I read today that he took it again with Justice Roberts and a Bible wasn't used. Is Obama the only President whose official oath of office was not sworn on a Bible?

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law.[2] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.

I'm confused about the Oath of Office and need to research the thing. Obama became President at noon with or without the Oath. If that is the case, why the big deal about retaking it? Fear of some nutjob lawsuit I guess.

Swearing on the bible is weak. It's like retarded grade school shit. It achieves nothing.

At least make them swear on the Constitution or Declaration.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confused about the Oath of Office and need to
> research the thing. Obama became President at
> noon with or without the Oath. If that is the
> case, why the big deal about retaking it? Fear of
> some nutjob lawsuit I guess.


Some claim that the 20th amendment which stipulates the president's term of office begins at noon on Jan. 20th eliminates the requirement in Article 2 of taking an oath.

Others say that the term of office is separate from executing the powers of the office, in which case taking the oath is still a prerequisite for acting as president.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Swearing on the bible is weak. It's like retarded
> grade school shit. It achieves nothing.
>
> At least make them swear on the Constitution or
> Declaration.


I think they should have to cross their heart and hope to die, and stick a needle in their eye. Or swear on their mother's grave.

I think John Adams had it right when he swore on a "book of law". The constitution is probably the more proper document, since it is the ordering principles of our nation.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic
> missal on Air Force One.


Before or after they launched the missal?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman
> Catholic
> > missal on Air Force One.
>
>
> Before or after they launched the missal?


I think it was before. You have to be sworn in first.

He shouldn't have to swear on the bible. Separation of church and state. They should even have God mentioned in any of the official ceremony for the same reason.

Well it sure is reassuring to know that the stupidest president in history's legacy will live on in the form of our Supreme Court Justice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 07:03AM by Vince(1).

If he didn't retake it we'd have to listen to the wingnuts rant and rave for four years about how he isn't a legitimate president, etc. Now we can get back to discussing his birth certificate and other burning issues.


pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confused about the Oath of Office and need to
> research the thing. Obama became President at
> noon with or without the Oath. If that is the
> case, why the big deal about retaking it? Fear of
> some nutjob lawsuit I guess.

The dickheads focusing on minutia like the oath of office need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at the big picture. He flubbed it, it was funny, but for someone to try to sue over that is fucking pathetic. The fact that he re-took the oath out of "an abundance of caution" indicates just how petty we've become as a nation.

Obama became President at noon with or without the Oath. End of story.

just askin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read today that he took it again with Justice
> Roberts and a Bible wasn't used.


The economy is going to shit because people like you spent 8 years focusing on stupid shit like this while Bush's policies put the country into a ditch. Fuck off.

It's sort of ironic how Bush verbally executed the oath flawlessly, yet managed to defy and insult it for 8 years, but these same douchebags don't have a problem with that.

Talk about dumb people...

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's sort of ironic how Bush verbally executed the
> oath flawlessly, yet managed to defy and insult it
> for 8 years, but these same douchebags don't have
> a problem with that.
>
> Talk about dumb people...


Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the Bible, taking all references to miracles out of it. It is used by the Unitarian Church in the U.S. Maybe these morons should ask to have Jefferson removed from the nickel.

just askin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read today that he took it again with Justice
> Roberts and a Bible wasn't used. Is Obama the
> only President whose official oath of office was
> not sworn on a Bible?

He secretly used the Koran the second time. Told ya he was a Muslim.

TeddieK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> He secretly used the Koran the second time. Told
> ya he was a Muslim.

Secretly? Ya. Good one. Like a Justice appointed by a Republican would go along with that "secret".

Unless... Wait, no, could it be? Maybe the republicans are IN ON IT, TOO????


I think your tin foil hat fell off. Bin Laden didn't just sink a hole in one by landing a sleeper cell agent into the white house. That doesn't even happen in the movies, let alone in real life. Give it up, already, with that secret Muslim bullshit.

At least the criticisms about Bush were about real things like whether or not he was circumventing the constitution with warrantless spying, water boarding, extraordinary rendition and invading a country that had not attacked us. Just like with Clinton, we're going to have to listen to 4 or 8 years of incessant attacks on Obama for things like confusing his salad fork with his dinner fork at a formal dinner, or whether he is really Kenyan and Muslim, and all kinds of meaningless grade-school level taunts against him.

Talk Radio and Fox News Channel may be galvanizing the base, but it is also alienating the fringe extremes of the conservative party from the rest of the country, and even normal conservatives are starting to wish these nut cases would just go off and create their own lunatic fringe party, so Republicans can get on with rebuilding their party from the ashes of the neocon fiascoes.

TeddieK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just askin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I read today that he took it again with Justice
> > Roberts and a Bible wasn't used. Is Obama the
> > only President whose official oath of office
> was
> > not sworn on a Bible?
>
> He secretly used the Koran the second time. Told
> ya he was a Muslim.


I thought it was interesting that Obama was the first President ever to use the word "Muslim" in an Inaugural Address. Guess Bush must have missed that in 2005 when he was talking about Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, etc, etc.

We got to watch the Inaguration at school,not your County. I think Obama made a big mistake by mentioning Muslims before Jews. IMHO.

I think he said, Christians and Muslims, Jews and XXX. Can't remember the next religion.

Anyone else agree? Shouldn't the order be based on % of population within the US of a certain religion?

Then, another thing. I don't think the Gay and Lesbian Band should have marched in front of any military band. That was disrespectful to the military. And, the parade went too long. Obama shouldn't have been left there sitting by himself...made him look unimportant.

Allie Wrote:
>> Anyone else agree? Shouldn't the order be based on % of population within the US of a certain religion?


Actually the correct order should be based on the number of consonants in each word. Or the number of vowels in each word. Or the number of letters in each word. Or the number of syllables in each word, except when there's a tie between two words, the one with multiple instances of the same letter goes first, except if those two letters appear consecutvely.

Anyone want to argue about this incredibly inane and stupid topic???

Allie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think the Gay and
> Lesbian Band should have marched in front of any
> military band.

Wait. Why do you have to put "Gay" before "Lesbian?" Seems to me it's only fair to say "Lesbian and Gay," because putting men first is incredibly sexist and insensitive.

Also, why did you capitalize Gay and Lesbian, but not military? Do you think Gays and Lesbians deserve more distinction than our Military, you treasonous hate-monger?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Allie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think the Gay and
> > Lesbian Band should have marched in front of
> any
> > military band.
>
> Wait. Why do you have to put "Gay" before
> "Lesbian?" Seems to me it's only fair to say
> "Lesbian and Gay," because putting men first is
> incredibly sexist and insensitive.
>
> Also, why did you capitalize Gay and Lesbian, but
> not military? Do you think Gays and Lesbians
> deserve more distinction than our Military, you
> treasonous hate-monger?

Gay = Two guys going at it. Gross
Lesbian = Two hot girls going at it. Awesome!

You are right. Lesbian should come first.

How did the t-shirt slogan go? "I support gay marriage as long as both chicks are hot..."

To all you..

Isn't sometimes,perception "everything"?? I mean, in the White House, doesn't protocal and image matter for a lot?

I think the Obama support people are not guiding him properly during this transition,thats all. Our President looked pretty lame standing on the bleachers just with his wife. It looked like everyone had left. That doesn't make him "look" Presidential.

If some think this is irrelevent, then, thats your opinion. Its not mine. Not my Dad's either. Hes in the military, by the way.
I'm off from school, sick you know! LOL

High school kids, telling it like it is...



Allie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all you..
>
> Isn't sometimes,perception "everything"?? I mean,
> in the White House, doesn't protocal and image
> matter for a lot?
>
> I think the Obama support people are not guiding
> him properly during this transition,thats all. Our
> President looked pretty lame standing on the
> bleachers just with his wife. It looked like
> everyone had left. That doesn't make him "look"
> Presidential.
>
> If some think this is irrelevent, then, thats your
> opinion. Its not mine. Not my Dad's either. Hes
> in the military, by the way.
> I'm off from school, sick you know! LOL

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait. Why do you have to put "Gay" before
> "Lesbian?" Seems to me it's only fair to say
> "Lesbian and Gay," because putting men first is
> incredibly sexist and insensitive.

It is incredibly sexist and insensitive to put women first, too. Or, at least, it is incredibly sexist to think that it is sexist to put men first in a sentence.

Maybe he was going by the alphabetical rule, G comes before L, so put G word before L word? I don't know, but usually the misandry and radical-feminist disgust for all of society's chauvinistic practices doesn't start until you get to college and take a women's studies class freshman year.


>
> Also, why did you capitalize Gay and Lesbian, but
> not military? Do you think Gays and Lesbians
> deserve more distinction than our Military, you
> treasonous hate-monger?


Wow, so now it is treason to not capitalize military? Holy shit, has The Party established new rules on capitalization? Because you don't capitalize military.

Here's a little guide for you: http://www.sparknotes.com/writing/style/topic_124.html

When they stand alone, names of military forces need not be capitalized.
• I’m thinking of enlisting in the army.
• Men from the navy are in town for Fleet Week.


But, considering your atrocious spelling and grammar, it seems fitting that you would feel qualified to correct others, incorrectly. Do you go to Westfield?


Oh, by the way, you should be shipped off to Guantanamo for not capitalizing Military, as well, you treasonous liberal surrenderer...

> If some think this is irrelevent, then, thats your
> opinion. Its not mine. Not my Dad's either. Hes
> in the military, by the way.
> I'm off from school, sick you know! LOL



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2009 04:03PM by Bob.

Uh, Bob?

> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Wait. Why do you have to put "Gay" before
> > "Lesbian?" Seems to me it's only fair to say
> > "Lesbian and Gay," because putting men first is
> > incredibly sexist and insensitive.

> MrMephisto Also Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Also, why did you capitalize Gay and Lesbian,
> > but not military? Do you think Gays and Lesbians
> > deserve more distinction than our Military, you
> > treasonous hate-monger?

> Then Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> But, considering your atrocious spelling and
> grammar, it seems fitting that you would feel
> qualified to correct others, incorrectly. Do you
> go to Westfield?

Whoops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2009 03:56PM by MrMephisto.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh, Bob?
>
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Wait. Why do you have to put "Gay" before
> > > "Lesbian?" Seems to me it's only fair to say
> > > "Lesbian and Gay," because putting men first
> is
> > > incredibly sexist and insensitive.
>
> > MrMephisto Also Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Also, why did you capitalize Gay and Lesbian,
> > > but not military? Do you think Gays and
> Lesbians
> > > deserve more distinction than our Military,
> you
> > > treasonous hate-monger?
>
> > Then Bob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > But, considering your atrocious spelling and
> > grammar, it seems fitting that you would feel
> > qualified to correct others, incorrectly. Do
> you
> > go to Westfield?
>
> Whoops.

Yeah, I just noticed that I was quoting you when I thought I was quoting allie. I was on the phone when I was reading and quoting this thread.

My bad.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Swearing on the bible is weak. It's like retarded
> grade school shit. It achieves nothing.
>
> At least make them swear on the Constitution or
> Declaration.


I'd have to agree with TheMeeper. The Bible itself says swear no oath Mathew 5:34. I think at least one President afirmed to uphold the Constituttion.

http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers”

“(Rev. Jesse) Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’

A few of you are stuck on grammar and punctuation and seem to be missing my point. Maybe you’re not intelligent enough. Maybe you’re picking at my writing skills so that you can avoid the more difficult concepts. Some of you are acting like my teachers! LOL.

Apparently, my impression of The President’s listing of religions is causing others to get the wrong impression as well. As noted above, even Rev Jackson is offended by the listing of religions by Pres. Obama. I’m not saying Pres. Obama shouldn’t try to be very inclusive, I am saying that perception can be everything and, this is not a time he should be pissing people off. He should be trying to unite us. I say this as the daughter of a Military Officer. Pres Obama is doing and saying some things that are divisive.

I care greatly about our Country and I want to see Pres Obama succeed, but, he needs to get better advisors.

It can be simple.
1. “Christians and Jews” FIRST, followed by others.
2. Military units before Lesbian and Gay in the parade.
See how easy! The change can be simple.

Allie
PS. Our President should not be closing Gitmo. Trust me, I know things!

As a non-believer, I was glad to finally be included as a member of a country I pay taxes in.

We should not only be closing the prison at Gitmo...we should be turning the base back to the Cubans. Imagine if the Russinas had a military base in Alaska based upon some provision in the original sale of the territory! How would we feel? it is imperialism at it's worse.

As far as letting terrorist losse back into the world...we doit every day when we release murderers...child predetors....all sorts of violent people out of our prisons. Unfortunately it is the price we pay to live in a free society that some of us are killed by those same people. To me it's the same price we pay to have the freedom guns....some of us must die to pay for that freedom.

I thought the US was paying Cuba rent... if so then Cuba likely wants the base there fore the income. My guess is they probably employ a lot of Cubans too. I have never heard that the majority of Cubans want the naval base closed, though it may be the case I just don't know.

We are also letting demokrats loose around Washington now.

Oh, and the inmates are already coming back for the attack. Letting them out is truly stupid.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and the inmates are already coming back for
> the attack. Letting them out is truly stupid.
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM
> 5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q


Uhmmm, they were let out on Bush's watch using whatever process Bush used to screen people. Obviously Bush's approach was a total failure considering innocent people remain locked up and guilty people were allowed to leave without a decent level of scrutiny. It also casts into doubt how effective torture is when they couldn't even figure these guys out.

conVince Wrote:
>> the inmates are already coming back for the attack.
Attachments:

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and the inmates are already coming back for
> the attack. Letting them out is truly stupid.
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM
> 5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q


I guess this is the price of living in a free society. Freedom isnt free...every freedom associated with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a price to be pais....as all you gun lovers like to explain.

However, the fact is releasing people we have no evidence (or are unwilling share in a court) are martyrs used to recruit new terrorists. If he wasnt the second in command in Yemen someone else would be...and the attacks would have occured any way. So releasing him and others really has no effect at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2009 09:14PM by Vince(1).

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and the inmates are already coming back for
> the attack. Letting them out is truly stupid.
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM
> 5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q


oh no! We're doomed! Bad brown people hate us and make threats on the internets!

Seriously, let these idiots go to Iraq and try to fight. They'll be dead really quick and will no longer pose a problem.