• Sharebar

Obama spoke at University of Michigan's graduation earlier today. I don't know details but it pretty much had to have been in the football stadium if there were 80,000 people there. Just curious - anyone happen to attend? And what were your thoughts? I couldn't find a replay of it online and doubt I'd want to listen to the whole thing anyway, but given the recent news with Goldman and the economy being point #1 in general over the past year or two, I am sure a some of what Mr. Pres spoke about related to us monkeys in the jungle.

Comments (53)

  • coffeebateman's picture

    If he spoke at my graduation I would not be attending.

    --------------------------------------------------------
    "I do not think there is any other quality so essential to success of any kind as the quality of perseverance. It overcom

  • giants92's picture

    I was there -- yes it was in the Big House, it was about 75% full... the remaining 25% was roped off. The speech was fantastic -- approx. 20 minutes I would say? I believe it aired on CNN. He mentioned Wall Street once, spoke a bit about the current struggle we're in, but was mostly advising on coming together, diminishing nasty banter, trying to do what's best for the world going forward. I'm sure you can find a good recap online or the actual video. Was wishfully hoping for some awesome plan unveiling (a la LBJ's Great Society announcement when he spoke at our graduation in the 1960s... or JFK announcing his plans for the Peace Core on the Diag a few years earlier), but great speech nonetheless.

    coffeebateman wrote:
    If he spoke at my graduation I would not be attending.

    Idiot.

  • MarkyMarkWahlbergWasAwesome's picture

    is it still illegal to say i'd toss a live grenade onto the stage when i passed by to get my diploma if obama was speaking at my graduation?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    "I just want to be a monkey of average intelligence who wears a suit. I'll go to business school!"

  • BespokeAnalyst2010's picture

    it was good. fyi, did you see there were snipers up on the roof of the Big House. Obama dropped in from his Marine One copter...baller.

    --------------------------------------------------
    "Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'Would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do NOT do that thing."
    -Dwight Schrute, "The Office"-

  • rebelcross's picture

    Hey anybody notice how ever since it has become clear that there is strong anti-Obama and anti-liberal sentiment on this site the new trend has been to show how intelligent you are by "not conforming," "going against the grain," and "keeping an open mind to Obama," and labelling anybody who doesn't do so as "ignorant?"

    What these sheeple don't realize in their desperate attempt to look intelligent by siding with the minority is that you are just as sheepish for blindly going against the grain as you would be for blindly falling in line with the masses. So-called "intellectualism," which has really just become a rejection of the common man's philosophy, is just as low and blind a position as that of the simpleton himself. Both are positions which merely judge on surface issues.

    For you all sheeple who think you look so intelligent by labelling our recent backlash towards all things Obama on this site as "ignorance," and think you look intelligent because you simply took a minority stand, think again. You are not judged by whether you are with the majority or the minority, simply by philosophical right or wrong regardless of who else may support that position. And in this case, the majority has a very good case for their revulsion towards the left. So you are not impressing anybody.

  • bbc's picture

    I was there. Just graduated! (or in other words, recently unemployed!)

    Anyways, I thought his speech was great. I know many hardcore republicans who appreciated his speech as well. The main points I got from his speech was 1) the Constitution is a living document. How it is interpreted should reflect the changing times. 2) listen to the other perspective 3) democracy is alive because of citizen participation.

    He also noted that we should move towards civil discourse and debate rather than trash talking. Its not doing this country any good. FYI, this was directed at both liberals and conservatives.

  • ke18sb's picture

    I think regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics, it's pretty cool to have the speaker at your graduation be the President. Talk about memorable; that is something you will never forget. Not to mention his speech wasn't partisan (I watched it). I wasn't a huge Bush fan, but had he spoken at my graduation, I would have been excited.

  • In reply to bbc
    Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    jhc wrote:
    I was there. Just graduated! (or in other words, recently unemployed!)

    Anyways, I thought his speech was great. I know many hardcore republicans who appreciated his speech as well. The main points I got from his speech was 1) the Constitution is a living document. How it is interpreted should reflect the changing times. 2) listen to the other perspective 3) democracy is alive because of citizen participation.

    He also noted that we should move towards civil discourse and debate rather than trash talking. Its not doing this country any good. FYI, this was directed at both liberals and conservatives.

    I was at a doctor's office and was forced to listen to the entire speech. It was the most disingenuous 40 minutes of bullsh*t I have listend to in a long time. The guy is the most partisan president in 50 years and has personally attacked the GOP leadership by name and consistently attacks talk radio and Fox News and yet a large portion of his speech was dedicated to "bi-partisanship" and civil discourse. He kept setting up these false arguments about how gov't has done this and that that was good in the past and he pointed to things such as Eisenhower's interstate highway system--but he conveniently left out little details like how the interstate highway system isn't unconstitutional like half of what gov't does is.

    The whole speech was infuriating and idiotic.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    furiousgeorge86's picture

    rebelcross wrote:
    Hey anybody notice how ever since it has become clear that there is strong anti-Obama and anti-liberal sentiment on this site the new trend has been to show how intelligent you are by "not conforming," "going against the grain," and "keeping an open mind to Obama," and labelling anybody who doesn't do so as "ignorant?"

    What these sheeple don't realize in their desperate attempt to look intelligent by siding with the minority is that you are just as sheepish for blindly going against the grain as you would be for blindly falling in line with the masses. So-called "intellectualism," which has really just become a rejection of the common man's philosophy, is just as low and blind a position as that of the simpleton himself. Both are positions which merely judge on surface issues.

    For you all sheeple who think you look so intelligent by labelling our recent backlash towards all things Obama on this site as "ignorance," and think you look intelligent because you simply took a minority stand, think again. You are not judged by whether you are with the majority or the minority, simply by philosophical right or wrong regardless of who else may support that position. And in this case, the majority has a very good case for their revulsion towards the left. So you are not impressing anybody.

    I am left on the spectrum, but I don't label differing opinions as "ignorant". I like to hear every side of the argument. I recently had a debate with a lot of my colleagues (just like on this site, I am quite outnumbered) about healthcare. What it boiled down to was an individualistic view of the nation. I am willing to pay an extra 5% of my taxes so that others can have healthcare. My colleagues aren't, which I'm not saying is a bad thing. I think my colleagues appreciate why I feel my tax dollars should be used that way, just as I understand their individualism, because really the individualistic spirit is what our country was built upon. I think that kind of conversation is what Obama was talking to.

    I think that in order to learn how you really feel, you have to look at it from every way. That's the only real way to look at the root of the problem. I've had arguments with people on the right that really made me question my view of an issue. So I'd say, whether you love or hate Obama, trying to look at every side of the argument is really a good thing. Its definitely better than polarizing yourself.

  • In reply to ke18sb
    PaperTrail's picture

    ke18sb wrote:
    I think regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics, it's pretty cool to have the speaker at your graduation be the President. Talk about memorable; that is something you will never forget. Not to mention his speech wasn't partisan (I watched it). I wasn't a huge Bush fan, but had he spoken at my graduation, I would have been excited.

    I agree 100%. The President of the United States is probably one of the top 3 most influential people in the world and to have a chance to see them, at your graduation nonetheless, is pretty phenomenal. Big ups to U of M for making this a tradition there. I just wish my school had someone that I had heard of before. I don't even remember the dude's name now.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    Stringer Bell's picture

    rebelcross wrote:
    Hey anybody notice how ever since it has become clear that there is strong anti-Obama and anti-liberal sentiment on this site the new trend has been to show how intelligent you are by "not conforming," "going against the grain," and "keeping an open mind to Obama," and labelling anybody who doesn't do so as "ignorant?"

    What these sheeple don't realize in their desperate attempt to look intelligent by siding with the minority is that you are just as sheepish for blindly going against the grain as you would be for blindly falling in line with the masses. So-called "intellectualism," which has really just become a rejection of the common man's philosophy, is just as low and blind a position as that of the simpleton himself. Both are positions which merely judge on surface issues.

    For you all sheeple who think you look so intelligent by labelling our recent backlash towards all things Obama on this site as "ignorance," and think you look intelligent because you simply took a minority stand, think again. You are not judged by whether you are with the majority or the minority, simply by philosophical right or wrong regardless of who else may support that position. And in this case, the majority has a very good case for their revulsion towards the left. So you are not impressing anybody.

    I think people on this site are anit Obama because he's easily the least capitalist friendly president since Carter (given the chance). His agenda isn't necessarily bad (what's wrong with everyone being healthy & having access to healthcare) it's just at the worst fucking time. He openly baggers & scorns large financial institutions that their restricted lending to the MM, yet behind the mike tells them "welcome to bureaucracy," & does everything possible to do the opposite. He's a horrible president for state of our country. He was elected on gimmics, twitter, & millions of people who couldn't give one legitimate reason why they voted for him.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    Stringer Bell's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever wrote:
    jhc wrote:
    I was there. Just graduated! (or in other words, recently unemployed!)

    Anyways, I thought his speech was great. I know many hardcore republicans who appreciated his speech as well. The main points I got from his speech was 1) the Constitution is a living document. How it is interpreted should reflect the changing times. 2) listen to the other perspective 3) democracy is alive because of citizen participation.

    He also noted that we should move towards civil discourse and debate rather than trash talking. Its not doing this country any good. FYI, this was directed at both liberals and conservatives.

    I was at a doctor's office and was forced to listen to the entire speech. It was the most disingenuous 40 minutes of bullsh*t I have listend to in a long time. The guy is the most partisan president in 50 years and has personally attacked the GOP leadership by name and consistently attacks talk radio and Fox News and yet a large portion of his speech was dedicated to "bi-partisanship" and civil discourse. He kept setting up these false arguments about how gov't has done this and that that was good in the past and he pointed to things such as Eisenhower's interstate highway system--but he conveniently left out little details like how the interstate highway system isn't unconstitutional like half of what gov't does is.

    The whole speech was infuriating and idiotic.

    Very well put.

  • giants92's picture

    Quote:
    The guy is the most partisan president in 50 years

    Joke.

    Bush polarized this country at a quicker rate than ever before with his partisan politics. From the beginning of the Eisenhower years in 1953 to the end of the Carter years in 1981, partisan differences in presidential approval averaged roughly a little over thirty percentage points. Starting with the Reagan years, partisan differences averaged over fifty percentage points and rose steadily to approximately seventy-five percentage points for George W. Bush, apart from a temporary decline immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

  • In reply to Stringer Bell
    rebelcross's picture

    Westfald, I agree with a lot of what you said except:

    westfald wrote:
    His agenda isn't necessarily bad (what's wrong with everyone being healthy & having access to healthcare) it's just at the worst fucking time.

    There are very large philosophical and moral problems with the government assuming it has the right to that level of determination over people's lives and forcing that level of participation on the part of its citizens in the state, i.e. the erosion of self-determinism, liberty if you will. Concepts that have been argued ad nauseum on here, just do a search, they need not be argued again.

    It's not as simple as, "oh I see a problem, gee, why doesn't the government fix it." That's the same kind of short-sighted approach that leads to things like "Carl Levin" happening.

  • In reply to giants92
    rebelcross's picture

    giants92 wrote:
    Quote:
    The guy is the most partisan president in 50 years

    Joke.

    Bush polarized this country at a quicker rate than ever before with his partisan politics. From the beginning of the Eisenhower years in 1953 to the end of the Carter years in 1981, partisan differences in presidential approval averaged roughly a little over thirty percentage points. Starting with the Reagan years, partisan differences averaged over fifty percentage points and rose steadily to approximately seventy-five percentage points for George W. Bush, apart from a temporary decline immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

    What a stupid post. Did Bush polarize this country, or was it the media's constant onslaught of all things anti-Bush, all things Bush is stupid, all things Bush is Hitler, all things Bush is evil, all things we need social reform that led to this "polarization?"

    Bush never forced policies down the throat of the left, and down the throat of the American people, even when he had significant majorities. In fact, Bush was too weak willed in that he couldn't get very much of what he wanted done. Remember the privatization of Social Security? That has been the Republicans' baby for years, much like Health Care is to the left. Even with major majorities, as soon as the Left got their panties in a knot, he made the issue disappear faster than Jimmy Hoffa.

    And Bush certainly didn't use every trick and consitutional loophole in his aresenal to force the one of the most hated and sweeping pieces of legislation in American history through the congress and onto the American people, where it has been thoroughly rejected at every level. So no matter what you think about Bush, I think it is safe to say that Obama is a bit more partisan than he was, dumbass.

  • In reply to giants92
    Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    giants92 wrote:
    Quote:
    The guy is the most partisan president in 50 years

    Joke.

    Bush polarized this country at a quicker rate than ever before with his partisan politics. From the beginning of the Eisenhower years in 1953 to the end of the Carter years in 1981, partisan differences in presidential approval averaged roughly a little over thirty percentage points. Starting with the Reagan years, partisan differences averaged over fifty percentage points and rose steadily to approximately seventy-five percentage points for George W. Bush, apart from a temporary decline immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

    What's the stat? Something like 75% of all statistics are made up? I mean, there is no, umm, evidence for what you're saying at all.

    But here are some "partisan" policies of George W. Bush:

    1) McCain-Feingold
    2) No Child Left Behind
    3) Medicare part D
    4) Massive expansion of the Department of Education
    5) Largest increase of gov't in history
    6) New federal bureaucracy (Homeland Security)
    7) McCain-Kennedy amnesty immigration reform
    8) TARP
    9) Major expansion of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

    These are the facts: Bush was the most liberal president of our generation. In what way was Bush "partisan"? He was more of a partisan Democrat than anything else. Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had overwhelming bi-partisan support.

  • LazyIntellectual's picture

    "So called conservatism"

    tax cuts for corporations, more-so than citizens
    huge increases in government spending
    an unnecessary military occupation (lied to get us in Iraq without even taking care of the essential war)
    leading to record deficits

    replace military occupation with iran-contra affair and uve got Reagan's presidency (a fiscal disaster)

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    How is a military occupation that had overwhelming bi-partisan support in the US House and Senate "partisan" conservatism? How are huge increases in gov't spending "conservative"? That's fundamentally liberal Democratic (see Roosevelt and Johnson).

  • LazyIntellectual's picture

    His fiscal policies were conservative, the war had bi-partisan support because he knowingly lied about the circumstances, the huge increases in govt spending were not in liberal sectors but mostly in the military... again a fiscal disaster.

    increasing MILITARY spending is very conservative
    decreasing CORPORATE taxes is very conservative
    not to mention that complete pro-corporation/business farce of a pharmaceutical bill (a huge part of the health care problem) he signed.

    not to mention his supreme court justice picks (VERY CONSERVATIVE)

    as they say the devil is in the details, when u say he increased govt spending, u neglect to mention where most of that spending was allocated, when u talk about the bi-partisan occupation u neglect to mention he lied about the circumstances regarding that war. Roosevelt, Johnson spent on civilian programs....

  • rebelcross's picture

    Virginia Tech 4 Ever, don't humor the kid. He's either trolling or is one of the most retarded people this site has ever seen. The arguments are as sophmoric as I'm sure his collegiate career would justify. You need not respond to the idiocy, just leave it there for everyone to see. He's destroying his own argument with clear bait and switch techniques and an inability to grasp the fundamentals of logic.

  • Bondarb's picture

    Agree that Bush was the most liberal President of our generation. He expanded the size of the Federal government (even ex-defense) at an unprecedented pace not seen since LBJ. No Child Left Behind would have caused "tea parties" if Republicans were actually smart enough to actually think about policies of their own dear leader. Ditto medicare expansion. Bush's foreign policy was also one of nation-building and utopianism that until recently (the last two decades) would have been called "liberal".

    Bottom line: Both Bush and Obama are big government liberals. They agree that the US government should be a massive presence in the lives of Americans and even in the lives of citizens of foreign countries that we occupy (i think we have over 100,000 troops stationed in foreign countries). Defending either of them is just weak collectivism.

Pages