Obama: Swear Oath Again

I agree ...I believe he did on Wednesday night ...here is link to update http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_tak.../21/173850.html

The fumbled oath is Just a little technicality ...........Another one is he has not produced his birth certificate to refute claims he is not a natural born US citizen. You must be born USA to be president.The concern came to light when during an interview his aunt in Kenya said "I remember holding Barack when he was a newborn baby" (in Kenya).Obama claims to be born in Hawaii but has not shown proof. One copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate was posted on a pro-Obama website but was removed after it was shown to be an altered copy .The Liberals do not eat their own so do not expect them to dig around. But If he was really born in Kenya this information is powerful blackmail material in the hands of those who really run the world. This is what concerns me. Personally I don't care where he was born but if he is beholden to others in secret it is a serious matter.Martin W.

(Christina;68183)
Do-over: Obama retakes oath of office President stumbled after Chief Justice John Roberts blunderedThe Associated Pressupdated 8:47 p.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 21, 2009WASHINGTON - After the flub heard around the world, President Barack Obama has taken the oath of office. Again. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath to Obama on Wednesday night at the White House - a rare do-over.The surprise moment came in response to Tuesday's much-noticed stumble, when Roberts got the words of the oath a little off, which prompted Obama to do so, too. Don't worry, the White House says: Obama has still been president since noon on Inauguration Day. Nevertheless, Obama and Roberts went through the drill again out of what White House counsel Greg Craig called "an abundance of caution." A quieter settingThis time, the scene was the White House Map Room in front of a small group of reporters, not the Capitol platform before the whole watching world. "We decided that because it was so much fun ...," Obama joked to reporters who followed press secretary Robert Gibbs into the room. No TV camera crews or news photographers were allowed in. Roberts put on his black robe. "Are you ready to take the oath?" he said. "Yes, I am," Obama said. "And we're going to do it very slowly." Roberts then led Obama through the oath without any missteps. The president said he did not have his Bible with him, but that the oath was binding anyway. The original, bungled version on Tuesday caught observers by surprise and then got replayed on cable news shows. It happened when Obama interrupted Roberts midway through the opening line, in which the president repeats his name and solemnly swears. Next in the oath is the phrase " ... that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But Roberts rearranged the order of the words, not saying "faithfully" until after "president of the United States." Obama thrown offThat appeared to throw Obama off. He stopped abruptly at the word "execute." Recognizing something was off, Roberts then repeated the phrase, putting "faithfully" in the right place but without repeating "execute." story continued at link:[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780417/?gt1=42003]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780417/?gt1=42003[/url]
Of course he did not have his bible with him.This is very dangerous thing to do. I would never support anyone who claims himself as Christian and "President" of the U.S. does not have the bible with him... in fact, does not even care about His Word...Secondly, did he even prove to everybody that he was U.S. born citizen? I highly doubt that...Anybody, if he did, please fill me in.

I understand that the Oath to be President must be repeated exactly as the USA constitution states it.(This of course is why it was repeated later)Can anyone tell me if the US Constitution requires the bible being used with one hand resting on it during the swearing of the Oath?ThxMartin

According to the 20th amendment president elect obama was president at 12 noon on the 20th. Regardless of him taking the oath.Secondly, did he even prove to everybody that he was U.S. born citizen? I highly doubt that... Good point Jordan. Also did you notice while everyone who was being introduced that day of inauguration... George Walker Bush... were introduced with their full name. But Barack Hussein Obama was not introduced like so. He was introduced Barack H. Obama. It may not be such a big deal, but why wasn't his full name stated that day, and everyone elses. Watch the introduction again if you don't believe me.

How many here voted for obama?

(chris redfield;68717)
How many here voted for obama?
I did. I have a weird feeling I may be the only one.

I voted for Barack Obama. I listen to the issues, I don't make up my mind before hearing the issue. There are things I agree with and things I don't agree with, however, starting with major presuppositions is dangerous because if they have a big problem with one thing here or a few things there, you create that "see, I knew it" effect.I agree with about 60% of Obama's views to McCain's 40%. Not only that, but I don't think politics (I don't think this line of work should even be called that) is all about there political views. Politics is one of many ways (in this line of work, the most important way) to land a job in office, but you have to have many things.People have a gang mentality. People need to have the easiest way to be identifiable right from the start. You have to be a "this" or a "that". In high school, you have to be a "jock", or a "skater" or "hip", or "punk", or "goth", or "nerd" ect. This is politics, and they have their own lobbyists. It's not all bad, but It's dangerous if you can't see past that.It's the same thing when we have people running for office. You have to be a "this or that" so people can "know what you're about or stand for". You have to be "democrat" or "republican" or "conservative" or "liberal". I don't know anyone who is any one of those things. They just have views that other people identify with that "club". But a person who rund for office has to play "politics" and therefore has to present themself as a member of a certain club in order to gain political clout. That's why It's easier to make friends or get dates if you dress like a "thug" or a "jock" and thus creating an identity that the other person recognizes already, and they think they now "know you".And that's the problem, people running for office need to make people feel like they are "known", and if they don't, people will see something about them and feel like they know them anyway based SOLEY on the first thing they see. That's because you are desperetely trying to find their gang identity. If I dress like hip hop all the time, I will be known for my hip hop, and then I can wear a cowboy hat and no one will ever accuse me of being a cowboy. However, if I only dress with my own style, no one will have an identity for me, and will try desperetely to look for one. So, If I were to then put on a cowboy hat, people would then automatically say "so he's a cowboy". It's a psychological thing, sociology, and if you are identity-less, no group of people (or even one) will have the same identity of you (it's like two people having the same dream) and it will just be instinct to try to automatically assign you to an already existing identity based off of the first thing they see. So if you put the cowboy hat on, then that's it, you're a cowboy (this is if you are identity-less, or aka an "outcast").Not all people think with this gang oriented line of thinking, as a matter of fact, alot of people don't, and this way of thinking is quickly dying, which is a good thing. I have never thought this way and have gone through alot of pain about issues centering around this train of thought, on both sides of the coin. When Obama says he's pro choice, people cry "liberal", or that it's atleast a "liberal" position. It's not a liberal position, It's a position that alot of people have that have sinse been named liberal. Do i think It's wrong? Yes, I am pro choice. Do I think alot of people who are commonly labeled as liberal have alot of vies I find bad? Yes, but I recognize them as bad views by people with bad views, not that it's "liberal", even though you know what their views are by hearing them refer to themselves with that word. I said before that this gang line of thinking isn;t necessarily bad, and is needed for quick identity, which I understand, and even use myself, but I also understand more to it than that, and I understand that it can be very dangerous at times.For example: If Obama says he wants to tax people who make more than $250,000 a year, people don't hear the $250,000 a year part, they hear "tax people with more money", and then they hear "liberal", even though is plan is very much different than another's who is cosidered "liberal", and therefore they actually say he's "very liberal" ore something like that. I find it weird that there exists a "scale". It's like If I'm an "outcast" and I wear a cowbay hat, people will say I'm "10% cowboy". No I'm not, I wear a cowboy hat, It's a hat that people used to wear, and then some guy who wanted to indentify "types of people" with a bigot sense decided to start calling people who wear them cowboys and then said that the hat was a cowboy hat. It's like if a group of people started wearing rubber bands on their left wrist and they all happened to be chinese, and someone just started calling it "chinese bands". Ever hear the term "wife beater"? What if do-rags started being called "n***er hats"? Oh, that's a little rough, but, it's the same thing, think about it. I'm hald black and half white, and I can't be fooled, It's all the same amount of bigotry, it's just that certain lines are drawn to be deemed acceptable based off of the convenience of certain people in order to accomplish something. That's politics. Politics is good as long as you're not offending or hurting anyone. However, it rarely happens because people still have that clouded line of thinking that identifying a group is always the same, and it isn't. Everytime I put on a cowboy hat, it dosen't mean that I'm a cowboy, and, it also doesn't mean that If I wear a cowboy hat and I'm not a cowboy, that it somehow proves that cowboys don't exist. Anyway, I voted for Barack Obama because I felt that he was the overall, best candidate, and I do mean overall. I have a hard time talking to anyone about these two great men, John McCain and Barack Obama. because I have liberal friends and conservative friends, and so it's a lost cause. People who I know that Voted for McCain were really voting for conservatism, and people I know that voted for Obama were voting for liberalism. Also, most people who were voting for McCain were just voting against Obama, and really just against Liberalism, but most people who were voting for Obama weren't voting against McCain or conservatism as much as the ones voting for McCain were voting against liberalism and Obama, but a good number of them were still voting against McCain and conservatism, as well as against Bush, who wasn't even going to be president.As reguards to McCain and Obama's views, like I said, I'm 60% Obama an 40% McCain. There are things i disagree with both of them on. But, of the big, major things that were important to me at this time, Obama was in favor of a few of them, and McCain a little less than that. Of the 60% of issues I agreed with Obama on, those included more big things than the things I agreed with McCain on. (On a side note, I'm so sick of seeing celebs go on tv and say they voted for Obama because of his views when they don't even know what they are, and It's obvious they are just voting for liberalism, or because he's a democrat).Anyway, my breakdown would look like this.#1 Education: This is Obama's big thing and this is my big thing, so it's a match here. I have always highly valued a great college education, and I have been unable to get one because of a whole lot of curcumstanced with my family, and just never getting a good shot, and not affording it. Obama's proposed plan fits me perfectly. If the $4,000 a year of tuition with exchange of community service is true, then that's great. I don't care If I have to pay money back, complaining about that it just wanting something for nothing, and I'm not like that.#2 Economy. I fully support, after all aspects are weighed, that people who have more money should pay SOME back to the poor who don't have as much. Do I think that most poor people are lazy and don't want to truly but there rear end to dig themself out of a hole? Yes actually, I do. I think most, not all, poor people are poor because they think like a poor person, and a rich person thinks like a rich person. however, this is no excuse at all for not giving the poor person the opportunity to dig themself out. If they are poor with no opportunity, then you have no right calling them lazy minded. If, however, they get some of your money and are still poor, then you have every right to say they are lazy minded. they have their opportunity for the most part if they get some of the money that you worked for. I don't really believe that it's MY MONEY like some many people think. It's the countries money, the governments money, they just pay it all to me in echange for some work, and I can do whatever work I like, without them even telling me what I have to do, so long as i give them a small cut of what i make. just like renting space. At that point, It's their money, and they can do whatever they want with it, but I have a right to complain if they spend it on things i don't like (like the space program) becaus of the fact that I payed it to them. Look, meney dosen't grow on trees, and it certaintly dosen't appear or disappear, it just get's moved around, the same money does. I don't really have a problem with a "redistribute the wealth" kind of philosophy because having a problem with it would imply that there isn't always a redistributing of the wealth going on. You see, there is. Money is always redistributed, but just in different ways. Either the people control where the money is getting redistributed based off of what they buy, or the government controls the redistribution based off of what they tax, and I already gave my vies on taxing. The only time the economy is bad is when money isn't being redistributed, when all the money is sitting in one place, either within someone's bank account or outside of the country.#3, Origins science: I believe that Intelligent design, and even Creationism, should be taught at public schools and Evolution should be atleast criticized, but at the college level, where students are paying for the classes. I would side with McCain on this one, as I think Obama is in opposition to it (not knowing what it is) and McCain has flip flopped on the idea, but I still find him more likely to accept it. If you believe that Neo-Dawrinism is the complete truth, you would have atleast become much smarter after hearing the other theories, sciences, applications, and concepts thereof.#4 War In Iraq: I side with Obama over McCain. Now I know what you're thinking, I'm against the war. No, see, that's the poisoning of politics gone wrong that's working right there. I analyzed this situation as a person, the way you're supposed to. I believe the politically incorrect assertion that a person that has the ability to help out someone in trouble should do so, It's an overall principal. So, I find it hypocritical when other people embrace this philosophy on the war but don't embrace this philosophy on the economy. More on that later. I find it perfectly acceptable if we outright invaded Iraq just to get rid of sadam, even if he was only hurting his own people. Not many people will admit that, but If someone is beating their wife in my presence, hey, it's not my wife, I'm staying out of it, right? Bull. I'm punching the guy in the face. However, after I'm done punching the guy in the face, I'm not going to go ahead and marry the wife because I feel sorry for her. I'm going to take her in, dust her off, help her regain her emotional independence, and then send her on her merry way. Likewise I feel the same with Iraq. We SHOULD stay there untill we reach the LEVEL OR TIME in which we feel they should be able to handle themselves, not untill they DO handle themselves. As a matter of fact, If you feel that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, that STILL isn't an opposition to staying there, as a matter of fact, It's an argument supporting staying there. If you make a bad decision and you have a one night stand with a girl and you get her pregnant and she has a kid, when that kid is 6 years old, do you just pack up and leave? And when your kids mother steps up and says "what the heck are you doing? You can't just leave!", do you answer her with "sorry, I made a mistake, I should't have sleped with you". No, as a matter of fact the conversation may just look like this: Woman says "what the heck are you doing, you can't just leave" and the guy says "I don't like the reponsibility", but the woman says "well you shouldn't have sleped with me in the first place, now take some responsibility like a man!". So, in regards to Iraq, "we shouldn't have gone there" is actually an argument FOR taking responsibility, not against. A person wants us to leave and not take responsibility, you can tell them "then we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, now, we have to face the music". this argument makes much more sense to me.However, at this point, it looks to me that the father stood up like a man, and took care of the kid untill he turned 20, and now the kid is old enough to where he should be independant, but he isn't, and he's rebelling against you and it just plain immature and disrespectful, so, it's time to kick him out. I believe that this is the point where we are in the war. I have no doubt that the Iraqi soldiers want us to stay over there, and that as soon as we leave that the real mess will start up over there, however, at this rate they will be dependent on us for 100 years, and we are at the point where they should have grown up by now, if they don't, not our problem anymore. I have a brother In Iraq right now, so I'm not completely ignorant on the issue. My brother tells me that me has had the experience of a lifteime over there, both good and bad, and with helping children over there and visiting very large cities (not desert wastelands like the news shows). He says it's been a blast, but is ready to come home. He also says that he fully believes that we should stay over there because chaos will erupt as soon as we leave. But again, I have the immature 20 year old analogy.So, I side with Obama that It's time for our troops to come home, but not because of the same reasons that Obama has, or that war protesters have, they seem like selfish hypocrites to me.#5, History: Not all about politics, but also about a sense of nationalism and the ability to execute. Obama has this as far as I'm concerned. It's not just a black thing, It's a history thing, which IS important. Being a black president isn't about being black per se, but It's about making history, just as Hilary would have, and Sarah Palin would have. Obama's race here is a factor, but jot the factor. I think that right now is the perfect time for history to be made, and for a strong sense of nationalism to be reinvigorated. I think we went from having strong patriotism to having anti- americans running wild in nearly record time (2001-2005ish). Voting a black man into the presidential office, at any time, would have been the biggest American accomplishment yet, and during these troubling times and anti-Americanism it sure didn't look like that the biggest American accomplishment was going to happen any time soon. therefore, doing so, and at these times, was a sure fire way to understand how great this country really is, and definitely reinvigorate our sense of nationalism.So, those were my biggest issues. Of the smaller issues, I think McCain had more support from me, but he didn't an all the big ones. Also, I decide what the "big issues" are based off of what is going on in the world currently, not just on the same set of personal beliefs on certain things that are outside of current events.Could Barack Obama be the anti-christ? Who knows, McCain or Palin could have, when someone gains power, they can change their mind, that goes both ways for turing bad or turning good. So, I voted for Barack Obama, not because I heard he was for this or for that, but because I used my brain the best I could and I decided what I thought was best overall.

I am a canadian citizen. So I didn't vote for anyone. Even if I was american I wouldn't vote for anyone. I have a theory that your votes are irrelevant. "The one behind the curtain", makes the final decision, regardless of what the majority wants. Look at the voting between Al Gore and Mr.Bush. Anyways, letting everyone on here know I'm canadian may just be used against me. We'll see though. O yea "Dragon". I didn't read your post, but I wanted to know if you were Christian. Why would I ask? Due to the fact that your nickname is Dragon. Dragon representing Satan. So why nickname yourself that?

(chrissy;68886)
I am a canadian citizen. So I didn't vote for anyone. Even if I was american I wouldn't vote for anyone. I have a theory that your votes are irrelevant. "The one behind the curtain", makes the final decision, regardless of what the majority wants. Look at the voting between Al Gore and Mr.Bush. Anyways, letting everyone on here know I'm canadian may just be used against me. We'll see though. O yea "Dragon". I didn't read your post, but I wanted to know if you were Christian. Why would I ask? Due to the fact that your nickname is Dragon. Dragon representing Satan. So why nickname yourself that?
WHY are you making fun of me? You don't know me, or anything about me. I successfully defend my Christian faith against "militant atheists" and totally school and debunk them every which way, soley on logic, which they like to claim Christians don't have. But aside from that, all I have to do is come in here and say that I voted for Obama and I get called satan based off of my screen name. Nice one, also extremely paranoid.I'm an artist. I can paint, draw, sculpt, and do portraits. I can work with basically any medium, like oil painting, acrylic painting, chalk pastels, oil pastels, charcoal, and regular pencil drawings. The types of works I can do are many different things like portraits of humans, portraits of animals, landscapes, stillife, scenery, and particular animals like leopards, Lions, tigers, and yes, dragons. I'm known for my work in doing dragons, and I have grown fond of them.I'm a Christian with the strength of a dragon, not that I fight on the side of satan, which is ridiculous. Most Christians would love to have a "dragon" on their side so to speak, which is what I am. My style of defending the faith is more based off of deep thought and logic rather than information and Bible verses (which doesn't make me evil). I can debunk "militant atheism" by using their own reasoning, and nothing else. Couple that with a few Biblical experts and you have an unbeatable team. Just remember, not everyone is the same, so name calling and fighting with people who are also defending their faith just because of a few differences is dangerous to us, and will be exploited.

chrissy, Dragon,Let's stay on topic

Now that is a lot of brass air fittings there is just about every type of air fitting that you could want. Wholesale prices too. I guess these could be used as small water pipe fitting also. I used some of the parts to make my babington wvo bu