Everything is political these days. Even commencement speeches.

[Lead]

I'm just not sure why those figures should hold any significance. 20 per year presumably among 1000s, maybe even 10000s of graduations, doesn't seem like a lot.

Those 20 are big names however. We are talking Hilary Clinton, Condeleezza Rice, Mitt Romney. Ten years ago, to have that many high level and successful politicians be turned away over one issue or another was unheard of.

Hasn't it always been this way? Was there some era of America where politicians went around championing the "middle ground" that I missed in my history books?

Not publicly, no. Before the 80's however, congress was far less transparent. There were far more closed meetings and less tv time. Politicians actually had less pressure and more time to compromise on legislation and get things done.

I don't have it on hand now but I could give you an exerpt of an older politician explaining how often in the closed meetings, they would strike a deal which screwed over a lobbyist but was good legislation. When the lobbyist came in and asked if they got their portion into the bill, the guy could say he tried his best and the guy on the other side would said he tried too.

Today, we have hardly no closed meetings, constant C-Span coverage for grandstanding and never any really work on coming to the middle. Congress is historically at a standstill compared to other decades.

 

[Byron Carter]

What's the point in a post like this? Name the supposed war criminal you are talking about and define war criminal. I'm sure your definition would capture many previous presidents.

Engaging and championing one of the biggest lies in American history, to lock us into a perpetual war with a country that we had no business going to war with, and causing the death of countless people, and the mutilation of many others.

 

[Hadron]

Everything is political these days. Even commencement speeches.



What do you all think? As much as you disagree with a politicians ideology or stances, isn't it far better to welcome those opposing views rather than shutting them out? It shocks me that universities have turned away people like Hilary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Condeleeza Rice over a bunch of dick students protesting. I would be pretty happy to have any of those people take time to speak specifically to me and forward advice.

What if it were Hitler coming to speak?

Also, you are saying that turning protesting speeches by political figures has become political "these days"? When has it not. I'm sure a southern university wouldn't be too keen on Abraham Lincoln speaking at their commencement in 1865.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Everything is political these days. Even commencement speeches.



What do you all think? As much as you disagree with a politicians ideology or stances, isn't it far better to welcome those opposing views rather than shutting them out? It shocks me that universities have turned away people like Hilary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Condeleeza Rice over a bunch of dick students protesting. I would be pretty happy to have any of those people take time to speak specifically to me and forward advice.

I'm not aware of any politician on the left being "uninvited" to give a speech. It's the "tolerant and inclusive" bunch that always seems to shout down opposing views. /my rant for the day

 

[CableandThanos]

This is a seemingly odd view. We regularly hear about how universities are liberal brainwashing factors (which is patently untrue) and yet here you're advocating that students shut up, submit, and simply accept what is being put in front of them.
Moreover you go on to say that there is lots that people can't protest and that too is incorrect.

You seemingly have adopted a stance that advocates simply accepting the status quo and muzzling the free speech of students. That, to put it lightly, is fucked up.

I have neve once said that people shouldn't protest, i even stated that in a previous post.

All i said is that The universities need to tell them to go piss off. You don't like it don't show up.

People can fel free to protest, that doesn't mean that a single fuck has to be given.

When conservatives protest about shit on tv, you hear libs say, well change the channel don't watch it.

Well you don't wanna her condi or hillary speak, don't go?

Seems simple enough.

 

[CableandThanos]

Engaging and championing one of the biggest lies in American history, to lock us into a perpetual war with a country that we had no business going to war with, and causing the death of countless people, and the mutilation of many others.

So basically No one in politics, because basically every dem and repub voted to go into Iraq.

Only people left are basically tea partiers since they are so new.

The liberal schools would shit themselves if this is all they had to chosse from LOL!!

 

[MicroBrew]

I'm not aware of any politician on the left being "uninvited" to give a speech. It's the "tolerant and inclusive" bunch that always seems to shout down opposing views. /my rant for the day

Not a politician and opposition was not on political grounds ; Michelle Obama scheduled appearance at a Kansas HS graduation met opposition.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/michelle-obama-kansas-graduation-speech-105840.html

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Not a politician and opposition was not on political grounds ; Michelle Obama scheduled appearance at a Kansas HS graduation met opposition.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/michelle-obama-kansas-graduation-speech-105840.html

It met opposition because families were going to get 2 tickets each to a combined graduation of 6 schools.

And Mrs. Obama wasn't uninvited; they had her speak the day before graduation to all the seniors and then the seniors had their regular graduation ceremony the next day.

 

[Byron Carter]

So basically No one in politics, because basically every dem and repub voted to go into Iraq.

Only people left are basically tea partiers since they are so new.

The liberal schools would shit themselves if this is all they had to chosse from LOL!!

Everyone voted to go to war because of a lie that was perpetuated by Donald Rumsfield, Condy Rice, Bush, and Cheney.

 

[CableandThanos]

Everyone voted to go to war because of a lie that was perpetuated by Donald Rumsfield, Condy Rice, Bush, and Cheney.

No they voted yes to save their own hides. They were afraid that if they voted NO, the would seem unamerican and were afraid that they would be voted out next term.

So to save their own asses, they voted yes (at least a lot of dems did).

 

[Byron Carter]

No they voted yes to save their own hides. They were afraid that if they voted NO, the would seem unamerican and were afraid that they would be voted out next term.

So to save their own asses, they voted yes (at least a lot of dems did).

If there had been no conspiracy to lie about WMD's and chemical weapons, would they have voted to go to war? I don't think so.

 

[CableandThanos]

If there had been no conspiracy to lie about WMD's and chemical weapons, would they have voted to go to war? I don't think so.

Dude, there were plenty of people who knew it was bogus or didn't believe that it was even worth doing, even if they did have WMds.

Not everyone in the house was fooled by the evil genius Bush.

A LOT of them didn't have integrity and voted to keep their jobs. So they are just as guilty as and who voted yes because they really wanted to go to war.

People on one hand act like Bush couldn't string together an entire sentence, but on the other he is some evil genius that was able to trick and entire world basically into being ok with it.