newbie Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Yep, for 75 million. Let's see how MSM handles this one. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69383.htm Quote
Nocrap Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Yep, for 75 million. Let's see how MSM handles this one. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69383.htm I think that Farenheit 911 was an important documentary and it will be a shame if one small bit of newsreel does anything to discredit the message. I know that the same Republican PR firm that claims victory for Stephen Harper's recent win was also hired to downplay Moore and his films, so this is no doubt just a bit more PR for radical right Bush Administration (it's too late Georgie Boy). I feel for the soldier and his injuries but will lose respect for Mike Moore if he backs down. Quote
sharkman Posted June 2, 2006 Report Posted June 2, 2006 Moore's 'documentaries' are anything but and it's sad to see someone getting rich off other people's hatred of Bush. I can't help but wonder if this soldier is being finaced and by whom. I'd send him a cheque it it looked like he might get an objective or non liberal judge. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 3, 2006 Report Posted June 3, 2006 It will fail. He must have signed a disclaimer in order to have his face in the movie. It might have been used out of context, but he signed the waiver. This will get nowhere. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Montgomery Burns Posted June 4, 2006 Report Posted June 4, 2006 It will fail. He must have signed a disclaimer in order to have his face in the movie. It might have been used out of context, but he signed the waiver. This will get nowhere. I've seen him a couple of times in the last few days on Fox News. He insists that he never agreed to be in Moore's Bush-thrashing crockumentary, that Moore never interviewed him, and that he backs the Commander-in-Chief (can you imagine someone in the military saying they back John Kerry?) Before you get too upset about Fox News, both times the anchor/host (IIRC one was Neil Cavuto and the other was one of the Fox and Friends hosts) asked him "why $85 million?" Damon said that his lawyer came up with that figure. If you want to read the full article, the registration email address is: [email protected] and the password is nypost. Quote "Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!" -- Iraqi Betty Dawisha, after dropping her vote in the ballot box, wields The Cluebatâ„¢ to the anti-liberty crowd on Dec 13, 2005. "Call me crazy, but I think they [iraqis] were happy with thier [sic] dumpy homes before the USA levelled so many of them" -- Gerryhatrick, Feb 3, 2006.
Johnny Utah Posted June 4, 2006 Report Posted June 4, 2006 Yep, for 75 million. Let's see how MSM handles this one. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69383.htm The MSM so far has nothing to say, shocking isn't it? Quote
BHS Posted June 4, 2006 Report Posted June 4, 2006 I think the suit will fail as well, if Moore challenges it. The guy's laywer is probably hoping Moore will settle quickly to get the story out of the news. When you agree to a TV interview, the interview footage becomes the property of the interviewing entity, in this case NBC. If NBC chose to sell the interview footage to Moore that's between them. I don't think the guy has any option to intervene. What I object to in the Post's story is the line in the first paragraph refering to Moore as a "peacenik". Moore isn't a pacifist. He's an anti-captitalist opportunist who's using using anti-war sentiment to attack his favourite bogeymen and make himself a tidy profit in the process. I went to see United 93 when it came out. The big news story was that their was a shrill little contingent (since disappeared - the MSM knows how to pick 'em) who felt it was too early to do a movie about 911. Here's Moore, mocking the events of that day, two years ago. I don't remember anyone saying it was too early for fat arrogant blohards to make accusations against their own goverment in an election year in 2004. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.