President Obama's swearing-in (not meant to be political)

[_JAK]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

What do you think qualifies any person to be President of the US?

Are those qualifiers are not age, citizenship, 14 years a citizen of the US, and sufficient electoral votes from states? Being a Democrat does not disqualify a person from becoming President of the US.

[_bcspace]

What do you think qualifies any person to be President of the US?

One that will uphold the constitution, support conservative values, Ether 2:8-10, that sort of thing, etc.

Are those qualifiers are not age, citizenship, 14 years a citizen of the US, and sufficient electoral votes from states?

Is Obama a natural-born citizen? Then let Hawaii bring forth the birth certificate.

Also persmission from the well-informed voter is implied don't you think?

Being a Democrat does not disqualify a person from becoming President of the US.

Such instrinsicly support the abolishment of the constitution. Feminists, socialists, homosexuals, liberals of all stripes, etc.

[_cinepro]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

What do you think qualifies any person to be President of the US?

Are those qualifiers are not age, citizenship, 14 years a citizen of the US, and sufficient electoral votes from states? Being a Democrat does not disqualify a person from becoming President of the US.

Yes, those are not the qualifiers.

The qualifiers are actually that he be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least thirty-five years old, have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years, not already been President 2x, (and currently get enough electoral votes, but that hasn't always been the case).

[_cinepro]

Yes. The mainstream media has been declared king maker.

You keep making this accusation, but you never actually explain what you mean. For starters, can you tell me when the mainstream media became "king maker"? Was it before or after Bush served two consecutive terms? And at what point did they decide that Obama was to be king, and not McCain, or Romney, or Biden, or Clinton, or Sharpton?

[_hobart]

Hi Hobart, yes that, and similar incidents, can't help but make a thinking person think. Which can't help but beg the question: "Is there any validity and purpose--beyond serving ritualistic tradition--served by any, "repeat after me," articulations?"

In my seriously considered opinion, (IMSCO) no. Such is simply theatrics supposedly adding drama and significance to impress the impressionable. So, in that it's harmless. That is, unless one takes it serriously, as speaking for God.

When "God" dictates an edict/formulae/vow/etc... to violate THAT, one opens themselves to REAL serious consequences, such as: Mistaking gasoline as water and throwing in a lighted match Paraphrasing Jim Croche: "Ya don't mess around with Really-god/Nature!"
(Leroy Brown :-)

I think that might be why the President smiled. He knows such theatrics is just playing to the crowd... Means nothing but that...
Roger
*
*

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Sorry I didn't have until this evening to address it. It actually sent me thinking back to my Anthropology of Religion class. There are theories about why these rituals and rites are so important. Transformation ceremonies and ritual catharsis (theories that were developed by thinkers like Arnold Van Genep and Victor Turner) "heighten your awareness that something important has taken place--the transformation ceremonies that have the most drama associated with it are the most important in a society" (my actual notes from the class). And I suspect swearing-in ceremonies and exact wording of rites are done so as an outward symbolism to heighten the awareness (for the participants) of the importance of the event that has taken place. As you said "theatrics supposedly adding drama and significance to impress the impressionable." And that's the whole point--if it were as simple as what we do every day, there would be no importance in our minds of what has occurred. I am also reminded the when I sent my resignation letter to the church--I bought heavier weight paper, printed it in "fine" quality, and signed it with my best pen that I normally keep in a drawer because it's hard to write with (black gel ink). Why? Because it was important to me; it was a serious, life-changing event. But again, it doesn't do much for a perfectionist like me. I recall printing the thing numerous times because I wanted it perfect.

[_bcspace]

Yes. The mainstream media has been declared king maker.

You keep making this accusation, but you never actually explain what you mean.

I believe I have done so several times. The mainstream media perpetuated the notion that Obama was some kind of hero without digging too much into his radical past and associations (which shaped his politics) and his stated policies. In other words, they put make-up on a pig.

Remember how eager the media was to look into Bush's National Guard service? Even to the point of forging documents? Where was that eagerness to delve into Kerry or Obama? The bottom line is that the mainstream media are bought and paid for schills of the democratic party and they control the message.

[_ajax18]

Meanwhile, CEO's continue to redecorate their offices for $1million plus on the taxpayer's dime.

Yes, yes the large percentage of CEOs in the population is what is taking away from the average taxpayer. It has nothing to do with uncontrolled and explosive population growth exasperating the cycle of poverty.

I don't like CEOs either, but if we continue to scape goat them and ignore the dilemma that exists between building capital and multiplying in number we're never going to force the human race to face the dilemma and make a conscious decision. If you're impatient in your desire to populate and reproduce, you can't expect to see your standard of living raise.

And if we're going to live in socialism and claim a right to each others earnings and property, than I think we should all have a say in decisions to impose extra burdens and expense on each other as well, namely having children.

I hate CEOs too, but even if we killed them all and divided up their property, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. CEOs are just a scape goat for people who would like to believe they can have as many kids as they want and still accumulate wealth in this life and in future family generations. There is no substitute for patience and until the human race starts to demonstrate that a little better, not only will we remain poor, but our standard of living will actually get worse. We've lost to many of the benefits of natural selection to live and behave like the ancients and get a similar result.

[_hobart]

Could we maybe take the political discussion into the off-topic forum?

[_Jason Bourne]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

Oh my gosh!!

Even though I am not yet a big fan (though I did vote for him because of the utter failure of the other party in putting up a decent candidate) this is about the dumbest thing you ever said. And you say a lot of dumb things.

Being left wing does not disqualify one for being president. Even way left. If he breaks the law due to his alleged radical left agenda then you may have a case. Till then you are simple delusional due to your own radical conservative views.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes. The mainstream media has been declared king maker.

Freedom of press and speech....damn!

There is no mess left by Bush. He actually did some cleaning, though not enough imho.

Bush is a mixed bag like all presidents. He did do some good things and it is too bad those things are swept under the rug. But he also messed some things up. One was over spending. Another was cutting taxes too much while fighting two wars. He should have raised certain excise taxes, such of gas on tax to help pay for it and so Americans really felt like we were at war. He failed on immigration. in my opinion he launched an unnecessary preemptive war. He did a good job in protecting the US from another attack after 9/11.

Generally, a President has little or nothing to do with the economy unless he reduces or raises taxes.

I used to think that till I watched Bush and his treasury secretary pump billions into the financial sector. I also used to think like that till I watched him spend hundreds of billions on two wars while not cutting spending elsewhere. I am not sure yet what the repercussion of TARP will be. I fear it won't be good.

Bush saved us from the last economic downturn

He did? How is that? I think we are in it still.

Obama's stated policies will simply exacerbate the situation. If he's smart, he'll have to come to the right if he wants something to happen now. Long term, he's a socialist disaster.

I think Obama's economic policies will create some huge long term problems. Your comment agrees and over turns your other comment about a president not having much impact on the economy.

Which can only mean he did not clean up the mess. Remember the balanced budget of the 1990's? That was Clinton being dragged to it kicking and screaming.

It takes a group effort. That is the way our government is set up.

I notice that the main opposition to this was from the conservative side. This is partly why the Republicans lost. They abandoned their conservative principles as well as nominating a closet liberal.

You have it right on point there.