veteran behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind.
Wounded Vet #1: To say that we're forgotten, no, I know we're not forgotten, but missed, yes, you know there's a lot of soldiers that have been missed, you know, that have been skipped over, um, that didn't get the proper coverage that they deserve.
Wounded Vet #2: They (the media, I assume) have their death toll, but they're not showin' the amount of people that have been injured, that have been amputated because of the injuries, ya know?
Sgt. Damon (not identified in movie): Like I still feel like I have hands...
Reporter: Yeah
Sgt. Damon: And, the pain is like, my hands are being crushed, in a vice; but they do a lot to help it, and they, ah, take a lot of the edge off of it, and it, it makes it a lot more tolerable, and...

So there's at least the words from the movie that are likely to be analyzed in this case. It seems that Moore was focusing on the lack of attention--specifically medical--that wounded vets were receiving, I suppose to back up McDermott's position.

My interpretation is that the first vet sounds a little peeved over the treatment of many wounded guys; but he's still reluctant to say that they're just being ignored ("left behind"??), and he certainly doesn't come out against the war effort. As I said, the second vet is probably referring to the media. If he is referring to the Bush Admin., that's an issue dealing more with public sentiment that the actual military seems to try to stay away from, so it's still not a direct condemnation of the war effort. I could see how one might view it as an indirect condemnation, but I don't, as I think it's directed solely towards the media, even if that's not how Moore wanted to portray it. And as far as Damon's words, he seems to say that his pain is being alleviated for the most part. Moore cuts him off mid-thought, but I don't see what more he could say that would make him sound more grateful for the care he was receiving, unless he were to praise Bush or the war or those who attended to him. Now, if Moore had cut him off after the part about his hands being like they were in a vice, that would certainly give the impression that he was in a ton of pain and unable to cope with it, and of course that would be deliberately misleading. I'd be curious to see the transcript of Damon's entire interview on NBC to see what Moore left out.

So McDermott's words weren't really backed up by any of these guys, especially Damon, at least from my perspective. And I don't know how anyone other than the most adament pacifist, or someone who didn't know that Moore could use those words without Damon's permission, could come away thinking that Damon was against the war based on that clip. And further, there was a wounded soldier shown directly after Damon who talked about the immense pain he was in, and his newfound resentment towards the Republican Party. Talk about a contrast. If Damon is sincere about his reason for the lawsuit, to clear his name and not be associated with Moore and his anti-war thinking, then I hope he is successful with that and gets whatever money he deserves. But based on just the little basic information I laid out here, I don't think he has a lot of ground to stand on. JMHO

[IrishNed]

bastard child writes:If Damon is sincere about his reason for the lawsuit, to clear his name and not be associated with Moore and his anti-war thinking, then I hope he is successful with that and gets whatever money he deserves. But based on just the little basic information I laid out here, I don't think he has a lot of ground to stand on. I agree!

Let's keep in mind the facts asssociated with Sergeant Damon's disabling injury: It didn't happen when an IED exploded or in close combat with an enemy force. It happened during routine helicopter maintenance.

Sgt Damon was injured in a 'line of duty' accident: a tire he was trying to install on a helicopter exploded. Another soldier was killed. Maybe the tire was over-inflated or outdated; or maybe it was defective. In either case someone at the point of the incident should have saved the tire carcass for the accident investigation board (and longer if it was determined to be defective). Then, he might have a case against the tire manufacturer. But it's not likely that evidence survived, so his lawyer looked for the person with the deepest pockets.

I sympathize with the guy! He was a National Guard member activated for service in Iraq. He could be a 'Poster Child' for how the U.S. Army treats Guardsmen assigned to its units (just another 'warm body' to use for non-specialty jobs like changing tires). Like many others, he may (or probably) not have been properly trained for the job he was assigned.

It doesn't make any difference what he said in Moore's film clip. For those who know the story about his injuries, he will still come across as a 'Poster Child' for the Army's mishandling of people, especially National Guardsmen.

[TFS]

He could be a 'Poster Child' for how the U.S. Army treats Guardsmen assigned to its units (just another 'warm body' to use for non-specialty jobs like changing tires). Like many others, he may (or probably) not have been properly trained for the job he was assigned.
Wow, you have no freaking idea how the military is organized.

They have people doing all tasks in every branch (active, reserve, guard) from combat (infantry, artillery) to non-combat (mechanic or cook, for example).

Everyone is properly trained, because we all receive the same training. Every other helicopter mechanic received the same training this guy did, just like I'm going to receive the same technical engineering training every other technical engineer receives.

Almost every time a mechanic is injured it is due to his own negligence. My friend is a blackhawk mechanic and told me that just about every mechanic gets chopped in the top of the head by the blades once or twice because they forget to secure them in a lock position and some wind comes and blows them around while someone's up working on it.


Poster child my ass...how people think they are treated is a case-by-case basis. Everyone has their own experiences.

[Wu-tang]

Mary Jane Watson is hot.
Hmmm....I just watched spiderman 2 again last night on HBO, and yes, yes she is.

[J.T.]

losing both arms and money to lawyers, what will he do if he loses? i am sure he is funded for this lawsuit.

It would be interesting if moore actually wins and claims damages from him. Anyways I hope he loses, I mean if it was for 1 million, okay, 85 million, wtf… try getting that from the us military for losing your arms and they will blow you away.

Anyways, americans are pretty funny, they sue you for anything, even mothers sue their sons and daughters etc. i watched judge judy several times, in a compensation culture people sue for the most retarded reasons.

Wow, you are obviously an expert on America if you watch JUDGE FUCKING JUDY....... Give me a break. We have what's called small claims court, and it isn't anything like you see on a fucking tv show.

............Judge Judy lol.... damn son


Props to TFS!
Well said TFS... Well said sir!

[IrishNed]

Wow, you have no freaking idea how the military is organized.I think I do! I spent 20-years as an Enlisted person in the Active Duty Military. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the Air Force have changed their Organizational structures since my retirement; but as far as education and training, they are still pretty much the same. What is also still the same is how 'Regulars' accept and treat National Guardsmen assigned to work alongside them, especially in cases where the weekend warriors are perceived to be carrying more rank than someone with their experience rates. Been there; done that!Everyone is properly trained, because we all receive the same training. Every other helicopter mechanic received the same training this guy did, just like I'm going to receive the same technical engineering training every other technical engineer receives.I must defer to your self proclaimed vast Military experience. You must know what Sgt Damon's Military Operational Specialty (MOS) was; but I would guess it's not Aircraft Mechanic. Or if it is, his unit may have just upgraded him on paper so that he would qualify for promotion to Sergeant. It don't take a Helicopter mechanic to change a tire. Almost every time a mechanic is injured it is due to his own negligence. Or the negligence of the person who assigned him/her to do a job? Poster child my ass...how people think they are treated is a case-by-case basis. Everyone has their own experiences.You may refer to my earlier post for a reply to your final remark.

[TFS]

I think I do! I spent 20-years as an Enlisted person in the Active Duty Military. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the Air Force have changed their Organizational structures since my retirement; but as far as education and training, they are still pretty much the same. What is also still the same is how 'Regulars' accept and treat National Guardsmen assigned to work alongside them, especially in cases where the weekend warriors are perceived to be carrying more rank than someone with their experience rates. Been there; done that!

Not really the same at all, actually. We don't even train to fire out of fox holes anymore. A lot more has changed than you think. I found out today they're even going back to the low-stress style training with stress cards (a load of horse shit if you ask me) everywhere but Benning.

I do also detect a hint of condescending opinion towards me and the other "weekend warriors" you seem to think didn't earn their rank. Not very accepting of us, now, is that? Hypocrite. Every guardsman and every reservist has earned their rank and position the same way every active soldier does. It's just your perception of us only wearing a uniform once a month being equal to "less experience" that comes from your own ignorance of the branches that makes them appear less deserving.

Keep in mind the only war we've been in that is still a matter of debate on whether we won or not is the only war the National Guard was not deployed over seas to fight in, that war being Vietnam.

Sounds to me like you weren't much of a team player. That's bad for morale.

Don't preach to me about my branch as if you're some authority on it without current experience in it. The age of the fortunate son is over. We guardsmen see as much combat as anyone else.

I must defer to your self proclaimed vast Military experience. You must know what Sgt Damon's Military Operational Specialty (MOS) was; but I would guess it's not Aircraft Mechanic. Or if it is, his unit may have just upgraded him on paper so that he would qualify for promotion to Sergeant. It don't take a Helicopter mechanic to change a tire.

He was a blackhawk mechanic. You have to be a blackhawk mechanic to do any kind of maintainance on the bird. My friend is one not MOSQ yet and he's not even allowed to take a screwdriver to tighten a screw here and there on them with his unit, and that's not even in a deployed environment.

It might not take a blackhawk mechanic to change a tire on a bird, but that's all that are allowed to do so.

And units are not allowed to just magically say someone is MOSQ. They have to have a certificate saying the soldier passed MOS school for that specific MOS to become MOSQ, be that AIT or the 2 week course people can go through to have multiple MOSs later on in their careers. Either way, they spend time on active duty pay rosters and learn the skills required for that MOS and are certified by an MOS school for that MOS. Units have no say in that beyond allowing them to attend MOS schools.

Or the negligence of the person who assigned him/her to do a job?

Proof of this? If you haven't noticed, speculation doesn't fly well with me.

In order for him to be on the floor and changing that tire unsupervised so that accident could even occur, he had to be MOSQ as a blackhawk mechanic, meaning no supervisor assigning him to that task would have been negligent to do so.

You may refer to my earlier post for a reply to your final remark.

It's still wrong. You have proven your lack of knowledge of how the military functions, especially the guard, even moreso with these statements.

Again, I say, posterchild my ass. Perosnal experience and perception is what shapes how people will say they were treated. obviously, you never took kindly to the idea of someone being a "weekend warrior" and thought they were taking the easy route to military honor, when reality is they are working to hold not just their military job and further that career, but also a civilian fulltime job and possibly even a family. Where active soldiers can live in military-paid for housing, inactive soldiers have to pay for all that themselves. We get no stipends for clothes or other basic needs like active on-base soldiers do. You know nothing of the difficulty of being a reservist or guardsman and write it all off as just weekend warrior and not doing anything else the other 28 days of the month, when reality they're actually working just as hard as any active soldier, and even a bit harder than a good-sized chunk of them.

[bergshadow]

A lifelong resident of Brockton, Damon had enlisted in the National Guard in 2000, shipped out to Kuwait in December 2001, then Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, in October 2003.

A helicopter mechanic, he was assigned to inspect for corrosion, cracks, and assorted damage. Army helicopters required scheduled phase maintenance every 250 hours, Damon said, and he and a crew would disassemble each part -- the transmission, blades, landing gear, and more -- then reassemble that component of the aircraft.

''For three weeks, we were doing unscheduled maintenance," Damon said. ''We were waiting for a phase."

A UH-60 Black Hawk finally arrived for phase maintenance Oct. 21, 2003.

''A UH-60 has three wheels, two in the front, one in the back," Damon said. ''We put a jack in each point. Me and another kid, Specialist Paul Bueche, were working on the right side of the landing gear, changing the brakes out.
A helicopter mechanic, albeit not an especially experienced one.

Who objects to news footage of himself appearing in antiwar documentaries, and has found enough support from somewhere to sue a famous political activist for publicity-garnering amounts in an election year.
Sounds to me like you weren't much of a team player. That's bad for morale.

obviously, you never took kindly to the idea of someone being a "weekend warrior" and thought they were taking the easy route to military honor, And the punch line:
If you haven't noticed, speculation doesn't fly well with me. IrishNed joins the club ! :bigwink:

[TFS]

He joined in 2000, and the accident occured in 2003, and you're saying he wasn't experienced?

Holy shit...

The guy was on his second overseas deployment and had been a mechanic for 3 years. How long does it take to be considered experienced in disassembling the same parts?

[bergshadow]

He joined in 2000, and the accident occured in 2003, and you're saying he wasn't experienced? Sometime in 2000 to Oct 2003, minus training and about a year of "one weekend a month" stuff, and assuming he was a certified helicopter mechanic on similar helicopters immediately and worked intensively on just that, gives him a year plus, maybe two, of experience.

The transmission shop down the street from me is hiring. Their idea of "experienced" is five years fulltime work and certified training. I'm speculating that a Black Hawk helicopter is more complicated than a car transmission, and that more strange stuff tends to go wrong in military operation of a vehicle.

[TFS]

Sometime in 2000 to Oct 2003, minus training and about a year of "one weekend a month" stuff, and assuming he was a certified helicopter mechanic on similar helicopters immediately and worked intensively on just that, gives him a year plus, maybe two, of experience.

Training is experience. They don't just look at pictures of blackhawks throughout there 15 weeks of AIT.

Most mechanics I know go in every week at least once. There's always something else that can be spruced up on a blackhawk, and they fly regularly all the time, not just once a month, meaning they need maintainance above and beyond the minimum requirement, and definitely more often than once a month.

You can't properly maintain a helicopter in only 2 days each month.

Plus 2 deployments, the first being a full year (it would have stated otherwise), meaning that is a full year of active experience of doing pretty much nothing but blackhawk maintainance. We don't know how long the second one lasted before he lost his arms.

So that's 4 years of service, 1 of which was active experience, 15 weeks of which was training experience, and the bulk of the rest of the time being pretty much 3/4 time on duty working on the choppers and then whatever time was spent in deployment in 2003.

So that's actually quite a bit of experience, if you ask me.

Nice try with speculating again.

The transmission shop down the street from me is hiring. Their idea of "experienced" is five years fulltime work and certified training. I'm speculating that a Black Hawk helicopter is more complicated than a car transmission, and that more strange stuff tends to go wrong in military operation of a vehicle.

I'll talk to my friend later today and find out what constitutes experienced in his MOS.

But as far as I know, there is no written time frame that constitutes being labelled experienced. Blackhawks are incomparable to cars, and even if they were comparable just because one autoshop says 5 years' experience is required doesn't mean all require that, nor does that mean that is the end-all, be-all measuring stick for what is experienced.

[Necromancer]

Oh no thats the last thing that lard ass wants to hear. He lives a lavish lifestyle eats tons of food, and now he's getting sued? :wah:

[bergshadow]

A year and change full time on Chinooks, 6-7 months full time on Black Hawks (The Boeing Company, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ofLHnww6QGMJ:www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/training/pdf/catalog.pdf+chinook+rim+mechanical+electrical+heli copter&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1, requires a full year of airframe experience in a student applying to their training program for Chinooks)
www.armytimes.com, Issue Date: August 09, 2004

Boiling over ‘Fahrenheit’
Iraq vet’s unintentional cameo in film is insult added to injury
By Gina Cavallaro
Times staff writer
- - - -
Damon, an electrician by trade, joined the Massachusetts National Guard in March 2000 with an eye toward starting a career in aviation, something he had always been interested in. With a young daughter at home, he chose National Guard service over active duty because of the less demanding time requirement.

Right after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Damon, who was assigned to the 126th Aviation Regiment, spent a year at Fort Bragg, N.C., where he repaired and maintained Chinook helicopters.

On March 20, 2003, the day after the war began in Iraq, Damon was called up and served at an airfield in Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad.

Then, on Oct. 21, he and Pfc. Paul Bueche were changing a tire during phase maintenance on a Black Hawk helicopter when the wheel’s split rim exploded, killing Bueche and wounding Damon. I can't find out whether Chinooks have split rims - semitrailers have them, and they are famous hazards. Continuing: Although there are reports that other soldiers who appeared in “Fahrenheit 9/11” are threatening legal action against Moore, Damon says he hasn’t jumped on that bandwagon just yet.
- - - -
“I’m not about to sue anybody,” he said. Changed his mind, for some reason.

As far as representing Moore's contention that vets are often treated shabbily: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1324920
Damon said he was recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and worrying about the future when he remembered he had insurance.
- - -
Months went by and Damon said he started getting the runaround. Then in July 2004, the rejection letter arrived. "I was p-----," Damon said.

So Damon called lawyer Dennis Lynch of South Nyack, whom he met last year at New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade. "How could anybody not be moved by his story?" said Lynch, who took the case pro bono. "A large corporation, in my opinion, was taking advantage of him."
- - -
"I wouldn't be surprised if this happened to other soldiers," Lynch said. Moore would not be surprised if such things happened to other soldiers either - hence the doc.
About Damon's lawyer:
Despite the publicity surrounding its start, the Catholic Alliance has been a low-profile group, both before and after it became independent in 1997.
That year Keith Fournier became its president, after having been head of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative religious-liberty law firm founded by Pat Robertson, who created the Christian Coalition. Mr. Fournier recently stepped down as the Catholic Alliance's president.

Dennis Lynch, a New York lawyer who became the organization's chairman about a month ago, said that it had recently added new board members and that its goal would be "to inform and encourage Catholics to participate in local, state and national affairs." Mr. Lynch said it would not endorse political candidates but would create an Internet site where candidates' positions could be compared with Catholic teaching on social issues.
And an odd little link, to something I did not hear about at the time for some reason: http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0110/gi-special2b93.htm

[Warmonger]

I fell sorry for Damon, but I think he should sue his government instead. There was absolutely NO WMD in Iraq - and still the US went to war. Ok, Saddam was a bastard but who put him there and armed him in the first place?.
How is the United States supposed to teach other countries about democracy, when their own "leadership" is totally corrupt?...

[TFS]

A year and change full time on Chinooks, 6-7 months full time on Black Hawks (The Boeing Company, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ofLHnww6QGMJ:www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/training/pdf/catalog.pdf+chinook+rim+mechanical+electrical+heli copter&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1, requires a full year of airframe experience in a student applying to their training program for Chinooks)
www.armytimes.com, Issue Date: August 09, 2004

I can't find out whether Chinooks have split rims - semitrailers have them, and they are famous hazards. Continuing: Changed his mind, for some reason.

Well, there you have it then. The guy is a money grubber.

If I'm not mistaken, helicopter mechanics are qualified to work on any chopper in the military, but usually specialize in the ones their unit regularly use. I could be wrong, but like I said, when my friend calls me back, I'll get the answers. It might also have changed in recent months too, as now instead of light and heavy land vehicle mechanics, they just have mechanics qualified for all land vehicles.

He still has just as much experience as I listed above though.

And an odd little link, to something I did not hear about at the time for some reason: http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0110/gi-special2b93.htm
I can't imagine any court, UCMJ or otherwise, holding them refusing an obvious suicide mission against them. They have no reason to fear being discharged. Anyone could see the circumstances and rule in their favor. That's why we have the UCMJ: to protect soldiers from wrongful punishment when they do the right thing even if it is a violation of orders.

[IrishNed]

... We don't even train to fire out of fox holes anymore. A lot more has changed than you think. I found out today they're even going back to the low-stress style training with stress cards (a load of horse shit if you ask me) everywhere but Benning.I went thru Fort Benning in 1958; and was never trained to fire out of foxholes.and I don't know what 'stress cards' are.I do also detect a hint of condescending opinion towards me and the other "weekend warriors" you seem to think didn't earn their rank. Not very accepting of us, now, is that? Hypocrite. Every guardsman and every reservist has earned their rank and position the same way every active soldier does. It's just your perception of us only wearing a uniform once a month being equal to "less experience" that comes from your own ignorance of the branches that makes them appear less deserving.You claim to speak for "every guardsman and every reservist:" During my Military career I had occasion to be assigned more than once as an A/D "Advisor" to a National Guard Unit Encampment. They were laughable!
And in more than one instance I encountered people who had been 'gifted' with an MOSQ for which they were not qualified by anyone's measure, so they could be promoted.Sounds to me like you weren't much of a team player. That's bad for morale.No; I was the kind of NCO who would challenge any order given to me or to my subordinates that I thought was questionable. The way I saw it, one of my primary duties was to protect my people (i.e., troops)! That's probably why I retired as an E-7 rather than E-8 or E-9. Don't preach to me about my branch as if you're some authority on it without current experience in it. The age of the fortunate son is over. We guardsmen see as much combat as anyone else.And you don't get the credit you deserve for it. Thank your Commander in Chief for that!
He was a blackhawk mechanic. You have to be a blackhawk mechanic to do any kind of maintainance on the bird. ... Something doesn't add up here: From what you tell us, Sgt. Damon spent 3-years of weekends and Summer deployments working on Chinooks. How did he get MOSQ in Blackhawks??
Then later you write:It might not take a blackhawk mechanic to change a tire on a bird, but that's all that are allowed to do so.

In order for him to be on the floor and changing that tire unsupervised so that accident could even occur, he had to be MOSQ as a blackhawk mechanic ...

... units are not allowed to just magically say someone is MOSQ. They have to have a certificate saying the soldier passed MOS school for that specific MOS to become MOSQ ... Units have no say in that beyond allowing them to attend MOS schools.

Proof of this? If you haven't noticed, speculation doesn't fly well with me.The proof is the Facts! From the facts associated with this incident I must conclude that someone (Damon's NCOIC or someone else with the Aviation Batallion Commander's acquiescence) 'pencil whipped' Sgt. Damon's MOSQ (substituting OJT for required Tech Training) in the interest of Expediency (i.e., to build up their inventory of people qualified to work on Blackhawks). He may have been MOSQ in Chinooks but they needed him to be MOSQ in Blackhawks.

[kledster]

85 million? that's gonna make moore go bankrupt for sure. he doesn't even have a third of that. if this sue goes through you can be sure we will never see another film from moore again.

[Liberator13]

85 million? that's gonna make moore go bankrupt for sure. he doesn't even have a third of that. if this sue goes through you can be sure we will never see another film from moore again.

Thats the point, I think.

[Willkillforfood]

losing both arms and money to lawyers, what will he do if he loses? i am sure he is funded for this lawsuit.

It would be interesting if moore actually wins and claims damages from him. Anyways I hope he loses, I mean if it was for 1 million, okay, 85 million, wtf… try getting that from the us military for losing your arms and they will blow you away.

Anyways, americans are pretty funny, they sue you for anything, even mothers sue their sons and daughters etc. i watched judge judy several times, in a compensation culture people sue for the most retarded reasons.

So you watch Judge Judy to get your takes on Americans? :P