Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
The republicans put the country a trillion in debt...

And you base this statement on what exactly?

Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081124_obamas_use_of_complete_sentences_stirs_controversy/
Posted on Nov 24, 2008

By Andy Borowitz

In the first two weeks after the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the last eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’s “Sixty Minutes” last Sunday witnessed the president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tic, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it “alienating” to have a president who speaks English as if it were his first language.

“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, “OK, subject, predicate, subject, predicate—we get it, stop showing off.”

The president-elect’s stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

“Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can’t really do there, I think needing to do that isn’t tapping into what Americans are needing also,” she said.

People - CHILL.  Don't get this thread locked too.

We have our new President.  You will either like him or not.  His term will either turn out great or end up like a movie trailer that shows all the good bits.  Now is the time to sit back and watch what happens.

So while you're sitting back, go watch a DVD too.

ROFL Rico that was hillarious

I am personally very happy with Obama being chosen as America's next president. Good on him, and yes... it certainly will be strange not hearing "bushisms" anymore

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
According to some, President Obama is still President Elect Obama. Apparantly Mr. Obama, due to no fault of his own, flubbed the Presidential Oath of Office, which must be taken verbatim, per the U.S. Constitution. So, unless Mr. Obama retakes the Oath in the presence of a Federal Magistrate and at least two witnesses, any Executive decision he makes could be contested in Federal Court, and he could lose...hypothetically, though not likely.

Not true.  Even if he hadn't taken the oath at all, he officially took office at 12:00 noon yesterday based on the language of the 20th amendment.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
According to some, President Obama is still President Elect Obama. Apparantly Mr. Obama, due to no fault of his own, flubbed the Presidential Oath of Office, which must be taken verbatim, per the U.S. Constitution. So, unless Mr. Obama retakes the Oath in the presence of a Federal Magistrate and at least two witnesses, any Executive decision he makes could be contested in Federal Court, and he could lose...hypothetically, though not likely.

Not true.  Even if he hadn't taken the oath at all, he officially took office at 12:00 noon yesterday based on the language of the 20th amendment.

This is very arguable. The 20th Amendment only sets a timetable for terms. It doesn't specifically negate Article II requiring the Oath. It can be argued either way.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
According to some, President Obama is still President Elect Obama. Apparantly Mr. Obama, due to no fault of his own, flubbed the Presidential Oath of Office, which must be taken verbatim, per the U.S. Constitution. So, unless Mr. Obama retakes the Oath in the presence of a Federal Magistrate and at least two witnesses, any Executive decision he makes could be contested in Federal Court, and he could lose...hypothetically, though not likely.

Not true.  Even if he hadn't taken the oath at all, he officially took office at 12:00 noon yesterday based on the language of the 20th amendment.

This is very arguable. The 20th Amendment only sets a timetable for terms. It doesn't specifically negate Article II requiring the Oath. It can be argued either way.

If it winds up before the Supreme Court, I think I know how the Chief Justice will Rule!       

That would be a very frivolous suit and should be summarily dismissed if filed. That would also be stooping to the level of behavior exhibited by the Democrats.

Skip

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:

I was amazed he missed or screwed up a line of oath as well., as his twenty minute speech he gave soon after was dead on...

As I said, the flub was not his fault. Per Wikipedia Article:

Quote:
As Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts recited the Oath of office on 20 January 2009, Roberts forgot to pause after the first sentence, causing Obama to interrupt Roberts as he administered the oath. Roberts then incorrectly recited the Oath, stating, "That I will . . . execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully". As Obama began to recite the second line, he paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake, but still inverted the oath's word order, reciting the word "faithfully" out of its correct place. Obama then repeated Roberts' line word for word, including the misplaced "faithfully." Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances.