Commencement Speeches 2006

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Maybe we could post any and all that we might find interesting, noteworthy, funny, whatever

Here is John McCain's at Liberty University.

Thank you, Dr. Falwell. Thank you, faculty, families and friends, and thank you Liberty University Class of 2006 for your welcome and for your kind invitation to give this year’s commencement address. I want to join in the chorus of congratulations to the Class of 2006. This is a day to bask in praise. You’ve earned it. You have succeeded in a demanding course of instruction. Life seems full of promise as is always the case when a passage in life is marked by significant accomplishment. Today, it might seem as if the world attends you.

But spare a moment for those who have truly attended you so well for so long, and whose pride in your accomplishments is even greater than your own – your parents. When the world was looking elsewhere your parents’ attention was one of life’s certainties. So, as I commend you, I offer equal praise to your parents for the sacrifices they made for you, for their confidence in you and their love. More than any other influence in your lives they have helped make you the success you are today and might become tomorrow.

Thousands of commencement addresses are given every year, many by people with greater eloquence and more original minds than I possess. And it’s difficult on such occasions to avoid resorting to clichés. So let me just say that I wish you all well. This is a wonderful time to be young. Life will offer you ways to use your education, industry and intelligence to achieve personal success in your chosen professions. And it will also offer you chances to know a far more sublime happiness by serving something greater than your self-interest. I hope you make the most of all your opportunities.

When I was in your situation, many, many years ago, an undistinguished graduate – barely – of the Naval Academy, I listened to President Eisenhower deliver the commencement address. I admired President Eisenhower greatly. But I remember little of his remarks that day, impatient as I was to enjoy the less formal celebrations of graduation, and mindful that given my class standing I would not have the privilege of shaking the President’s hand. I do recall, vaguely, that he encouraged his audience of new navy ensigns and Marine lieutenants to become “crusaders for peace.”

I became an aviator and, eventually, an instrument of war in Vietnam. I believed, as did many of my friends, we were defending the cause of a just peace. Some Americans believed we were agents of American imperialism who were not overly troubled by the many tragedies of war and the difficult moral dilemmas that constantly confront soldiers. Ours is a noisy, contentious society, and always has been, for we love our liberties much. And among those liberties we love most, particularly so when we are young, is our right to self-expression. That passion for self-expression sometimes overwhelms our civility, and our presumption that those with whom we have strong disagreements, wrong as they might be, believe that they, too, are answering the demands of their conscience.

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

It’s funny, now, how less self-assured I feel late in life than I did when I lived in perpetual springtime. Some of my critics allege that age hasn’t entirely cost me the conceits of my youth. All I can say to them is, they should have known me then, when I was brave and true and better looking than I am at present. But as the great poet, Yeats, wrote, “All that’s beautiful drifts away, like the waters.” I have lost some of the attributes that were the object of a young man’s vanity. But there have been compensations, which I have come to hold dear.

We have our disagreements, we Americans. We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions: over the size and purposes of our government; over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience and our faithfulness to the God we pray to; over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened. These are important questions; worth arguing about. We should contend over them with one another. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in. It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.

Our country doesn’t depend on the heroism of every citizen. But all of us should be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf. We have to love our freedom, not just for the private opportunities it provides, but for the goodness it makes possible. We have to love it as much, even if not as heroically, as the brave Americans who defend us at the risk and often the cost of their lives. We must love it enough to argue about it, and to serve it, in whatever way our abilities permit and our conscience requires, whether it calls us to arms or to altruism or to politics.

I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. Many Americans did not. My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it. I stand that ground not to chase vainglorious dreams of empire; not for a noxious sense of racial superiority over a subject people; not for cheap oil; -- we could have purchased oil from the former dictator at a price far less expensive than the blood and treasure we’ve paid to secure those resources for the people of that nation; not for the allure of chauvinism, to wreak destruction in the world in order to feel superior to it; not for a foolishly romantic conception of war. I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country’s interests and values required it.

War is an awful business. The lives of the nation’s finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict. Whether the cause was necessary or not, whether it was just or not, we should all shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. However just or false the cause, how ever proud and noble the service, it is loss – the loss of friends, the loss of innocent life, the loss of innocence -- that the veteran feels most keenly forever more. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes war.

Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.

Americans deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other’s respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and our sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in – that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature’s Creator.

We have so much more that unites us than divides us. We need only to look to the enemy who now confronts us, and the benighted ideals to which Islamic extremists pledge allegiance -- their disdain for the rights of Man, their contempt for innocent human life -- to appreciate how much unites us.

Take, for example, the awful human catastrophe under way in the Darfur region of the Sudan. If the United States and the West can be criticized for our role in this catastrophe it is because we have waited too long to intervene to protect the multitudes who are suffering, dying because of it.

Twelve years ago, we turned a blind eye to another genocide, in Rwanda. And when that reign of terror finally, mercifully exhausted itself, with over 800,000 Rwandans slaughtered, Americans, our government, and decent people everywhere in the world were shocked and ashamed of our silence and inaction, for ignoring our values, and the demands of our conscience. In shame and renewed allegiance to our ideals, we swore, not for the first time, “never again.” But never lasted only until the tragedy of Darfur.

Now, belatedly, we have recovered our moral sense of duty, and are prepared, I hope, to put an end to this genocide. Osama bin Laden and his followers, ready, as always, to sacrifice anything and anyone to their hatred of the West and our ideals, have called on Muslims to rise up against any Westerner who dares intervene to stop the genocide, even though Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, are its victims. Now that, my friends, is a difference, a cause, worth taking up arms against.

It is not a clash of civilizations. I believe, as I hope all Americans would believe, that no matter where people live, no matter their history or religious beliefs or the size of their GDP, all people share the desire to be free; to make by their own choices and industry better lives for themselves and their children. Human rights exist above the state and beyond history – they are God-given. They cannot be rescinded by one government any more than they can be granted by another. They inhabit the human heart, and from there, though they may be abridged, they can never be wrenched.

This is a clash of ideals, a profound and terrible clash of ideals. It is a fight between right and wrong. Relativism has no place in this confrontation. We’re not defending an idea that every human being should eat corn flakes, play baseball or watch MTV. We’re not insisting that all societies be governed by a bicameral legislature and a term-limited chief executive. We are insisting that all people have a right to be free, and that right is not subject to the whims and interests and authority of another person, government or culture. Relativism, in this contest, is most certainly not a sign of our humility or ecumenism; it is a mask for arrogance and selfishness. It is, and I mean this sincerely and with all humility, not worthy of us. We are a better people than that.

We are not a perfect nation. Our history has had its moments of shame and profound regret. But what we have achieved in our brief history is irrefutable proof that a nation conceived in liberty will prove stronger, more decent and more enduring than any nation ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many or made from a common race or culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.

As blessed as we are, no nation complacent in its greatness can long sustain it. We, too, must prove, as those who came before us proved, that a people free to act in their own interests, will perceive those interests in an enlightened way, will live as one nation, in a kinship of ideals, and make of our power and wealth a civilization for the ages, a civilization in which all people share in the promise and responsibilities of freedom.

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

All lives are a struggle against selfishness. All my life I’ve stood a little apart from institutions I willingly joined. It just felt natural to me. But if my life had shared no common purpose, it would not have amounted to much more than eccentricity. There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone. I have spent nearly fifty years in the service of this country and its ideals. I have made many mistakes, and I have many regrets. But I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I wasn’t grateful for the privilege. That’s the benefit of service to a country that is an idea and a cause, a righteous idea and cause. America and her ideals helped spare me from the weaknesses in my own character. And I cannot forget it.

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest attainment, and all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did my church, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn’t understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.

In that confrontation, I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, they gave me a larger sense of myself than I had before. And I am a better man for it. I discovered that nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause that encompasses you but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.

Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. Let us defend those beliefs. Let’s do so sincerely and strenuously. It is our right and duty to do so. And let’s not be too dismayed with the tenor and passion of our arguments, even when they wound us. We have fought among ourselves before in our history, over big things and small, with worse vitriol and bitterness than we experience today.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people. But let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals. It should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. I have not always heeded this injunction myself, and I regret it very much.

I had a friend once, who, a long time ago, in the passions and resentments of a tumultuous era in our history, I might have considered my enemy. He had come once to the capitol of the country that held me prisoner, that deprived me and my dearest friends of our most basic rights, and that murdered some of us. He came to that place to denounce our country’s involvement in the war that had led us there. His speech was broadcast into our cells. I thought it a grievous wrong then, and I still do.

A few years later, he had moved temporarily to a kibbutz in Israel. He was there during the Yom Kippur War, when he witnessed the support America provided our beleaguered ally. He saw the huge cargo planes bearing the insignia of the United States Air Force rushing emergency supplies into that country. And he had an epiphany. He had believed America had made a tragic mistake by going to Vietnam, and he still did. He had seen what he believed were his country’s faults, and he still saw them. But he realized he had let his criticism temporarily blind him to his country’s generosity and the goodness that most Americans possess, and he regretted his failing deeply. When he returned to his country he became prominent in Democratic Party politics, and helped elect Bill Clinton President of the United States. He still criticized his government when he thought it wrong, but he never again lost sight of all that unites us.

We met some years later. He approached me and asked to apologize for the mistake he believed he had made as a young man. Many years had passed since then, and I bore little animosity for anyone because of what they had done or not done during the Vietnam War. It was an easy thing to accept such a decent act, and we moved beyond our old grievance.

We worked together in an organization dedicated to promoting human rights in the country where he and I had once come for different reasons. I came to admire him for his generosity, his passion for his ideals, for the largeness of his heart, and I realized he had not been my enemy, but my countryman . . . my countryman . . . and later my friend. His friendship honored me. We disagreed over much. Our politics were often opposed, and we argued those disagreements. But we worked together for our shared ideals. We were not always in the right, but we weren’t always in the wrong either, and we defended our beliefs as we had each been given the wisdom to defend them.

David remained my countryman and my friend, until the day of his death, at the age of forty-seven, when he left a loving wife and three beautiful children, and legions of friends behind him. His country was a better place for his service to her, and I had become a better man for my friendship with him. God bless him.

And may God bless you, Class of 2006. The world does indeed await you, and humanity is impatient for your service. Take good care of that responsibility. Everything depends upon it.

And thank you, very much, for the privilege of sharing this great occasion with you.
 
Anybody here remember their commencement speaker?

Mine was Atom Egoyan.
 
Tony Kushner. The keynote speaker was a Pulitzer Prize winning mathematician whose name I have subsequently forgotten, along with his address, but Kushner was genius. The best two minute speech I've ever heard.
 
McCain gave a nice speech.

Joseph Papp, who was funny and irreverent, and some lady who described the difference between Paris and New York architecture. Mostly I remember how hot it was in Washington Square that day and how I was hoping I wouldn't pass out.
 
Mine will be Nicholas Wolterstorff, one of my school's favorite theologians/philosophers. I'm not going though. Last year we had President Bush :reject:
 
deep said:


What year?

and how was he?

2003.

He was intriguing and political. Different than what I expected, and yet, pleasantly so.
 
Hoping to find a transcript of this one, I love Jodie Foster

By KATHY MATHESON, Associated Press WriterMon May 15, 7:13 PM ET

You can add rapping to the list of Jodie Foster's talents. The Oscar-winning actress spoke Monday at the University of Pennsylvania's commencement ceremonies, ending her address with the chorus of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" from "8 Mile," the semi-autobiographical 2002 film in which he starred.

Foster, who graduated from Ivy League rival Yale University in 1985, received an honorary doctor of arts degree.

She earned laughs from the graduates by taking pictures of them from the podium and then by recalling her own years at Yale. But she struck a serious note later, saying the country and world are worse off than they were four years ago, and challenging graduates to change that.

The U.S. "squandered" the goodwill and sympathy other nations offered after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Foster said. She also criticized officials for the "disastrous and shameful" handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Penn seniors had expressed skepticism and seemed underwhelmed by her selection as commencement speaker when it was announced earlier this year, but she received a standing ovation after her speech.

Foster, 43, won Oscars for 1988's "The Accused" and 1991's "The Silence of the Lambs." She received nominations for her roles in 1976's "Taxi Driver" and 1994's "Nell."

Aimee Masters, 22, who received her bachelor's degree in sociology and women's studies, said Foster was "really inspiring."

"Everyone around me was really happy with what she said," Masters said, adding that quoting Eminem "was surprising, but I liked it."
 
President Clinton's at Tulane University in New Orleans

http://www.grads.tulane.edu/transcript_williamclinton.html

"But, I want to tell you two things seriously that I have learned from a long life. You will be happier if you cultivate what one theologian has called “the discipline of gratitude” to your family, your teachers, to those whose service makes your lives better who are often overlooked — to people who clean your streets and maintain your buildings and serve your food in restaurants. Being grateful in a constant way reminds us that no matter how bad things are, there are a lot of people who are profoundly worse off and it gives us the courage to go on.

My second piece of advice is to dream your dreams and try to live them. For life’s largest disappointments are not rooted in failures or mistakes. Anybody who’s lived long enough has made a fair share of both. The greatest disappointments are in the absence of passionate commitment and effort — the sense of not having tried. You may not end up exactly where you want to go in life, but following your stars will guarantee you a marvelous journey. And it will enable you to begin again. When I think of all you — in this great city I have loved all my life — have endured. I’m reminded of a phrase that Ernest Hemingway made famous: “Life breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.”

The invocation today was a Dixieland rendition of “Just a Closer Walk With Thee.” It was breathtakingly beautiful. And it was done just the way Dixieland bands have done it forever in New Orleans — in a low, grieving, moaning, beautiful dirge. And then at the end of a funeral service — a new beginning, in fast, happy, Dixieland rhythm. Life’s like that. It is always about new beginnings. I wish you many. God bless you."

George Bush Sr's at Tulane

http://www.grads.tulane.edu/transcript_georgehwbush.html

" Billy Graham once said, “Time is the capital we’ve been given by God to invest wisely. So the question is where do we invest it? God calls us to invest our time capital in the very lives of people, not in projects, not in possessions.”

A lot of people out there like to talk about the cynical times in which we live. But as I look around this room and bask in the warmth of your welcome, I still believe there are people out there who care, who are willing to open their hearts to the pain and need around them and do the hard work that makes a positive difference in our world. I still believe there are people out there who seek a higher purpose to serve with their lives during our time together on this earth. And when I look at what happened along the Gulf Coast, I still believe in heroes. When I look at our world, the good I see far outweighs the bad, which maybe explains why I am a real optimist about the future that you all will be facing.

Let me put it this way, back during my Navy days, Word War II Navy pilots had a saying to describe a cloudless a perfect flying day, it says “Ceiling and visibility unlimited,” C.A.V.U. I made a plaque. I put it on our house in Maine. Barbara said, “What’s that doing?” I said never mind, that’s a plaque that I’m putting on here; it reminds me of something very important — “ceiling and visibility unlimited.” And that’s what you wanted to hear when you were climbing into your plane and preparing for the mission ahead — that the skies were clear. So such is my wish for each of you as you prepare to leave Tulane, to tackle the challenges of life ahead. I wish all your days will be blessed with ceiling and visibility unlimited. Lord knows I’ll be pulling for you, so get out there and make us all proud. Thank you very, very much."

Ellen Degeneres gave a cute speech there too, it's on their web site
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051902122.html?nav=rss_nation

PH2006051902125.jpg
 
We didn't have commencement speakers for people who graduated in December. So I didn't have a commencement speaker. I did get invited to honors convocation and I don't even remember the name of the speaker. He was a crashing bore.
 
STING2 said:
I doubt many of New School's students really know what McCain has done in his lifetime for their country. Students and Faculty and Liberty University exibited more tolerance and willingness to listen to a message they may not agree with than New School's.

Remember, a good number probably cannot identify on a map the state McCain represents. Anything more might be asking for too much.
 
Are those actual students, or parents of students with those signs?

I wonder why they worried that people would get confused and think that McCain was "speaking for them" at a graduation ceremony.

Glad they set us straight, I was beginning to think that little guy on the left disagreed with me politically, how dare he.
 
STING2 said:


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:

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 said:


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.
 
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 said:
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 said:

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.
 
STING2 said:
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 said:




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 said:


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."
 
anitram said:


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.
 
Irvine511 said:




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 said:


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.



:shrug:

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 said:




:shrug:

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.
 
Irvine511 said:
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.
 
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.
 
STING2 said:


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.
 
Back
Top Bottom