EPTObama Inauguration - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
"Well they aren't red coats that's for sure." lol what? | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On January 21 2009 05:29 {ToT}Strafe wrote: youtubed vid of speech here polkz http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2009/1/20/200109_obama_rede.html | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
On January 21 2009 03:15 a-game wrote: obama jumped the gun. not a big deal though, welcome to power President Obama!! hehehe, i know this was pages ago, but i think its worth noting that jumping the gun has led to a miserable failure in many cases :D even funnier at the guy that's conceding to give him a break cause it was a one time slip of the tongue you sir are a GENTLEMAN i'll drink this weekend to Obama hopefully keeping to his promise of making a change or two. quite exciting. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
I got a frontrow seat, whipped out my subway sandwich and homework and watched the oath and speech. A great orator and hopefully a even better president. Fuck yeah | ||
|
QuietIdiot
7004 Posts
| ||
|
Emptyeye
United States34 Posts
On January 21 2009 06:22 Gene wrote: even funnier at the guy that's conceding to give him a break cause it was a one time slip of the tongue you sir are a GENTLEMAN I said that only because I'm confident that, had it been GWB flubbing it in 2001, everyone would have said "Look he can't even get the Oath right what a moron LOL worst president ever". | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On January 21 2009 03:46 Savio wrote: I'm sure that NEVER happened to threads about [former] President Bush. bush justified a vendetta, can you see the difference? | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
| ||
|
Shiznick
United States2200 Posts
On January 21 2009 07:15 QuietIdiot wrote: To be honest I found his speech to be the same old story and was underwhelmed by it, I was expecting something a little more but I liked his allusion to a storm (although a bit overused in speeches everywhere) and some historical parallels he drew on. But I had a good time watching it, all the black people on my campus auditorium were going nuts. HOLLA. 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. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On January 21 2009 09:00 Shiznick 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. I actually thought that was the best part of the speech. | ||
|
OmgIRok
Taiwan2699 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On January 21 2009 09:00 Shiznick 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. I disagree. I dont find non-believers offensive. I think it was a big deal that we were at least acknowledged and it wasnt in a negative tone. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8167 Posts
On January 21 2009 09:34 Sadist wrote: I disagree. I dont find non-believers offensive. I think it was a big deal that we were at least acknowledged and it wasnt in a negative tone. QFT | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
 | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
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. Atheism and agnosticism are not uncharged terms in the united states. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
Here is the 3 hour Inaugurating Coverage by Democracy Now! | ||
|
Shiznick
United States2200 Posts
On January 21 2009 10:35 L wrote: 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. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
| ||
