Not Prince Hamlet

"Why of course the people don't want war. . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism�. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal

Captain Pedantic

I agree. His speech could be seen as either pro- or anti-war, depending which side you prefer. And it was all "aren't bad things...bad?" anyway, which hardly constitutes an opinion at all.

Also, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the way he grabbed Halle Berry like that was out of order and being "excited" is simply no excuse.

And no, he's not remotely sexy, gaymo dyke though I may be.

Wyz_sub10

That was my point precisely. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't want a quick resolution (save Lockheed-Martin or Boeing).

Bookman

Riiight. After all, if it doesn't create rancor and disharmony, its not worth saying.

Bookman

GaryP

Agreed. But I also think that the way he was placed in office should never be forgotten.

And the fact that this "unelected" president who promised bi-partinsanship and a "humble" foreign policy has instead introduced pre-emption as a main focus of American policy.


My local paper's opinion of Moore's speech;

[B] First, we defend Moore's right to his opinion. That is, after all, what American soldiers have fought and died for in more than 200 years. Moore may not appreciate that fact, but his freedom of speech so shrilly exhibited Sunday night came at a cost in lives and sacrifice by his fellow Americans. [/B}


http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com...n/1248909.html

I wonder why they think Moore "may not appreciate" the sacrifices of the Armed Services? I guess one can't be "shrill" when one feels strongly about something. Very bad form.

BigJim

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Bookman

It probably won't. It will be a curiosity of American presidential history; that's probably all it deserves.

At least you had the good sense to put unelected in quotes. As for presidents not keeping campaign promises, that hardly started in 2000, now did it?

I couldn't imagine why their editors put it that way. I wouldn't have. He was boorish, not shrill.

Bookman

Bookman

We've been discussing that very site here.

Bookman

Bree

Anyone see Moore on CNN just a few minutes ago? He said that if he could do it all over again, he would have said that the children of Columbine (and the Columbines all over the nation) are being taught again and again that it is OK to solve problems with violence. Very well spoken and thoughtful.

I didn't see Brody's speech as "safe" at all - he made a distinctly anti-war statement - it's not the people, it's the policy. I didn't think he was shallow at all.

kwigibo

I just saw him on CNN too. I thought what he said was ok, but i think i saw a different interview to Bree, so unless you watch CNN asia-pacific i can't really dispute that with anyone. Co-incidentally, it was the first time i actually saw his oscar speech, and i don't see the big deal, except that a bunch of people started booing really loudly, another bunch were clapping, but most of the people, up front at least, just sat there, not sure how to react i guess. The dixie chicks/pope remark was stupid, but other than that it was just a political statement expressing an opinion I pretty much share, so i don't have a problem with it. as for it being the wrong place and time, well, when better to protest a war than in wartime? and as for where, well there's no use protesting alone in your room, the bigger audience spreads your message wider. and the oscars, or 'hollywood masturbating itself' as i 've heard it called this week, doesn't really seem disgraced, to me. So as i see it, if you don't agree with him, you've every right to be annoyed, but i don't think he was out of line otherwise.