*No official start time, traditionally it starts around this time
For more information about the events & a guide for those that might be going to the inauguration live. http://www.pic2009.org
A record-setting crowd of over 2 million people is expected to attend the inauguration.
Poll: What are your plans for the inauguration? (Vote): I'm going to skip my commitments to watch it live on TV, this is history. (Vote): I'm going to attend the inauguration in person! (Vote): I'll watch the highlights later.
I just wanted there to be a thread where we could discuss this. Is anyone going to the inauguration live? Feel free to post your thoughts etc.
On January 19 2009 21:25 Frits wrote: Where's the option, who gives a flying fuck.
I'll watch the summary on the news, Im sure its a bunch of populist bullshit anyway.
Why the fuck do you even post this -_-;; Wow congratulations sir you just typed out and posted on tlnet your pointless opinion about something you obviously don't care about.
But to others, this is a symbol about a change in culture. It's a reflection of equality becoming more prevalent in a culture laced with racism. It's also a the first time in 8 years where a lot of Americans (And a lot of people in the western world) actually feel represented. Obviously there will still be a ton of problems with the economy, the two wars in the middle east, social security, etc. But we now have an icon we can look up to, and we have some sign of things changing
On January 19 2009 21:25 Frits wrote: Where's the option, who gives a flying fuck.
I'll watch the summary on the news, Im sure its a bunch of populist bullshit anyway.
Why the fuck do you even post this -_-;; Wow congratulations sir you just typed out and posted on tlnet your pointless opinion about something you obviously don't care about.
But to others, this is a symbol about a change in culture. It's a reflection of equality becoming more prevalent in a culture laced with racism.
I thought him being elected is a symbol of change, not one boring speech filled with stupid promises which we're never going to hear about again.
On January 19 2009 21:25 Frits wrote: Where's the option, who gives a flying fuck.
I'll watch the summary on the news, Im sure its a bunch of populist bullshit anyway.
that was pretty much what the third poll option was for, i just figured even if you don't like obama you'd still check out the highlights 'cause a crowd of 2 million people afaik has never happened before on TV and that in and of itself is worth looking at the pictures on the news later
also, let's not sidetrack this thread with flames please people!
On January 19 2009 21:39 LordofToast wrote: History will be made if he keeps all of his pre-election promises and does the good work he committed himself to.
That's not to say I wish him and America the best for the next four years.
Hmm. I don't know. A lot of the promises obviously will not be "kept," and it's almost dumb that politicians (are forced to) make all these promises, as it borders on being rhetorical... But that's the way politicians get elected and without promises like "95% of people getting a tax cut" and "nearly everyone being covered under health insurance," they will NOT get elected.
I think what the promises do, however.. They show the general direction Barack Obama will want to take this country. The promises he makes explains his mindset, and it really puts on display what Obama cares about and what he sees government doing. You cannot predict the future, and neither can Obama (or the senate and house of reps ), but what Obama promises and says, before getting elected, shows how he will handle every situation as well as showing his mindset, which is probably more important anyway.
(By the way, if you want to see an example of a politician being extremely honest before they get elected, search Walter Mondale. He ran against Ronald Reagan in 1984, and his downfall was basically when he declared "I WILL raise taxes, but Reagan will too, and won't say it." The republicans played on this really well and Reagan won 525 seats to 13 )
On January 19 2009 21:25 Frits wrote: Where's the option, who gives a flying fuck.
I'll watch the summary on the news, Im sure its a bunch of populist bullshit anyway.
that was pretty much what the third poll option was for, i just figured even if you don't like obama you'd still check out the highlights 'cause a crowd of 2 million people afaik has never happened before on TV and that in and of itself is worth looking at the pictures on the news later
also, let's not sidetrack this thread with flames please people!
I was glad he was elected. But not everyone is interested in show elements like this, we´ll see what Obama can do soon enough. No, I won´t watch any of this, this is just cult of personality and reminds me of the countries which have monarchs just for the drama. Good luck to him, he will need it.
I'm sick of the Obamania. Journalists can't stop to say that he is black, this is annoying ... like if American people elected him just for his skin colour ... I know he is the first black president in the US history but still ...
No radio / newspapers / Tv for me today bleh.
I wish him good luck ( i wanted him to be elected ) and i hope he will take the good decisions.
haha i understand those who are sick of obama mania, for me i am more interested about the policy decisions that will be upcoming than the man.
i do not care much about the speech he will make, i am more interested in seeing the largest gathering of human beings ever afaik, i would look at that even if they were just gathered to peer at a piece of dog poo. 2 million people in one place just blows my mind.
i'm also enthralled by the details of the transfer of power, i like watching as bushes power slowly saps away and then finally vanishes completely. but i can understand how people would say the whole thing is just a dog and pony show without much that will actually change.
On January 19 2009 22:15 a-game wrote: i do not care much about the speech he will make, i am more interested in seeing the largest gathering of human beings ever afaik, i would look at that even if they were just gathered to peer at a piece of dog poo. 2 million people in one place just blows my mind.
This is far from the largest gathering of human beings ever, India can top this easily:
yeah but are there any pictures of that crowd ? like there's gonna be planes over DC taking pictures and you'll be able to look at a picture and say "there's 2 million people in this one crowd". i don't know if any pictures like that came out of kumbh mela, if there were, then i'd like to see them
On January 20 2009 00:30 a-game wrote: so if they do a 2 minute blurb on it while your watching the news, your going to instantly change the channel?
Some people don't own a TV or never watch TV. So they'd have to go out of their way to see the inaugural.
But even then, the internet offers a variety of ways to be surreptitiously attacked by Obama's mug. Surf to some website and bam!!!! Obama's smile staring right back at you! It's like getting Rickroll'd. Instead you've been Obama'd.
On January 19 2009 22:15 a-game wrote: haha i understand those who are sick of obama mania, for me i am more interested about the policy decisions that will be upcoming than the man.
I plan on ignoring the news if at all possible for the next couple of days. But that's mainly because of the above quote: I'm less interested in the side show that will be plastered all over every major media outlet than the way Obama attempts to navigate the current national and global political environment.
Still, this kind of event is in keeping with the President's "figurehead" status. There are an awful lot of people excited for today. I'm sure the flames that have already occurred and will inevitably continue to occur in this thread have more to do with people lashing out against the carnival nature of the the whole thing.
"Who the fuck cares" is essentially (and, of course, completely tactlessly) "I don't care and it's important that you know I don't care because maybe I can begin to prove that your enthusiasm isn't universal."
I will watch Obamas speech, but not the rest. I am sure even his speech will teeter on the verge of just going through the ceremonial motions, but I think I would regret not watching it simply for its historical significance.
I have to agree with Frits, First of all, it is American, I'm not from the US, so I could care less. Second of all, even if it was Canadian I'm sure I would hear people talking about it for the next 2 months so I'm not really going to be missing anything that important. I mean if there were shoes thrown at Obama I would look that part up on youtube for kicks but I have no interest in it. + Show Spoiler +
I will probably watch his speech later on. As a Canadian, I'm more, I wouldn't say excited, but more interested in Parliament returning and seeing how the whole situation unravels.
On January 20 2009 10:30 LuckyFool wrote: I live in the DC area and they are telling us to not even leave our houses tomorrow it's going to be such bad traffic for miles going into DC.
The beltway is gonna be gridlocked, lol.
I personally couldn't really care about the inauguration though. Probably just gonna do some other things.
I can see why some people would say "why should I care if this is an American event and I'm not American." (though using this thread as an opportunity to say "haha I don't give a shit" adds nothing -_-) I think, however, this election can be completely perceived as a world event because there's a lot more people getting affected by this than simply Americans. USA has the most power in this world out of any country, so it is very important for them to use it wisely, and constructively (something you could argue against Bush he did not do). USA also has by far the highest GDP (almost as much as the whole European Union!), the most money spent on military, etc. They are the cause for a lot of good things, AND bad things in this world, and by that I mean they are a significant role player in this world. They have a lot of opportunities to achieve peace simply by negotiating, they can set up trade agreements, etc, that other countries simply cannot because they don't have the resources, the economy, OR the military weight to do so.
The power is passing from one administration to another, and with that comes a new philosophy (and yes, it IS a change in philosophy that is coming, there will be differences in the way US treats other countries, the way it uses its military, the way it executes health care, etc). Since the USA has a lot of power and opportunities, its important for the US to handle and execute these opportunities more constructively and that I think it will now.
Basically, what I'm saying, is since the whole world gets affected by this, it is very important to a lot more people than, say, if a new Canadian PM took office... one that didn't ridiculously suspend parliament (though a new Canadian PM would have significance in the world too, just not as much;))
I'm not particularly interested in the inauguration ceremony itself but I am interested in seeing how things are going to go with Obama in the White House.
On January 20 2009 10:48 Grobyc wrote: I have to agree with Frits, First of all, it is American, I'm not from the US, so I could care less. Second of all, even if it was Canadian I'm sure I would hear people talking about it for the next 2 months so I'm not really going to be missing anything that important. I mean if there were shoes thrown at Obama I would look that part up on youtube for kicks but I have no interest in it. + Show Spoiler +
Should have been a 4th option.
On January 20 2009 11:09 ColdLava wrote: How are you adding anything to the thread at all if all you are saying is "I don't care." That's the point I was trying to give to Frits.
????? The thread asked "What are your plans for the inauguration?" I answered it did I not? All I did not say was "I don't care." My post was not nearly a one liner like that. I answered the question in the OP, AND explained why I answered like that.
On January 20 2009 11:09 ColdLava wrote: Imagine going to every thread in the forum and just saying "I don't care." That would be abysmal and that is what Frits did to this topic (not you, as much though because you actually made a point!....)
Of course if you went into every thread saying "I don't care." it would be abysmal. I did not say that though, and although thats what my summary was the thread was asking a question where an answer like that is to be expected and would not be penalized for. I said my thoughts on it just like the OP asked me to do. I agree with Frits on what I think yes, but I did not just merely quote him and not say anything else nor did I start my answer cussing. Posting in the strategy forum in a topic like "[Q]PvP Does this BO work?" for example answering "I don't care." would surely be abysmal and would deserve a temp ban though IMO.
I believe my post was perfectly acceptable and followed the guidlines 100%.
I don't have a TV so I will have to watch some of it live through the internet if I am home at that time but most likely I will watch the highlights and try to get a video of his whole speech.
I made pretty clear that I didnt care about this specific ceremony because it's just going to be some hollow speech and other crap that should have no place in politics. I take great interest in politics and history, stop assuming that I don't care about what goes on in the world because I dont care for some silly speech. You should stop inferring things from my post based on what you think my intention was and look at what is actually written down. inauguration =/= politics You basically inferred that I didn't care about racial equality or the other things you mentioned because I don't care for some speech, I hope you can see how ridiculous that is.
On January 20 2009 18:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: For God's sake, we have to abolish this media-induced habit of declaring events which have not happened yet "history."
The first African American president of the United States is not historical...?
moltke its described as "history in the making" or "a historical moment", because no matter what happens today, it is a moment that will be mentioned in future historybooks..
In the 19th century, a great statesman passed into History after his death. In the 20th century they began to pass into History during his lifetime, but apparently in the 21st they pass into history before they do anything. The entire purpose of history is to permit us a clearer interpretation of events seen in retrospect, gathering the collected wisdom of the ages, in preference to the come-and-go fads of the moment.
The irony in this, and many other such "historical" moments is that the people who are loudest in their enthusiasms to witness history are not much interested in history.
On January 20 2009 18:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: In the 19th century, a great statesman passed into History after his death. In the 20th century they began to pass into History during his lifetime, but apparently in the 21st they pass into history before they do anything. The entire purpose of history is to permit us a clearer interpretation of events seen in retrospect, gathering the collected wisdom of the ages, in preference to the come-and-go fads of the moment.
The irony in this, and many other such "historical" moments is that the people who are loudest in their enthusiasms to witness history are not much interested in history.
On January 20 2009 18:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: In the 19th century, a great statesman passed into History after his death. In the 20th century they began to pass into History during his lifetime, but apparently in the 21st they pass into history before they do anything. The entire purpose of history is to permit us a clearer interpretation of events seen in retrospect, gathering the collected wisdom of the ages, in preference to the come-and-go fads of the moment.
The irony in this, and many other such "historical" moments is that the people who are loudest in their enthusiasms to witness history are not much interested in history.
Are you still pissed about Ron Paul?
I am disappointed in all idolatry which fails to develop into religion.
On January 20 2009 18:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: In the 19th century, a great statesman passed into History after his death. In the 20th century they began to pass into History during his lifetime, but apparently in the 21st they pass into history before they do anything. The entire purpose of history is to permit us a clearer interpretation of events seen in retrospect, gathering the collected wisdom of the ages, in preference to the come-and-go fads of the moment.
The irony in this, and many other such "historical" moments is that the people who are loudest in their enthusiasms to witness history are not much interested in history.
Are you still pissed about Ron Paul?
I am disappointed in all idolatry which fails to develop into religion.
I live in Maryland just a quarter mile from the DC boarder, and the place is absolutely nuts. Memorial Bridge is closed... Key bridge is closed... traffic is being re-routed onto the beltway... which is an absolute catastrophe. There are people EVERYWHERE. Even the local bike routes are too crowded to use. Some of my friends actually decided to ice skate down the potomac and the canal because the tow path and roads are just that packed.
I <3 Obama, but jeez... this is completely nuts. I refuse to drive anywhere today.
seems like the media is really bent on making political symbolism out of this event in a skindeep way. to be sure, looking back 30 years from now, such symbolism is fine, but the presidency has many serious problems to face and offer many more serious promises. it is rare to see overt political narrative in public events that are not normally perfunctory. it is especially surprising here because this narrative did not come out in force like it is now during the campaigns. if the campaigns were framed as "the first black man to realize the dream of democratic equality and civic empowerment," then the tone at this event would be more understandable. but as it stands, it is as if the media wants to say what it did not dare to say during the campaigns.
on the other hand, i wonder how long before this detached good will transforms into actual reporting on the presidency. to be sure, being the president is not merely about being black and inspirational.
I love it how the anti-Obama crowd seems more interested in him fucking up rather than doing a good job. Oh well, I guess ideology and party affiliation is more important than national progress, amirite?
I'll probably catch the highlights of this stuff. Honestly, I doubt much will change from how things used to be pre-Bush, so it's not all that interesting.
He parked that speech, he parked it deep. Man that guy can talk, send chills down my spine. The subtle references to Bush's foreign policy and ignorance towards the constitution are debatable: in a speech targetted towards the future, why talk about the failed past? All in all though, one of the best, if not the best, political speeches I have ever heard.
Go Obama. Please proove you're words are more than empty gestures, the world needs it.
EDIT: For what I consider subtle Bush references see this paragraph of the speech:
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more
thank god theres going to be a president that can actually talk, bush never was good at giving speeches but in contrast to obama it just makes bush look silly.
On January 21 2009 02:05 a-game wrote: WOW their fucking up the oath of office hahahhaa
edit: forever etched into history, all tapes of his inauguration will show him and the justice stammering through and fucking up the oath of office.
awesome lol
The justice is who fucked it up mostly, he recited it from memory and it was really off and was missing alot. The stuttering and incorrect oath threw him off hence the messup.
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."
America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
On January 21 2009 02:44 BroOd wrote: Yeah, it was Justice Roberts who messed up, not President Obama.
i disagree, obama interrupted justice roberts before it was his turn to speak.
it goes "i first name middle name last name do solemnly swear // break"
obama interrupted roberts before he could say the 'do solemnly swear' part.
it's true that in the next lines, roberts messed up, but that was after he had already been interrupted by obama. it's pretty clear he was put off balance by obama's mistake, so it's definitely not roberts fault.
obama jumped the gun. not a big deal though, welcome to power President Obama!!
On January 21 2009 03:09 gm.tOSS wrote: Watched it live at work, nice speech. If he keeps true even half of what he mentioned America is in for a biiig change - for the better.
I always doubt the promises from campaigns and what presidents say in truth American politics cannot make the wishes of 1 man come true it's hard to move alot of people to approve for legalisations etc. Hopefully he can just do something positive in which we can see progress.
On January 19 2009 21:25 Frits wrote: Where's the option, who gives a flying fuck.
I'll watch the summary on the news, Im sure its a bunch of populist bullshit anyway.
saying 'who gives a fuck' to something this huge?
you're an fuking idiot.
Hype hype hype! lol seriously when he does something tangible or at least does something! ill give a crap until then idk. Personally when you see US politics watch how the lime light starts to fade in given 2 3 months no one will see crap about Obama in mainstream media unless something serious happen like further failure of the econ or something blows up.
On January 21 2009 03:23 ahswtini wrote: I'm not surprised he slipped up, just think how nervous he would be, and that was a pretty long line he had to repeat.
Yeah. All that build up, I'm sure he was nervous as hell.
That's really the only big goof up I can recall since I've started paying attention to his speeches.
I'm not surprised he slipped up although his voice is smooth and he comes out clearly when putting his words together his words he has a habit of saying Umm alot so minor slips up are to expected in such a formal set up.
On January 21 2009 03:23 ahswtini wrote: I'm not surprised he slipped up, just think how nervous he would be, and that was a pretty long line he had to repeat.
Yeah. All that build up, I'm sure he was nervous as hell.
That's really the only big goof up I can recall since I've started paying attention to his speeches.
Despite my earlier post on this, I actually agree with you. Until I see evidence showing that he isn't doing a particularly good job as president, I'm willing to write it off as a one-time caught-up-in-the-moment flub, as opposed to an indicator of his future performance in office.
Actually I think he "slipped up" cause Roberts wasn't saying the oath of office properly =P I assume he had rehearsed it a number of times and was like "wait wtf this isn't how it goes o.O"
On January 21 2009 03:29 EtherealDeath wrote: Actually I think he "slipped up" cause Roberts wasn't saying the oath of office properly =P I assume he had rehearsed it a number of times and was like "wait wtf this isn't how it goes o.O"
well here's what i based it on
going by bush's inauguration, obama interrupted roberts.
as i said earlier, after obama interrupted roberts and the whole cadence was put off balance, roberts messed up the next line. but it was obama that precipitated the error, so i think it's truely unfair to scapegoat roberts.
On January 21 2009 03:09 gm.tOSS wrote: Watched it live at work, nice speech. If he keeps true even half of what he mentioned America is in for a biiig change - for the better.
I always doubt the promises from campaigns and what presidents say in truth American politics cannot make the wishes of 1 man come true it's hard to move alot of people to approve for legalisations etc. Hopefully he can just do something positive in which we can see progress.
Obama has already admitted that he will not be able to keep all of the promises he has made, but he says he will work as hard as he can to get them done
First, Obama jumped in before he was supposed to speak. Then, Roberts messed up the oath. I'm sure Obama had the oath completely memorized so he was faked out. Roberts subsequently corrected himself and they moved on.
On January 21 2009 01:57 oneofthem wrote: on the other hand, i wonder how long before this detached good will transforms into actual reporting on the presidency. to be sure, being the president is not merely about being black and inspirational.
On January 20 2009 18:28 benjammin wrote: i like how every thread about obama seems to be an invitation for any moron to let loose their vendetta
I don't think a single person here has a vendetta against Obama, if you read the thread it's obvious that people are being skeptical about him, which seems like a pretty sensible position to me. Saying people here have a vendetta against Obama is the biggest exaggeration I've ever seen.
Please don't be the liberal equivalent of a flag waving idiotic redneck, it's just as bad. It's always good to be critical of politicians, Obama has not done anything yet, he's just a human like the rest of us and he will make mistakes. There's nothing anti-Obama about that statement.
On January 20 2009 18:28 benjammin wrote: i like how every thread about obama seems to be an invitation for any moron to let loose their vendetta
Please don't be the liberal equivalent of a flag waving idiotic redneck, it's just as bad. It's always good to be critical of politicians, Obama has not done anything yet, he's just a human like the rest of us and he will make mistakes. There's nothing anti-Obama about that statement.
so much money and effort for the oath ceremony and they mess it up a bit ironic
don't you think they got a bit carried away with this ceremony? Isn't Obama the one who called to reduce unnecessary government spending etc. isn't it a bit of a double standard to be in a terrible economic crisis and make the most expensive inauguration ceremony ever?
On January 21 2009 03:23 ahswtini wrote: I'm not surprised he slipped up, just think how nervous he would be, and that was a pretty long line he had to repeat.
Yeah. All that build up, I'm sure he was nervous as hell.
That's really the only big goof up I can recall since I've started paying attention to his speeches.
Despite my earlier post on this, I actually agree with you. Until I see evidence showing that he isn't doing a particularly good job as president, I'm willing to write it off as a one-time caught-up-in-the-moment flub, as opposed to an indicator of his future performance in office.
On January 21 2009 04:28 LordofToast wrote: Me and my friend played a drinking game where in we took a drink whenever the commentator mentioned Obama's race. We are now quite drunk.
On January 21 2009 03:23 ahswtini wrote: I'm not surprised he slipped up, just think how nervous he would be, and that was a pretty long line he had to repeat.
Yeah. All that build up, I'm sure he was nervous as hell.
That's really the only big goof up I can recall since I've started paying attention to his speeches.
Despite my earlier post on this, I actually agree with you. Until I see evidence showing that he isn't doing a particularly good job as president, I'm willing to write it off as a one-time caught-up-in-the-moment flub, as opposed to an indicator of his future performance in office.
Wow really?
*slip of tongue*
WHAT THE FUCK OBAMA YOU PROMISED CHANGE RAHHHHHHHH
On January 21 2009 02:05 a-game wrote: WOW their fucking up the oath of office hahahhaa
edit: forever etched into history, all tapes of his inauguration will show him and the justice stammering through and fucking up the oath of office.
awesome lol
And you screwed up your spelling
At first I thought it was barack that screwed up because he nodded his head to repeat it but later the CNN guys were saying it was the supreme justice court guy that messed it up
On January 21 2009 02:05 a-game wrote: WOW their fucking up the oath of office hahahhaa
edit: forever etched into history, all tapes of his inauguration will show him and the justice stammering through and fucking up the oath of office.
awesome lol
And you screwed up your spelling
At first I thought it was barack that screwed up because he nodded his head to repeat it but later the CNN guys were saying it was the supreme justice court guy that messed it up
Roberts fucked up; not Obama :/
Beautiful day everyone. HOOORAY BUSH IS GONE WOOOOOOOOOOOO
On January 21 2009 02:05 a-game wrote: WOW their fucking up the oath of office hahahhaa
edit: forever etched into history, all tapes of his inauguration will show him and the justice stammering through and fucking up the oath of office.
awesome lol
And you screwed up your spelling
At first I thought it was barack that screwed up because he nodded his head to repeat it but later the CNN guys were saying it was the supreme justice court guy that messed it up
Obama screwed up the beginning when he started repeating the oath before the judge was finished, but the judge screwed up when he said "that I will execute the office..." Hence Obama pausing mid-sentence and nodding to allow the judge to correct himself.
Still pretty embarassing, but not as bad for Obama as people seem to be making it.
On January 21 2009 01:57 oneofthem wrote: on the other hand, i wonder how long before this detached good will transforms into actual reporting on the presidency. to be sure, being the president is not merely about being black and inspirational.
/considering making this my new quote.
At the very least the monkeys at CNN/Fox/MSNBC could talk about Fiat's 35% buyout of Chrysler.
bush booed/jeered, and serenaded with "nah nah nah, hey hey, good bye"
wow. it's already clear that only a very small minority was happy/satisfied with bush, but people need to show some class. respect the office of the president, even if you don't respect the man.
I was surprised at how many people on campus saw that he was giving the speech on many TV's and just simple passed it up, ignoring it.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I actually thought that was the best part of the speech.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 11:16 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 13:18 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
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
I was talking about the general change of power between political parties/ideologies in a democracy. I was not talking about the Republican party because to do so means nothing unless we only talk about it in the last few decades since:
1956
Guess which party is red and which is blue...Obviously things have changed in the last 50 years.
On January 21 2009 14:01 fusionsdf wrote: 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
You and I judge people differently. You looked at the 2 campaigns and the words they spoke while I looked at their lives and the things they had done/accomplished.
In my opinion, you should never trust what a politician SAYS to understand him but rather what he does. ESPECIALLY during a political campaign.
Don't you remember when Bush debated Gore, Bush criticized Clinton/Gore for "nation building" and using our military when war wasn't necessary?
By your standard, would we really understand Bush? By my standard, I looked at how many executions he presided over in Texas (a TON) and I said, "This guy is a hawk".
Now you judged Obama and McCain based on their campaigns.
Not a good idea imo.
EDIT: I am not saying Obama is gonna be bad or socialist, but just that nobody knows what he is gonna do or be like because he has never actually done anything. We only have the words he spoke while in the middle of a political campaign. Which pretty much means squat in my book.
throwing a good party, and the inauguration is a political party of the highest level, is a part of conducting a presidency. obama has shown that he can manage public appearances. it is helpful to actual business, and plain pleasant as well.
my qualm with the media coverage is the potential misleading impression that obama is nothing but the grand talking points. people like savio already fell for it, apparently taking the public image effort as all there is to obama. obama is many times more competent at running stuff than bush, the entire approach is just more professional and well studied. he is not just talk, although the talk is part of the operation.
john mccain having a vision...he's not that near death, is he now. time to lay off the shrooms
regardless of what Obama accomplishes, i can't think of any better a vision to have. i'm going to put away my cynicism and reason for a moment and let it resonate a bit.
On January 21 2009 14:01 fusionsdf wrote: 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
You and I judge people differently. You looked at the 2 campaigns and the words they spoke while I looked at their lives and the things they had done/accomplished.
In my opinion, you should never trust what a politician SAYS to understand him but rather what he does. ESPECIALLY during a political campaign.
Don't you remember when Bush debated Gore, Bush criticized Clinton/Gore for "nation building" and using our military when war wasn't necessary?
By your standard, would we really understand Bush? By my standard, I looked at how many executions he presided over in Texas (a TON) and I said, "This guy is a hawk".
Now you judged Obama and McCain based on their campaigns.
Not a good idea imo.
EDIT: I am not saying Obama is gonna be bad or socialist, but just that nobody knows what he is gonna do or be like because he has never actually done anything. We only have the words he spoke while in the middle of a political campaign. Which pretty much means squat in my book.
hahaha
bush managed to nearly bankrupt an oil company and do a horrible job as governor mccain managed to finish fifth last in a class of ~900 and crash 3 seperate planes
both only managed to get where they were because of who their father was
On January 22 2009 15:51 D10 wrote: Obama is a self made man unlike McCain and Bush.
He had to earn everything he has, and if you think its all just sweet talk, then holy crap its the biggest scam in human history (AGAIN)
He's also traveled the world and I'm sure not many President's can say they've done that. I don't think Bush knows anything outside of the US, even Texas.
On January 22 2009 16:34 rushz0rz wrote: He's also traveled the world and I'm sure not many President's can say they've done that. I don't think Bush knows anything outside of the US, even Texas.
Contrary to popular belief, Bush is not from Texas. He grew up in Connecticut, went to prep school in Andover, MA, and got into Yale based on his attendance at Philips Andover Academy. This whole Texas residence business is all very recent.
Poll was missing an option. I saw part of it on accident when I went to the local Goodwill place to see if they had any motherboard standoffs. All the employees were sitting around the tube watching it, and I saw some as I politely waited for them to acknowledge me before I said fuck it and asked for some assistance. I've never watched an inauguration and had no plans to break my streak.
I did lol inside (contradiction!) when he gave the Shaka sign to a Hawaiian marching band and the announcer said something about him giving them a thumbs up.
On January 22 2009 16:28 a-game wrote: so did anybody go to this thing? 7 people voted yes, anyone want to share their experiences
I am so sad to admit that I indeed went to D.C.; however, I was so sick and even with 4 layers of clothes(2 long johns, long sleeve+pants, and a thick jacket) and 3 layers socks I was miserably cold.
I basically couldn't comprehend anything due to the MASSIVE headache I had; all I remember is some words (like "Thank You" at the end, useful huh?) and me crashing into random people because I couldn't support myself.
Sure, it was a historic moment, but I now think such a thing was not worth my time now.
Several friends of mine actually attended the inauguration. Apparently, whenever Bush's name was called, the entire audience boo'd heavily, but they edited it out for tv.
On January 22 2009 17:20 Tetris wrote: Several friends of mine actually attended the inauguration. Apparently, whenever Bush's name was called, the entire audience boo'd heavily, but they edited it out for tv.
Edited because my grammar sucks.
Oh yeah I remember that. Only my friend and a dude behind me clapped and supported Bush. Carter barely got any claps at all too.
I went to the inauguration and it was a pretty awesome experience, and my trip to philly and baltimore as well. i knew the boo's were going to come, i was on the opposite end of the national mall and i heard the boo's they were really loud. I was going to make a blog post but i figured i'd just post my web album for anyone interested in looking at the inauguration pictures which are towards the bottom of the album.
On January 21 2009 14:01 fusionsdf wrote: 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
You and I judge people differently. You looked at the 2 campaigns and the words they spoke while I looked at their lives and the things they had done/accomplished.
In my opinion, you should never trust what a politician SAYS to understand him but rather what he does. ESPECIALLY during a political campaign.
Don't you remember when Bush debated Gore, Bush criticized Clinton/Gore for "nation building" and using our military when war wasn't necessary?
By your standard, would we really understand Bush? By my standard, I looked at how many executions he presided over in Texas (a TON) and I said, "This guy is a hawk".
Now you judged Obama and McCain based on their campaigns.
Not a good idea imo.
EDIT: I am not saying Obama is gonna be bad or socialist, but just that nobody knows what he is gonna do or be like because he has never actually done anything. We only have the words he spoke while in the middle of a political campaign. Which pretty much means squat in my book.
hahaha
bush managed to nearly bankrupt an oil company and do a horrible job as governor mccain managed to finish fifth last in a class of ~900 and crash 3 seperate planes
both only managed to get where they were because of who their father was
Even Obama's supporters admit that he has the shortest resume of any major party nominee since....well as far back as anyone can remember. That doesn't even have to be defended because he didn't even try to run on accomplishment but on hope. It was a winning strategy, but doesn't change the fact that his resume was pretty slim. Almost no time in national politics, no legislative accomplishments that were significant, no experience running a state government, no military experience, no brilliant business successes...etc.
He seems a decent guy, he just hasn't done much. Although he does speak very well.
Hope and expertise. Some people blindly fed into the campaign messages, but don't discount the fact that he's a reportedly brilliant constitutional scholar with an IR background as well.
Savio, even you are going to have to give him some props if he keeps revoking Bush's executive orders. No president has given up that kind of power since George Washington.
I said earlier that I have a much more positive view of Obama than I do of other democratic leaders like Pelosi.
I do approve of these orders regarding executive privilege and transparency.
I also think he is very smart and knoweldgeable about constitutional law looking at his education. I was merely pointing out that what he had DONE was much smaller than is normal for a Presidential nominee.
On January 23 2009 08:18 XoXiDe wrote: I went to the inauguration and it was a pretty awesome experience, and my trip to philly and baltimore as well. i knew the boo's were going to come, i was on the opposite end of the national mall and i heard the boo's they were really loud. I was going to make a blog post but i figured i'd just post my web album for anyone interested in looking at the inauguration pictures which are towards the bottom of the album.
On January 21 2009 14:01 fusionsdf wrote: 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
You and I judge people differently. You looked at the 2 campaigns and the words they spoke while I looked at their lives and the things they had done/accomplished.
In my opinion, you should never trust what a politician SAYS to understand him but rather what he does. ESPECIALLY during a political campaign.
Don't you remember when Bush debated Gore, Bush criticized Clinton/Gore for "nation building" and using our military when war wasn't necessary?
By your standard, would we really understand Bush? By my standard, I looked at how many executions he presided over in Texas (a TON) and I said, "This guy is a hawk".
Now you judged Obama and McCain based on their campaigns.
Not a good idea imo.
EDIT: I am not saying Obama is gonna be bad or socialist, but just that nobody knows what he is gonna do or be like because he has never actually done anything. We only have the words he spoke while in the middle of a political campaign. Which pretty much means squat in my book.
hahaha
bush managed to nearly bankrupt an oil company and do a horrible job as governor mccain managed to finish fifth last in a class of ~900 and crash 3 seperate planes
both only managed to get where they were because of who their father was
Even Obama's supporters admit that he has the shortest resume of any major party nominee since....well as far back as anyone can remember. That doesn't even have to be defended because he didn't even try to run on accomplishment but on hope. It was a winning strategy, but doesn't change the fact that his resume was pretty slim. Almost no time in national politics, no legislative accomplishments that were significant, no experience running a state government, no military experience, no brilliant business successes...etc.
He seems a decent guy, he just hasn't done much. Although he does speak very well.
you still had roughly a year of campaigning to judge him on.
He didn't win because he used fancy words. He won because he had one of the most brilliant and well-oiled campaigns in US history. Even if you don't trust his words, if you look at the difference in effectiveness on the campaign trail, its easy to see who has his shit together
i also went to the inauguration because i am in DC atm for some research, so it was very convenient
i'm a fan of obama, but not much of a fan of all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the event, so initially i was annoyed by the whole thing, but my misanthropy pretty much melted by seeing the reactions of the people around me. i think being reasonably young and growing up in a much more progressive era has made racism a very abstract, impersonal idea, so my scope is limited a bit on the impact of the event, but the outpouring of emotion around me was enough for an affirmation of it
it was a bizarre thing, but i thought it was very classy on all fronts and run pretty smoothly (actually on that note i cannot comment, because i avoided the metro like a plague and my friends and i just hoofed it back to dupont in the cold, my fingers are still coming back to normal, where are those heating bags they give the progamers to keep their hands warm when i need them!)
On January 23 2009 08:18 XoXiDe wrote: I went to the inauguration and it was a pretty awesome experience, and my trip to philly and baltimore as well. i knew the boo's were going to come, i was on the opposite end of the national mall and i heard the boo's they were really loud. I was going to make a blog post but i figured i'd just post my web album for anyone interested in looking at the inauguration pictures which are towards the bottom of the album.
On January 23 2009 08:18 XoXiDe wrote: I went to the inauguration and it was a pretty awesome experience, and my trip to philly and baltimore as well. i knew the boo's were going to come, i was on the opposite end of the national mall and i heard the boo's they were really loud. I was going to make a blog post but i figured i'd just post my web album for anyone interested in looking at the inauguration pictures which are towards the bottom of the album.
Wow, thanks for sharing the pics! Where are you from btw?
I also liked your pictures very much, I wish I could have been there!
thanks, i'm from south texas, live in san antonio for school.
to benjammin>> my hands were the only things that got really cold, especially on the fri and saturday i went to d.c. it was fricken cold, i did have some handwarmers on inaug day though . the metro was nuts i ended up walking around for a while and waited at a museum for a bit until the crowds died down, which was like 4 hours later, so one of the best moments was followed by some of the worse due to the crowd and cold lol, but it was worth it.
i also have to say historic philadelphia was amazing.
To be honest its on when Trailer Park Boys are on so i wont watch it live but i guess it is the first black president so asoon as my TV turns on im gonna see it everywhere. so i guess Il watch the highlights later. This is more Important to Americans then it is to me so i am not going to comment on anything it will affect me but not as much.
it's still going to take it a while for it to sink in for me that someone with a brain is running the US now
i've been reading the news lately and been like "oh good decision; oh that's a smart move; oh i like that"
after 8 years it's so hard for my head to absorb that good decisions are being made, and those good decisions have a direct trickle down effect on all global citizens.