WWTBAM Bored

according to cnn.com


oops, my cut-and-paste left off: after a mix-up during the inaugural ceremony, the White House says.

t.

Well, that clears that up.

Clearly.

Well, that clears that up.

Clearly.

lol. Clearly. At least, IMO.


t.

Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur had similar problems with muffed wording, and they both also repeated the Oath of Office later in private.

According to the Washington Post, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University was hosting an inauguration party, and did a mock swearing-in of 35 children. When Roberts misspoke the line, the kids yelled, "That's not right!"

A little more detail (as reported on Drudge) ...

"At 735 pm, Roberts administred the oath of office again to obama in the map room. Robert gibbs said the wh counsel, greg craig, believes the oath was fine Tuesday, but one word was out of sequence so they did this out of a "an abundance of caution." "We decided it was so much fun..." Obama joked while sitting on a couch. Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool as roberts donned his black robe. "Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked. "I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," obama replied. Oath took 25 seconds. After a flawless recitation, roberts smiled and said, "congratulations, again." Obama said, "thank you, sir." Smattering of applause. "All right." Obama said. "The bad news for the pool is there's 12 more balls." "

greg craig,

Good grief, his parents named him "Greg Craig?" That's awful!

One of our local pundits compared an inauguration to "A ceremonial root canal performed without anesthetic in a dentist's office where the heat has failed and the whole waiting room is watching to cheer." Sounds about right!

Whole bunch of whining about the press not being informed or invited to see and record the second oath (or the first correct one, whatever). They were saying this is not an example of transparency.

oh my god.

peacock2121 wrote:Whole bunch of whining about the press not being informed or invited to see and record the second oath (or the first correct one, whatever). They were saying this is not an example of transparency.

oh my god.

There were reporters present and one audio recording (poor quality, from what I heard this morning).

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Whole bunch of whining about the press not being informed or invited to see and record the second oath (or the first correct one, whatever). They were saying this is not an example of transparency.

oh my god.

There were reporters present and one audio recording (poor quality, from what I heard this morning).

Correct.

They are annoyed that no video was taken and that so few reportes knew about it before it happened.

They are still talking about it on TV.

peacock2121 wrote:

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Whole bunch of whining about the press not being informed or invited to see and record the second oath (or the first correct one, whatever). They were saying this is not an example of transparency.

oh my god.

There were reporters present and one audio recording (poor quality, from what I heard this morning).

Correct.

They are annoyed that no video was taken and that so few reportes knew about it before it happened.

They are still talking about it on TV.

No kidding. When there's no real news to report on, they just pick some minor item and expand on it ad nauseum, thereby creating the image of news where none previously existed. Either that, or they call in the "experts" when they have no real data to work with on a breaking story.

Even we news junkies would not suffer from lack of real and useful information if the network (including cable) news programs were shortened by 50% or more.

Did you see the scene earlier in the day where Obama and Biden were administering the oath to the executive staffers?

Biden made the crack "I'm getting older, so my memory might not be as good as Chief Justice Roberts..."

When he said that, Obama gave him a glare that would have melted steel. It's the first time I've ever seen him angry...guy looks like he can have quite the temper.

Jeemie wrote: When he said that, Obama gave him a glare that would have melted steel. It's the first time I've ever seen him angry...guy looks like he can have quite the temper.

No comment.....

Ah, it's nice to see that my posts are being read.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: When he said that, Obama gave him a glare that would have melted steel. It's the first time I've ever seen him angry...guy looks like he can have quite the temper.

No comment.....

Then why did you?

So Obama's not amused when Biden does the most butt stupid thing possible by insulting the Top Dog Judge and now he has a dangerous temper and will surely become violent at some point?

WheresFanny wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: When he said that, Obama gave him a glare that would have melted steel. It's the first time I've ever seen him angry...guy looks like he can have quite the temper.

No comment.....

Then why did you?

So Obama's not amused when Biden does the most butt stupid thing possible by insulting the Top Dog Judge and now he has a dangerous temper and will surely become violent at some point?

No comment means just that... no comment. You may read into that what you will.

I've made a pledge to myself not to make any more comments about Obama on this Bored until there's something substantive to comment about.

Anyone who has ever been given a real Mommy Look knows the look Obama gave him.

Has nothing to do with temper.

WheresFanny wrote:Obama's not amused when Biden does the most butt stupid thing possible by insulting the Top Dog Judge and now he has a dangerous temper and will surely become violent at some point?

That's certainly not what I meant by it.

peacock2121 wrote:Anyone who has ever been given a real Mommy Look knows the look Obama gave him.

Has nothing to do with temper.

OK- he was exasperated- probably looking ahead to many more times where he'll have to deal with Biden's gaffes.

Jeemie wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Anyone who has ever been given a real Mommy Look knows the look Obama gave him.

Has nothing to do with temper.

OK- he was exasperated- probably looking ahead to many more times where he'll have to deal with Biden's gaffes.

That I will agree with.

Jeemie wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Anyone who has ever been given a real Mommy Look knows the look Obama gave him.

Has nothing to do with temper.

OK- he was exasperated- probably looking ahead to many more times where he'll have to deal with Biden's gaffes.

In the breakroom where I ate lunch there was a table of African-American women talking about Obama. One of them mentioned Biden's joke and all of them "tsk-tsk"ed about how Biden was "dissing the President". They didn't see his remark as funny in the slightest.

silverscreenselect wrote:No comment means just that... no comment.

Only if someone has asked you to comment. If no one has asked you to comment, then "no comment" does not mean "no comment".

Only if someone has asked you to comment. If no one has asked you to comment, then "no comment" does not mean "no comment".

Really? My thinking is that by posting thoughts, one is inviting comment. Even 'no comment' comments.


t.