Posted on 01/20/2009 10:29:04 AM PST by antonia
Barack trips on the words of his Oath.
Did anyone else think it odd that Roberts had to ask him “so help you God?” I thought that was a voluntary on the part of the oath taker.
I about lept off my couch! I’ve been so depressed over this whole matter that I’ve taken to my couch rather than my bed (sniff).
Thanks.
Calling us fools and telling us when or when not to criticize Hussien makes you look like a DUer, noob.
You’re welcome!
You’re the name caller. The newbie stuff is what children do. I’ve been on FR longer than you have.
It seems like an appropriate beginning of the era of Jimmy Carter II.
I said, criticize away, just not on this one. If you bothered to read the thread, you’ll notice that a half-dozen other FREEPERs agree on this particular point. So come down from your high-horse.
Go ahead, try to run herd for Obama on this site and see how long that lasts.
Look, it is now a matter of fact that the Oath of the Presidential Office was flubbed. Obama's 'ascendancy' was not as graceful, as the amazing enlightened being that Obama's followers would have us believe, that it would have been.
Unlike in President Ford's day where one trip, while exiting an airplane, was used to demolish his whole presidency, we can all rest easy that the mass media will never refer to this again. So let us, the good members of freerepublic, muse and call it for what it is, and record it for future retrieval as may be needed.
Humiliating political opponents, is the left's rule conduct. If there is nothing but respect to be had for the 'not left candidate', then the left and the mass media makes something up. Did you see what SNL did to Sarah Palin just this last Saturday? As if she is even on the national scene anymore, or they so fear the wisdom of her words that they have to stab her not just once, but many hundreds of times. She lost and they won. Where is the grace and good sportsmanship in the winners doing that to her?
This thread does not stoop to the low standards which the Democrats have practiced since Nixon's day. Democrats have so cluttered the playing field with false statements and outright lies, that a fair game is not even possible. Yet we keep true to our standards, and valiantly continue our search for the truth with consistency. We debate on the validity and the truth of what our congressional reps and president are doing and saying. Unlike the left which seems to only respond to name calling, chanting one word over and over again, and lying about what their opposition is trying to say.
The only ones who were crying racism during the election were those who were practicing it themselves. The rest of us were trying to define the issues and suggest solutions and hope that the candidates might pick up on them. Obama got elected by not committing to any ideals, but that his election would solve the racism problem. He has been elected and yet we are all still being berated an lectured with "how racist Americans are" because we wish for government to operate with in the terms of the constitution, to follow the rule of law. Somehow this is twisted by the democrats into a racist belief.
America's oath of office is the actual contracts between an office of our government and the people of the United States of America. It must be sacred. It must be clearly realized and agreed to by the President of the United States of America. He must elevate America above all else that he holds dear. All else must take second place to his responsibilities to America, her people, her livelihood, and her well being.
If he is unwilling to fulfill this sacred oath, to the best of his ability and belief in what is best for America, then he is unworthy of the office.
Without this oath, pledged in good standing, with the American people, we can have no trust in our government.
I for one, believe that the stumble was an honest mistake. But the subject is important enough that it should be discussed.
Conservatives believe in the 'rule of law'. Our lives are conditioned on the rule of law in this country. Why should our politicians be exempt? They are our servants, we are not theirs.
You replied to me with a rant using "fools" (twice), "Grow up," "vindictive," "petty," "small," etc. Granted, in a later post you appear to realize you were mistaken (the post, BTW, where you add "childish" to the list), but nowhere do you admit being wrong or apologize.
Your use of "Grow up" is highly ironic, because a big part of growing up is admitting to your mistakes, and - especially when name-calling is involved - apologizing.
Also, do you realize how "I've been on FR longer than you have" (#46) comes across to most people as sounding?
(PS: I suppose it would be "petty and childish" of me to point out I can't locate "flubed" in my dictionary. ..... youtubed / youflubed / whatever).
|
Rahm Emanuel at the inauguration 1/20/09 ceremony.
|
Look at the comments on that vid though. If you dare say a word against 0 you are a hater, a racist, everything in the book that is bad. I guess we have to get used to that now. There is nothing to get used to, it's going to be business as usual for all. The Democrats using rudeness, and the Republicans just standing humbly by, watching. |
 |
|
|
President Obama's Chief of Staff
|
|
Rahm Emanuel at the inauguration 1/20/09 ceremony.
|
Look at the comments on that vid though. If you dare say a word against 0 you are a hater, a racist, everything in the book that is bad. I guess we have to get used to that now. There is nothing to get used to, it's going to be business as usual for all. The Democrats using rudeness, and the Republicans just standing humbly by, |
|
|
|
|
President Obama's Chief of Staff
|
Also, do you realize how “I’ve been on FR longer than you have” (#46) comes across to most people as sounding?
It’s exactly what “noob” means. Period.
Also, do you realize how “I’ve been on FR longer than you have” (#46) comes across to most people as sounding?
The use of newbie to silence those one disagrees with is one of the aspects of FR that is childish. It makes no argument. It has the same persuasive value as calling those one disagrees with DUmmies or trolls. It’s the mentality of children on the playground.
Whether Obama’s first words were a flub or a response to a pause by Roberts is arguable. The “faithfully” problem was initiated by Roberts. If it helps you to believe that Obama’s to blame for Roberts skipping “faithfully,” fine.
I despise Obama as much as anyone on FR. I just think there’s no need to lambaste him over this. It discredits us all in any other criticism of Obama. And I’m not alone among Freepers in that conclusion. So accuse all of them of being Obamabots, why don’t you?
To conclude from my disagreement over whether Obama should be attacked for the way the oath was flubbed that I am simply defending Obama is a like using a nuclear bomb to kill a fly. If you want to disagree with me on this point, fine.
Transcript of the "flub section":
[Roberts]: "I, Barack Hussein Obama,"
Both speaking simultaneously: [Roberts] "do solemnly swear" + [Obama] "I, Barack"
[Obama]: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear".
[Roberts]: [unusually long pause, suggesting he's thrown off, and is trying to pick up his train of thought] "that I will" [short pause] "execute the office of President to the United States faithfully"
[Obama]: "that I will execute" [long pause]
[Roberts]: "the off, faithfully the Pres, the office of President"
Both speaking simultaneously: [Roberts] "of the United States" + [Obama] "the office of President of the United States faithfully"
[Roberts]: "and will to the best of my Ability"
[Obama]: "and will to best of my Ability"
.... etc ....
BTW, actual oath from Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
no one's really upset. No biggie.
Agreed. It's not a big deal, other than for the symbolism of flubs marring "The Big Moment" at the start of a new regime. My only gripe is with some here (you're not in this group) who keep saying "It's all Roberts' fault" or "Roberts messed up first". Wrong. Both messed up. And Obama's first interruption was where it started. Neither man was flubless (run THAT through a spell checker)
Where have I said that?
The real question here is, When are YOU going to realize that FR Posters are individuals and that when you are carrying on arguments with multiple people on one thread, you can't just take something said by one person you disagree with and falsely attribute it to every other person who is disagreeing with you?
whether Obama should be attacked for the way the oath was flubbed
Attack? Once again: in that post of mine you first flamed, I was merely defending Roberts from people who seemed to put the blame squarely on him. My defense of Roberts was that there were flubs by BOTH men, and I pointed out how Obama's early interruption seemed to fluster Roberts. If that equates in your mind to my "attacking Obama," well, then ...... how your mind processes data and draws conclusions is not my responsibility.
My take on this: Because the extra phrase is not in the Constitution, but is rather a tradition started by George Washington the very first time the oath was taken, it would not have been exactly proper of Roberts to say it as a statement, which would sound to some people like he's saying, "this is a part of the oath required by the Constitution, so you have to say it or else." So by asking it as a question, I took it as Roberts saying, "this is the optional part, and so nobody can constitutionally require you to say it".
Point well taken. I apologize to you. You did not attack Obama the way the others to whom I replied did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.