Commencement Speeches 2006 - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-22-2006, 03:25 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I doubt many of New School's students really know what McCain has done in his lifetime for their country.
Fat lot of good John Kerry's service to his country did him when the Republicans decided to smear him.

In any event, this non-story is now becoming a story thanks to an idiot staffer of McCain's who was so stupid that he went and publicly attempted to smear the college student and ended up sounding like a horse's ass.

Details here.

Among other things he said:

Quote:
I am employed by Senator McCain and I helped draft his remarks for the New School commencement ceremony.

...

He has, over and over again, risked personal ambitions for what he believes, rightly or wrongly, are in the best interests of the country. What, pray tell, have you risked? The only person you have succeeded in making look like an idiot is yourself.

...

You took exception to the paragraph in which he lightly deprecated the vanity of youth. Well, Ms. Rohe, and your fellow graduates's comical self-importance deserves a rebuke far stronger than the gentle suggestions he offered you. So, let me leave you with this. Should you grow up and ever get down to the hard business of making a living and finding a purpose for your lives beyond self-indulgence some of you might then know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of living in an echo chamber. And if you are that fortunate, you might look back on the day of your graduation and your discourtesy to a good and honest man with a little shame and the certain knowledge that it very unlikely any of you will ever posses the one small fraction of the character of John McCain.

Mark Salter
Turns out, this girl teaches music to inner city children in her meaningless, purposeless life.

Classy way to encourage discourse in the nation. It is after all, Rove's way.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 03:52 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Fat lot of good John Kerry's service to his country did him when the Republicans decided to smear him.

In any event, this non-story is now becoming a story thanks to an idiot staffer of McCain's who was so stupid that he went and publicly attempted to smear the college student and ended up sounding like a horse's ass.

Details here.

Among other things he said:



Turns out, this girl teaches music to inner city children in her meaningless, purposeless life.

Classy way to encourage discourse in the nation. It is after all, Rove's way.
John Kerry should not have had his service in Vietnam be questioned by anyone. There was no solid proof to the claims made by several people.

That being said, John McCain had served his country and risked his life even before he went to Vietnam. He then spent 7 years in Vietnam in captivity under extreme circumstances. When he was freed, he spent another 7 years in the military. Then he served in Congress starting in 1982 up to this time and has supported the military and weapons purchases required to insure this countries national security. His record of support for the right defense policies and foreign policies over the past 20 years are just as much apart of what he has done for the United States as his Vietnam and military service was.

But it is valid to question what John Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam and left the service. His disgusting anti-war activities and testimony before congress would be enough for anyone to vote against him. Even John Kerry says he feels sick sometimes when he looks at it. He was young at the time though and it would be unfair to judge him simply for that.

What is key is how he governed and what he supported once he ran and was elected to office in 1984. He campaigned against funding of all the key weapon systems from the Reagan defense build of the 1980s. These weapon systems were key in winning the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and are still in use in Iraq today. These advanced weapon systems save soldiers lives, allow for rapid victory on the battlefield with precision weapons which cuts down on unitended losses among the civilian population.

John Kerry stood with Democrats who opposed the removal of Saddam's military from Kuwait with military action in 1991.

I could go on, but the point is, I was not simply talking about McCains service in Vietnam when I mentioned that New School students probably do not know what he has done for their country.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:00 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:46 AM
But, STING, the Swiftboat garbage had nothing to do with what John Kerry did after Vietnam, it was a deliberate slur and smear campaign directed at his SERVICE during times of war and it was disgusting.

And McCain's staffer should get fired, lest us all assume that McCain himself believes that smearing 22 year olds is how he intends to proceed with his campaign.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:11 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
But, STING, the Swiftboat garbage had nothing to do with what John Kerry did after Vietnam, it was a deliberate slur and smear campaign directed at his SERVICE during times of war and it was disgusting.

And McCain's staffer should get fired, lest us all assume that McCain himself believes that smearing 22 year olds is how he intends to proceed with his campaign.
The first thing I said in my post above was this:


"John Kerry should not have had his service in Vietnam be questioned by anyone. There was no solid proof to the claims made by several people."

The smear, although one could argue many of those graduates deserved it, was stupid from a public relations standpoint. You'll never convince someone of your opinion if you first insult them. Whether he should be fired for a post on a blog or not is a different question. Probably not, provided it does not happen again. I sense is expertise is to important to McCains campaign and hopefully this staffer has realized his mistake and how it only hurts the person he is working for.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:17 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The smear, although one could argue many of those graduates deserved it, was stupid from a public relations standpoint.
While you could argue the hecklers deserved it, Salter smeared Jean Rohe who gave an eloquent and polite speech prior to McCain speaking. Therefore he was smearing her directly and not the others in the crowd. As such he's totally out of line.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:23 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I could go on, but the point is, I was not simply talking about McCains service in Vietnam when I mentioned that New School students probably do not know what he has done for their country.


why would you assume this? simply because many, many people disagree with McCain's stances on a variety of issues, not just (but probably most importantly) national security, this does not mean that they are unaware of his military service. it probably does mean that they do not believe that simply because one has performed military service does not mean that one should get a free pass or the benefit of the assumption that they know what's best for the country. highly informed people can have radically different ideas of what is best for the country, and i would surmise that the most dangerous thing to do would be to genuflect at the foot of those in uniform. appreciation is one thing; unquestioned loyalty and the working assumption that those in uniform always know best and should automatically be accorded deference is something entirely different.

i know it's convenient to lump together those who disagree with you as ignorant or, worse, "liberals," but it's little more than lazy thinking.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:34 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




why would you assume this? simply because many, many people disagree with McCain's stances on a variety of issues, not just (but probably most importantly) national security, this does not mean that they are unaware of his military service. it probably does mean that they do not believe that simply because one has performed military service does not mean that one should get a free pass or the benefit of the assumption that they know what's best for the country. highly informed people can have radically different ideas of what is best for the country, and i would surmise that the most dangerous thing to do would be to genuflect at the foot of those in uniform. appreciation is one thing; unquestioned loyalty and the working assumption that those in uniform always know best and should automatically be accorded deference is something entirely different.

i know it's convenient to lump together those who disagree with you as ignorant or, worse, "liberals," but it's little more than lazy thinking.
Its also rather lazy not to read what I wrote above where I specifically point out that when I was discussing what McCain had done for this country, it goes well beyond simply his military service!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:37 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its also rather lazy not to read what I wrote above where I specifically point out that when I was discussing what McCain had done for this country, it goes well beyond simply his military service!


and many informed people can easily look at his record:

[q]When he was freed, he spent another 7 years in the military. Then he served in Congress starting in 1982 up to this time and has supported the military and weapons purchases required to insure this countries national security. His record of support for the right defense policies and foreign policies over the past 20 years are just as much apart of what he has done for the United States as his Vietnam and military service was.
[/q]

and say that such actions do not speak for them and were not good for the country.

i understand that you believe that these were the "right" defense policies, but you have to be at least self-aware enough to know that simply asserting that they were "right" does not make them "right."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:41 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


While you could argue the hecklers deserved it, Salter smeared Jean Rohe who gave an eloquent and polite speech prior to McCain speaking. Therefore he was smearing her directly and not the others in the crowd. As such he's totally out of line.
I would not describe her speach as polite, although its obvious many of her fellow students could have done a lot worse. Whether he was smearing Jean Rohe or Jean Rohe and the other graduates, it was the wrong thing to say coming from someone in his position.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 05:17 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and many informed people can easily look at his record:

[q]When he was freed, he spent another 7 years in the military. Then he served in Congress starting in 1982 up to this time and has supported the military and weapons purchases required to insure this countries national security. His record of support for the right defense policies and foreign policies over the past 20 years are just as much apart of what he has done for the United States as his Vietnam and military service was.
[/q]

and say that such actions do not speak for them and were not good for the country.

i understand that you believe that these were the "right" defense policies, but you have to be at least self-aware enough to know that simply asserting that they were "right" does not make them "right."
Simply asserting that they he was wrong does not make him wrong either.

I make assertions based on what I know, and the preponderance of evidence in this case is on the side of those that supported the Reagan Defense build up. I question whether those "informed" people who oppose it ever seriously took the time to study the issues in depth. Typically it would take some strong philisophical aversion to the military and military action to ignore or deny the facts in many of these cases. Obviously, if one is a true pacifist, they will never agree with any sort of military spending or military action.


In terms of National Security, history and experience has proven those that supported the Reagan Defense build up to be correct. For example, an objective comparison of the capabilities of the M1 Tank purchased in the 1980s to replace the M 60 Tank would show that those who supported development and purchase of the M1 Tank were correct, as opposed to those who simply wanted to continue with the outdated M 60 Tank. Furthermore, its battlefield performance over the past 20 years serves as more evidence proving they were correct.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 05:40 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Simply asserting that they he was wrong does not make him wrong either.

I make assertions based on what I know, and the preponderance of evidence in this case is on the side of those that supported the Reagan Defense build up. I question whether those "informed" people who oppose it ever seriously took the time to study the issues in depth. Typically it would take some strong philisophical aversion to the military and military action to ignore or deny the facts in many of these cases. Obviously, if one is a true pacifist, they will never agree with any sort of military spending or military action.


In terms of National Security, history and experience has proven those that supported the Reagan Defense build up to be correct. For example, an objective comparison of the capabilities of the M1 Tank purchased in the 1980s to replace the M 60 Tank would show that those who supported development and purchase of the M1 Tank were correct, as opposed to those who simply wanted to continue with the outdated M 60 Tank. Furthermore, its battlefield performance over the past 20 years serves as more evidence proving they were correct.




so one tank works better than another. this completly ignores larger issues regarding the arms race and the military build-up of the 1980s which extend far beyond comparing one tank to the next and into issues of exactly what a nation's priorities are and what it should be spending it's money on, whether or not governments misunderstand the rationale of their opponent, whether or not the US purposefully overestimated the military capabilites of the USSR (as was certainly the case in the 1970s), the escalation of the risk of accidental deployment as well as such technology falling into the wrong hands (the Dirty Bomb that will eventually go off in a major American city will most likely have it's origins in the 1980s military build-up), massive budget deficits, restrictions on civil liberties, the mushrooming of the military-industrial complex to the point where we now stand where it is simply good business to go to war combined with the attitude of "we've got these guns, might as well use 'em."

it's simply far more complex than you make it out to be.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 08:22 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






so one tank works better than another. this completly ignores larger issues regarding the arms race and the military build-up of the 1980s which extend far beyond comparing one tank to the next and into issues of exactly what a nation's priorities are and what it should be spending it's money on, whether or not governments misunderstand the rationale of their opponent, whether or not the US purposefully overestimated the military capabilites of the USSR (as was certainly the case in the 1970s), the escalation of the risk of accidental deployment as well as such technology falling into the wrong hands (the Dirty Bomb that will eventually go off in a major American city will most likely have it's origins in the 1980s military build-up), massive budget deficits, restrictions on civil liberties, the mushrooming of the military-industrial complex to the point where we now stand where it is simply good business to go to war combined with the attitude of "we've got these guns, might as well use 'em."

it's simply far more complex than you make it out to be.
Once again, your taken things I'm saying out of context. I simply used a single example to quickly make my point, I never stated this was the only example and reason for supporting the Reagan Defense build up.

The United States never overestimated the capabilities of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies. Its primary responsibility during the Cold War was preventing a Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe and if it failed in this effort to be able to effectively respond to the invasion without having to resort to the use of Nuclear Weapons, which would have unpredictable consequences. The military imbalance that existed between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe in the 1970s is what made the Reagan defense build up a necessity. The need for better tanks to counter the numerical superiority of Soviet Warsaw Pact forces was crucial to defending or detering a Soviet Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. I can break down the numbers, quality of equipment going well beyond the examination of the tank issue, in order to further explain that point.

The United States did not have the luxery of simply assuming that the Soviet rational was this or that. It had to respond to the military facts on the ground in order to deter war or insure that it could successfully defend Western Europe if war happened, regardless of idea's of what the Soviet leadership was up to.

Its vital that the country be prepared for war with the best equipment technology can provide. Failing to do so cost lives and risk the country's security. The failure of the United States to be properly prepared for World War I, and World War II cost lives and made those wars longer than they had to be. The failure to act earlier and the impact that could of had was also learned. The United States learned these lessons and spent much of the Cold War and Post Cold War years attempting to be prepared for every possible risk to the country's security. In doing so, the United States successfully defended much of the planet from Communist expansion, successfully detered a war with the Soviet Union, while maintaining a strong economy. The United States came out of the Cold War stronger than it had ever been while the Soviet Union collapsed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 05:58 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
he Dirty Bomb that will eventually go off in a major American city will most likely have it's origins in the 1980s military build-up
Sorry but this statement is a little bewildering, a dirty bomb is not made with weapons grade material - it is just a mixture of radiactive material and explosives that can contaminate an area when it gets blown up ~ the bomb and radiation itself is relatively harmless (as in when it goes off it wont kill a lot of people through radioactivity - provided there is no long term exposure), the panic and cleanup costs are the problem.

Anyhow most of the material from recent plots have been taken from the former Soviet Union, I fail to see how the buildup of the 1980's is directly linked to how well Russia disposes old medical equipment or keeps its radioactive waste protected.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 08:27 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:46 AM
NY Daily News

A New School student apologized to Sen. John McCain for hijacking his commencement address, but said her controversial speech was "what my conscience called for."

"I said, 'I'm really sorry I had to do that.' And he said, 'Oh, it's all right, I understand,'" Jean Sara Rohe told the Daily News yesterday.

Rohe, 21, said she was unprepared for the angry response she got from McCain's camp after she spoke out against his support of the Iraq war and her fellow graduates heckled and booed him.

The Republican senator from Arizona, who is widely expected to make a bid for the presidency in 2008, said the New School students "could learn a lesson in courtesy." One of his aides called Rohe "an idiot."

"It took no courage to do what you did, Ms. Rohe. It was an act of vanity and nothing more," Mark Salter wrote on the HuffingtonPost blog.

"None of this was disrespectful. It was in keeping with his value of self-expression," countered Rohe, who was selected to deliver remarks on behalf of the graduates.

An angry Salter tried to downplay his comments yesterday, describing the Brooklyn grad as "a supercilious young lady with slightly unfair things to say."

"We're not at war with Jean Sara Rohe. I'm sure we don't particularly care," he sniffed.

New School President Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who invited McCain to speak, praised Rohe for her bravery Friday.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 09:54 AM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Once again, your taken things I'm saying out of context. I simply used a single example to quickly make my point, I never stated this was the only example and reason for supporting the Reagan Defense build up.

The United States never overestimated the capabilities of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies. Its primary responsibility during the Cold War was preventing a Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe and if it failed in this effort to be able to effectively respond to the invasion without having to resort to the use of Nuclear Weapons, which would have unpredictable consequences. The military imbalance that existed between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe in the 1970s is what made the Reagan defense build up a necessity. The need for better tanks to counter the numerical superiority of Soviet Warsaw Pact forces was crucial to defending or detering a Soviet Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. I can break down the numbers, quality of equipment going well beyond the examination of the tank issue, in order to further explain that point.

The United States did not have the luxery of simply assuming that the Soviet rational was this or that. It had to respond to the military facts on the ground in order to deter war or insure that it could successfully defend Western Europe if war happened, regardless of idea's of what the Soviet leadership was up to.

Its vital that the country be prepared for war with the best equipment technology can provide. Failing to do so cost lives and risk the country's security. The failure of the United States to be properly prepared for World War I, and World War II cost lives and made those wars longer than they had to be. The failure to act earlier and the impact that could of had was also learned. The United States learned these lessons and spent much of the Cold War and Post Cold War years attempting to be prepared for every possible risk to the country's security. In doing so, the United States successfully defended much of the planet from Communist expansion, successfully detered a war with the Soviet Union, while maintaining a strong economy. The United States came out of the Cold War stronger than it had ever been while the Soviet Union collapsed.


STING, you used an isolated example to try to make a broad point, which wasn't a terribly effective tool to make an argument. i didn't take a thing out of context -- i said that your example was irrelevant. the point i am making is that direct one-to-one comparisons of tanks are totally irrelevant to the larger picture. a break down of tank needs in Western Europe has little to do with the larger ideological framework of the Cold War and that McCain was "right" to vote for military spending increases.

you've given your view of the larger picture, apart from this tank vs. that tank, and you must know that what you present is far from the unbiased truth -- and there's much evidence out there that points to the continuous and deliberate overestimation of the Soviet Union in order to feed the military industrial complex and make many, many defense contractors very, very rich.

ever hear of Team B and the fabrication of the "window of vulnerability" where then director of the CIA Geroge H.W. Bush allowed a panel of hardliner outsiders to second-guess the CIA's findings (Rumsfeld was involved as well). they gave a depiction of Soviet intentions and capabilities that seemed extreme at the time and looks ludicrous in retrospect, but it directly led to the Reagan arms build-up of the 1980s. in the 1970s, the CIA said that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, it could barely afford to feed their own people, and it would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

and just what current debacle does this sound like?

also, to simply say that the US "defended the planet from Communist expansion" ignores the tens of thousands who were killed via proxy wars, violent coups, and horrible right wing dictatorships installed by the US in places like Chile, Nicaragua, and Indonesia; the supplying of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan with arms; the supplying of arms to the Iranians; etc.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com