WWTBAM Bored

Just wanted to be the first...

Buffacuse wrote:Just wanted to be the first...

My m-i-l beat you beat 70 days or so.

Hannity.com posters make both buff and tribe's mother look pokey- they were saying this back in May!!!!

either as a joke, or as a real sentiment, this is just petty and appears intended to start something.

Shame on you!

a1mamacat wrote:either as a joke, or as a real sentiment, this is just petty and appears intended to start something.

Shame on you!

I took it as a joke, and it appears to have been taken as such by those who have posted on the thread.

Chill!!!

a1mamacat wrote:either as a joke, or as a real sentiment, this is just petty and appears intended to start something.

Shame on you!

Saucy, if memory serves, Buff announced (after Palin's interview with Katie Couric) that he intended to vote for Obama. It's a joke, poking fun at us, not the Administration. --Bob

He should be impeached. He did not say the swearing-in words properly (see Article II, Section I for clarity) . He flubbed it. Therefore, it does not count and he should be made to do it all over again.

Sir_Galahad wrote:He should be impeached. He did not say the swearing-in words properly (see Article II, Section I for clarity) . He flubbed it. Therefore, it does not count and he should be made to do it all over again.

I think they are saying the Chief Justice got them wrong.

christie1111 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:He should be impeached. He did not say the swearing-in words properly (see Article II, Section I for clarity) . He flubbed it. Therefore, it does not count and he should be made to do it all over again.

I think they are saying the Chief Justice got them wrong.

Well, Obama flubbed first, by talking over Chief Justice Roberts, and then Roberts flubbed by moving "faithfully" to the end of the phrase.

Sir_Galahad wrote:He should be impeached. He did not say the swearing-in words properly (see Article II, Section I for clarity) . He flubbed it. Therefore, it does not count and he should be made to do it all over again.

I would love to see a trial that tries to assert that "flubbing the Oath of Office" is a "high crime or misdemeanor"!

No worries. The oaf of office has returned to Crawford.

Buffacuse wrote:Just wanted to be the first...

Biting tongue... biting tongue.... biting tongue....

No comment.

Oy....

Joking. Joking. I work for the guy now, and I really like him...

Sometimes jokes fall flat.

This was that time for some.

moving along......

If I gotta be impeached, then so does everyone else I consider to be a crony....

Of course, we need to impeach him. He is killing the stock market! With drops of 300+ points a day, and a declining market since he was elected, everything will be at 0 before he leaves office. (TPFIC)

Appa23 wrote:Of course, we need to impeach him. He is killing the stock market! With drops of 300+ points a day, and a declining market since he was elected, everything will be at 0 before he leaves office. (TPFIC)

With the way bank stocks dropped yesterday (20%+), they'll be to 0 by next week.

Hmph...impeach Roberts! He was the one who flubbed; Obama just gave him kind of a "Say What?" look.

Anyhoo....transfer of office takes place at 12 noon, oath or no oath. If they're a little behind schedule and he took the oath at 12:30, he was already Pres for half an hour. If they got ahead of themselves and he took it at 11:55, Bush would have still been Pres for 5 more minutes.

Eisenhower & Reagan both took the oath on Jan. 21, since Jan. 20 had fallen on Sunday -- but in each case it was a 2nd term!

Robert's screwed up. But, then why not: Obama voted against his confirmation.

Obama became President while the quartet was playing.

The bible was the same Lincoln used. Lincoln and Justice Taney hated each other. One freed the slaves and the other wrote the Dred Scott Decision.

The internet is just a bunch of tubes, but, my they are fascinating.

They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

If this is the worst mistake either of them makes in the next four years, then our country will be in great shape...

.... and you'll be hearing a lot less of me in political posts.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

Because some people, not around here, do not accept that President Obama is their President. They will go to any lengths to distance themselves from him.

What I would have liked is a little less shrill rhetoric on their part and more campaigning for their own candidate, but the ones I'm most closely acquainted with did not do that. And aren't saying anything positive now. They're positively gleeful over the small miscues in the oath, as if it "proves" something.

Sigh.

SportsFan68 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

Because some people, not around here, do not accept that President Obama is their President. They will go to any lengths to distance themselves from him.

What I would have liked is a little less shrill rhetoric on their part and more campaigning for their own candidate, but the ones I'm most closely acquainted with did not do that. And aren't saying anything positive now. They're positively gleeful over the small miscues in the oath, as if it "proves" something.

Sigh.

The only problem with your response is that the ones on this Bored who are not acknowledging that both screwed up are those who claim that only Chief Justice Roberts screwed up.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

Because some people, not around here, do not accept that President Obama is their President. They will go to any lengths to distance themselves from him.

What I would have liked is a little less shrill rhetoric on their part and more campaigning for their own candidate, but the ones I'm most closely acquainted with did not do that. And aren't saying anything positive now. They're positively gleeful over the small miscues in the oath, as if it "proves" something.

Sigh.

The only problem with your response is that the ones on this Bored who are not acknowledging that both screwed up are those who claim that only Chief Justice Roberts screwed up.

I'm positively gleeful over Sprots' screw-up.

But only because it, again, provides support to Wintergreen's Bias Hypothesis.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They both screwed up. Why is that so hard for some to acknowledge?

Because some people, not around here, do not accept that President Obama is their President. They will go to any lengths to distance themselves from him.

What I would have liked is a little less shrill rhetoric on their part and more campaigning for their own candidate, but the ones I'm most closely acquainted with did not do that. And aren't saying anything positive now. They're positively gleeful over the small miscues in the oath, as if it "proves" something.

Sigh.

The only problem with your response is that the ones on this Bored who are not acknowledging that both screwed up are those who claim that only Chief Justice Roberts screwed up.

Everyone on this Bored accepts that President Obama is the President. You asked why Some refuse to acknowledge that they both screwed up. I answered by telling you, referring to a population I'm acquainted with which does not post on this Bored. Your question did not say, "Why is that so hard for some on this Bored to acknowledge?" so I felt free to refer to a different population. I noted that distinction with "not around here," so while you think there is a problem with my response, I believe it's a case of apples and oranges. I thought I had made it clear I was talking about something different; I regret the confusion. OK, I don't really regret the confusion -- Cal and I have often talked in apples and oranges ever since I've "known" him. It's business as usual.