|
On January 21 2009 11:16 rushz0rz wrote: OBAMA HATES BUDDHISTS!!!!!11 I'm certainly not stating anything like that, but I think that it would have been wiser to use a different term if he really had to make a nod to atheists. Not that it really matters anyway, it wasn't Obama's speech to write.
|
On January 21 2009 11:20 Shiznick wrote:I'm certainly not stating anything like that, but I think that it would have been wiser to use a different term if he really had to make a nod to atheists. Not that it really matters anyway, it wasn't Obama's speech to write. Seriously. Stop nitpicking.
|
Solid speech, not quite awe inspiring, but nice to listen to For me, the best part was Aretha Franklin and Yo Yo Ma, but that's just the kind of guy I am
|
On January 21 2009 07:19 MarklarMarklar wrote: fuck speeches, i only listen to actions.
yeah even though I like Obama, im still cynical about what the government can do
|
But atheism and agnostics are not all that the term covers. It's basically anyone who is not of those four persuasions, including Buddhists. It's certainly not an enormous blunder, but I think he could have used a better term.
Including Shintoists, Scientologists, Confucians, Buddists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Pastafarians...
Oh, he cut off the list? I'm sure the USA's Zoroastrians are furious to the point of spouting flame from their ears.
|
On January 21 2009 11:40 alphafuzard wrote:Solid speech, not quite awe inspiring, but nice to listen to For me, the best part was Aretha Franklin and Yo Yo Ma, but that's just the kind of guy I am 
omg yoyo ma rocking it out on the cello.
|
I saw it at school. Then I rewatched Obama's speech, so today was like a free day at school
|
BREAKING: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stops Bush’s last-minute regs. Emanuel signs a memorandum ordering all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration.
There is your action. GG Bush.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
I was working all day making assloads of 2-foot subs for people throwing all day inauguration parties.
ugh
|
On January 21 2009 11:08 Shiznick wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2009 10:35 L wrote: I agree. Whoever wrote his speech made a major slip, "non-believers" to group people of non-Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian persuasion. Really poor rhetoric to use a negatively-charged term like that in a speech promoting unity in the face of adversity.
Pretty sure he wanted to pull in atheists and agnostics into his fold, but without calling them atheists or agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not uncharged terms in the united states. But atheism and agnostics are not all that the term covers. It's basically anyone who is not of those four persuasions, including Buddhists. It's certainly not an enormous blunder, but I think he could have used a better term.
non·be·liev·er n. One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.
huh?
|
its better to say non-believer than to label everything but the main four as 'other'
There have been lots of sociological/political papers on the use of 'other' non-believers was definitely the better choice
|
Who will liberals whine about now? If something goes wrong, there aren't any republicans to blame it on.
THE HORROR.
|
On January 21 2009 13:18 sith wrote: Who will liberals whine about now? If something goes wrong, there aren't any republicans to blame it on.
THE HORROR.
There are enough Republicans that are doing stupid things to work against. Such as seeing if government officials are patriotic enough to serve.
|
Did anybody else see the poem reading? It was fucking pathetic.
|
On January 21 2009 13:18 sith wrote: Who will liberals whine about now? If something goes wrong, there aren't any republicans to blame it on.
THE HORROR.
Yes, which means the fun is just beginning 
EDIT: There is a reason that political power tends to swing from one party to the other in the matter of just a few years. In the 90's you had a democratic president and democratic congress in both houses, next thing you know the GOP has the House, then the Senate and the Presidency. Fast forward to 2006, dems take congress then the Whitehouse in 2009.
Give the democrats a few years and the GOP should be back if 200 years of history is anything to go by.
|
On January 21 2009 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2009 13:18 sith wrote: Who will liberals whine about now? If something goes wrong, there aren't any republicans to blame it on.
THE HORROR. There are enough Republicans that are doing stupid things to work against. Such as seeing if government officials are patriotic enough to serve.
But now there are enough democrats to do REALLY stupid things like eliminating voter anonymity for workers voting on unionization.
Hurray for ending anonymity in the voting booth?
|
lol
you guys actually think obama is going to do a bad a job as bush?
|
On January 21 2009 13:36 fusionsdf wrote: lol
you guys actually think obama is going to do a bad a job as bush?
So far, I have a much more favorable impression of Obama than of other democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi. But on the other hand, Obama has never actually done anything. I am merely judging him on his rhetoric which is a pretty weak thing to judge someone on, but thats all we have at this point.
If he can stand up to the more experienced liberal leaders and be a centrist like he says he wants to be, I will be happy. He doesn't have to be conservative.
EDIT: Funny thing is that even though rhetoric is a "pretty weak thing to judge someone on", apparently it is enough to get you elected President.
|
I think it should more accurately described as a vision
and yes I think an incoming president should have a vision for the future
John McCain didn't, so its entirely proper that he lost. For the record, McCain would have made a horrible president, you only have to look at his various campaign missteps to see that
|
On January 21 2009 13:30 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2009 13:18 sith wrote: Who will liberals whine about now? If something goes wrong, there aren't any republicans to blame it on.
THE HORROR. Yes, which means the fun is just beginning  EDIT: There is a reason that political power tends to swing from one party to the other in the matter of just a few years. In the 90's you had a democratic president and democratic congress in both houses, next thing you know the GOP has the House, then the Senate and the Presidency. Fast forward to 2006, dems take congress then the Whitehouse in 2009. Give the democrats a few years and the GOP should be back if 200 years of history is anything to go by. Although I agree with where you're going with this. But what 200 years are we talking about since the GOP was founded in 1854 or did you mean the last 154 years
|
|
|
|