Michael Moore once again proves what a scumbag he is

[Jess from VA]

V sued K for statements in his book.  A disputed altercation in which V was not named (but later widely referred to as the other guy).  Then K got killed.  V had K's wife substituted as defendant.  K's wife's attempt to move trial to TX (where she has two small kids) was denied.  Trial was held (while K's wife is preparing to participate in K's killer's trial back in TX).  K was dead and could not testify.  There was he-said, she-said testimony both ways (people did confirm an altercation involving V, but not clearly involving K). $1.8mil verdict for V.  K's wife gets proceeds of K's book, and planned to give much to charity, and raise her kids. 

Right or wrong, V won his claim he was defamed by K.  He is vindicated.  For V to take money from charity and K's widow and kids is not so very honorable.  I have no idea what K's (and thus his widow's) net share of book sales and movie rights amounts to ($). 

I don't much care about other (unrelated) he-said she-said.

[Willow]

True or not, he sued and won.  Chris Kyle is dead.  Venture is still suing his wife.  His wife has nothing to do with it.  As far as I'm concerned, Ventura is scum.  

This is how I feel about it....

Marcus Luttrell reacts to Jesse Ventura verdict

I agree with the point made in the video.  If Jesse Ventura is telling the truth of the legal action being not about the money but about clearing his name then he should prove it by not accepting or giving back the money.

The case was about Chris Kyle allegedly defaming Jesse Ventura.  No matter what Chris said or did he certainly could have not done more to ruin Jesse's character than Jesse Ventura did by pursuing a law suit against the widow of a hero.

[musclehead]

Well actually he said his uncle was killed by a German sniper and they were taught snipers were cowards. Not to defend him but I can understand if that happened to a family member your family would be critical of snipers and teach you that.

So, if a family member was killed by a bayonet, then that soldier would be a coward also?  i.e., ALL soldiers thus would be cowards.

I think someone who is living under the protection of thousands of soldiers, living and dead, and calls them cowards, is the true coward.

MP

Bayonet is up close and personal. Eye to eye with the person you are fighting.
There was a time when submariners were considered cowards because they sneaked up and sank shipping from below. But that's changed over time also. Snipers are a vital part of warfare and as the saying goes, All is fair in love AND war.

true, we stepped away from sniping as a military measure after WWII, and it got us nothing but pain. if we allow our enemies to do the sneaky and underhanded and we don't adopt similar tactics we will be in a world of hurt.

[MP]

Why is using a sniper "sneaky and underhanded"?

Why is it different than say, a patrol doing a raid behind enemy lines?  Is that also "sneaky and underhanded"?

[Patrick]

I saw the movie the other night. It was very good! I also have a great respect for White Feather, Carlos Hathcock. He was also legendary in his own right with 93 confirmed kills. Carlos stated that he actually had over 300 kills but since there were no other witnesses, they couldn't be verified. Without Carlos's accomplishments, the Sniper program was going to be scrapped. His accomplishments made the Marines change their mind. Hathcock once killed an enemy sniper by shooting him in the eye...through his own rifle scope. The only way that could be done is if they were simultaneously aiming at each other. Luckily, Carlos fired first.

Carlos and many many others. Good people.

For sure! Amen to that!

I don't mean to take anything away from Carlos, he was very dedicated and did a great job and am upset that the military treated him and his family like crap when he developed MS. But, that was kinda common then.
I only made mention because their were/are others that did a good job.
I got to know 'Bert' fairly well and liked that he used the M21.

[J.Mencalice]

A British captain and trained marksman, Patrick Ferguson, had George Washington in his sights at less than 300 feet in 1777 when Washington turned his horse back towards his own line.

The British captain would not shoot him in the back due to the rules of engagement in those times.

Had he not been an honorable man we might all be speaking with a cockney accent and singing "God Save the Queen".