comment #1

MindlessObamaton says ...

Jesus, Wells, give the guy a break. This is history.

comment #2

drbob says ...

Guess he did't want to split an infinitive. Although, grammatically speaking, "To execute faithfully . . . " would have been a better way to word it.

comment #3

Nick Rogers says ...

I screamed at Wolf Blitzer from my couch to shut up during Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, etc.'s performance. Just because there are no words in a particular moment on TV doesn't mean there need to be. What an insult to the mastery of those performers.

comment #4

MindlessObamaton says ...

Matt Drudge is saying BHO flubbed the oath. Christ, people are dolts. Clearly, the moment was natural and refreshing and a breath of realism amid all this pomp.

comment #5

Al-Aurens says ...

Obama made an error, Roberts made an error. I suppose that neither Wells nor Drudge have ever had typos.

comment #6

theultimatebiu says ...

Are we really going to go on about one stupid gaffe

comment #7

MindlessObamaton says ...

Is Wells really posting about one stupid gaffe?

comment #8

actionman says ...

Matt Drudge is an ignorant fuck. Though he has an informative website that's a major time killer for down-time at the office.

comment #9

btwnproductions says ...

I'm so ashamed. McCain never would have screwed this up. A bad omen. The US may as well just nuke itself into oblivion and be done with it. :)

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

He's in. It's an historic moment. They were both probably nervous as hell. We get so hung up on minutiae sometimes.

comment #11

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

C-SPAN was saying that John Williams "wrote" the classical piece, even tho' it was obviously Copland, arranged by Williams.

Where I was, the biggest applause was for Aretha's hat.

comment #12

tommysunshine says ...

Mindless Obamaton, you live up to your name. This is no more history than when the other 43 presidents were sworn in.
History is defined by what you do, it's not contingent upon the colour of your skin. History will record that Obama spectacularly succeeded or that he abysmally failed. my hunch is the latter scenario as he is unqualified to take on the enormous economic challenge which confronts him. He will run government like a college seminar which will result in very little positive change being enacted.
This is just a prediction but I do have one fact at my disposal: Burma Shave, Prager, Deaftrashbrownpunk, actionman, citizenkanedfor chewing gum, Mr Buckles, D.Z, cinemaphreek, even Philip "cynical cookie" Vice. You will continue to be among the first to ride the wave which the herd is enjoying riding right now and the last to be listened to upon your return to the shore to wolf down some humble pie. There's a world inside and it revolves around this concept called 'reality."

comment #13

Thrudvangar says ...

C-SPAN is the way to go.

Talking heads contribute nothing.

comment #14

theultimatebiu says ...

Tommy you make no sense. This is history, he is the first black president and that will be recorded in history whether you like it or not. Your childish ramblings are so baseless and childish...Bush took the walk of shame hoping that history sheds a tear for him (his words), we may be a little kinder to him but only in the way we were kinder to Carter and Nixon.

comment #15

Ryansi51 says ...

tommysunshine:

Fuck you.

Slaves built the white house, and now an african american is taking the oath to lead from that very house. How is that no more history than the other 43?

Dickhead.

comment #16

theultimatebiu says ...

And out of all those who ran, Obama was way more qualified. Do we really want Palin/McCain handling the mess that their predecessor exacerbated???

comment #17

clancy says ...

Tommysunshine is just joking.

Not even Ann Coulter is that fucking stupid.

Good one, TommyS.

And, yes, Obama was thrown by Roberts' mistake - or maybe he was waiting for him to correct it.

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

"History will record that Obama spectacularly succeeded or that he abysmally failed."

There is a middle ground, you know. It's the same place nearly every president has landed in, including W.

comment #19

lazarus says ...

Wells, please ban Tommy Sunshine. He's as idiotic and insensitive as the other people you gave the boot to.

Disagreement is one things, but this guy's a fucking cancer.

comment #20

tommysunshine says ...

Look, I desperately want Obama to succeed. I like him alot personally.
But why should I be joking or a "dickhead" if I air my concern about his lack of experience? What happened to freedom of speech, my liberal friends?

comment #21

citizenmilton says ...

Back on point - Roberts' flubbing of the oath is particularly humorous because Roberts himself is such an *anal jerk* in oral argument, constantly parsing language with flair and arrogance - attacking lawyers for not adhering to the most strict and limited choice of words in a law or case precedent.

comment #22

smiley says ...

tommysunshine your buddy Cheney got rid of it.

comment #23

theultimatebiu says ...

tommy, no you don't. You want him to fail because your neo-con values are not his. The person in power does not fit into your views. It is very obvious. Also the guy who said Bush was in the middle...NO. He was a bad president and pretty much failed with all of his policies and turned the conservative values, of small government and small spending, on its head. A real conservative can see he was a failure. Don't believe me that he was a failure?? 7 words which prove otherwise

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
THE PATRIOT ACT

Enough said

comment #24

drgogol says ...

You are plenty free to speak, Tommy.

You are also free to eat a dick in a napalm shower.

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

"He was a bad president and pretty much failed with all of his policies and turned the conservative values, of small government and small spending, on its head."

So you're saying he failed because he was too liberal?

As a fiscal conservative, I agree with your listed criticisms of Bush, but I refuse to consider him a complete failure because he succeeded in his most important task - keeping us safe from another attack after 9/11.

comment #26

btwnproductions says ...

Ah, but if only the first attack hadn't happened on his watch...

comment #27

Gordie Lachance says ...

Here's how smart Obama is: The Justice screwed up the oath, and then you can see Obama halt for a second and then make a decision to recite the mistake, even though it was wrong, not to save John Roberts embarrassment, but because if he hadn't Drudge would have been running a "OBAMA NOT REALLY PRESIDENT.......NEVER TOOK OATH." headline.

Drudge is garbage, as are most of the political post bait-takers on this site. But that's only because it is easier to be loud than to be interesting, and easier to be controversial than creative.

comment #28

theultimatebiu says ...

He failed because he was inept and his failures cannot be attributed to liberalism or conservatism. He was just useless. Also, did he prevent another 9/11?? Any proof?? Even if he did....so? Is that not his job to keep his countrymen safe?

They guy destroyed any confidence in US government.

comment #29

JapAdapters says ...

Why do people even respond to people like TS? Seriously.

And, Massey, if Bush isn't a total failure because 'he kept us safe' from another attack, then what does that say about his not preventing 9/11 to begin with?

comment #30

the400blows says ...

There may have not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. But do you believe that this country--or world--is any safer by how Bush handled the situation? I don't think so. If anything it is worse. As far as I'm concerned, Bush opened up the contents of Pandora's Box in the MIddle East and was unable to control it. Before the U.S. attacked Iraq, the Sunnis were in control and pretty much kept order in the MIddle East. Now that the Shiites are in control of Iraq, other Shiites in the Middle East have been strengthened, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria. As a result from attacking Iraq, Bush not only strengthened the Shiites, but he also strengthened the terrorists. Again, I ask--do you think this country or world is any safer since 9/11? There were some good things Bush did, and there were a lot of bad things that Bush did. Overall, I think he will go down as one of the worst presidents.

comment #31

bents75 says ...

"This is just a prediction but I do have one fact at my disposal: Burma Shave, Prager, Deaftrashbrownpunk, actionman, citizenkanedfor chewing gum, Mr Buckles, D.Z, cinemaphreek, even Philip "cynical cookie" Vice. You will continue to be among the first to ride the wave which the herd is enjoying riding right now and the last to be listened to upon your return to the shore to wolf down some humble pie. "

Actually, that's a second prediction. So, you have no facts at your disposal Tommysunshine. Even your point on him being unqualified is purely subjective.

P.S. I hope all of the worst things in life happen to you, and only you.

comment #32

Josh Massey says ...

You have "adapt" in your name and you ask that question? Leaders adapt to their surroundings. Bush changed his administration's focus when it became clear what his priorities were. Revisit the 2000 election - terrorism was not a major theme for either candidate.

None of us were happy with all of the results, and there were very clear mistakes made - but his policies have so far prevented another attack on our soil. Unless you think al Qaida was just fat and happy with 9/11, and never intended on doing anything else.

I'm not defending Bush's presidency, but I do credit the man with some successes. And I certainly don't see the current state of our country as some Mad Max wasteland like many apparently do.

comment #33

arturobandini2 says ...

Amid all this euphoria (and occasional idiocy), I just now noticed the resolution on Jeffrey's laptop screen. Dude's eyesight must be amazing if he can read this tiny text when 2/3 of his screen is empty borders. I have to zoom into the HE site all the way, over 150%, and still I can barely read what I type.

comment #34

theultimatebiu says ...

His administration before 9/11 was useless and he was on holiday for most of his time. Aftwards they got even worst...he handled 9/11 attack surprisingly well but right aftwards he began to fuck up by connecting every middle east country to terrorism. His handling of the Iraq war and terrorism in general became laughable.

Al-Qaida did not cause 9/11...again this is a misconception caused by Bush. The guy created a act which almost nullifies all of the liberties and freedom US citizens hold dear.

comment #35

JapAdapters says ...

Bullshit. There was plenty of evidence that there would be an attack on American soil and ignoring it was okay because it wasn't a political priority is maybe the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Seriously, is 'he did a good job because he kept another attack from happening, but the first attack was okay, because no one knew it was coming' really your argument? Or did I misread?

And where does it say ANY President couldn't have prevented attacks? Do you really believe that 9/11 was the first attempt on US soil? I don;t think Al-Quaeda got fat and lazy, I believe it's hard to successfully perpetrate such an attack and that counter-intelligence prevented it from happening again, like it prevented it from happening before 9/11.

comment #36

MindlessObamaton says ...

Al-Qaida did not cause 9/11...again this is a misconception caused by Bush

Actually, Sayyid Qutb (look him up) probably contributed more to the idea of honor in the killing of innocents than any other Islamic radical. But I don't want to split hairs here.

comment #37

theultimatebiu says ...

Idea?? Yes., but they never implemented it. Al-Qaida are not the major power they are shown to be, just a bunch of cowards with nothing to lose. Bush made many Americans feel paranoid that they could come and take their children away from them at night...the whole administration created a large population of paranoid, gullible, irrational fools.

comment #38

televisiontears says ...

It's disheartening to see here so much petty bickering and pent up anger among supposed Obama supporters on this momentous day. Today should be a celebration of what makes this country great, and should serve as an opportunity to put this anger behind us and focus on what unites us, not what divides us.

This was one of Obama's central ideas during his campaign, but so many of his rabid supporters seem to just brush it off. It's sadly ironic to see so many commentators wishing someone harm while "defending" a man who wholeheartedly advocates such ideals as understanding, bipartisanship and working towards a common good. You should all be ashamed.

comment #39

Howlingman says ...

Though it should be pointed out that with his appearance in a wheelchair, Dick Cheney's transformation into Mr. Potter is now complete.

comment #40

theultimatebiu says ...

Oh calm down televisiontears. No one is proclaiming we kill anyone or hurt anyone. Bush was bad at his job...Obama's speech pretty much said that. We are just discussing it. Bipartisanship does not mean we have to agree on everything nor have to put up with inept republicans/democrats policies.

comment #41

JapAdapters says ...

Bush looking like he had been sucking lemons after Obama's speech cracked me up.

comment #42

televisiontears says ...

theultimatebiu, I guess I thought that the last thing any of us would want to discuss today would be the surrealist black tragicomedy of the past eight years. I guess I thought today was a chance to look to the future, not harp on the past. And while I agree that bipartisanship doesn't mean agreeing on everything, I also don't think it means calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "paranoid, gullible, irrational fools". Bipartisanship isn't solely for Congress. It can be as simple as not calling the other guy an idiot.

But I guess that's a lot to ask on the internet.

comment #43

theultimatebiu says ...

And where did I say everyone who disagrees with me are 'paranoid, gullible, irrational fools' ?? I said the administration has created that but never stated it was those who disagreed with me that are those. We must always reflect on the past so we don't make the same mistakes in the future and I don't apologise for that.

comment #44

MindlessObamaton says ...

Idea?? Yes., but they never implemented it. Al-Qaida are not the major power they are shown to be, just a bunch of cowards with nothing to lose

They aren't anymore now that we have them on the run, thank God for that. But before that, they had flex and thye showed it but they blew their load with 9/11 and I hope they realized it beforehand (and they did, apparently) that it was their last card to play.

comment #45

televisiontears says ...

"We must always reflect on the past so we don't make the same mistakes in the future and I don't apologise for that."

I totally agree with you, one hundred percent. I just think that right now we have such a golden opportunity as a nation to try and come together to work towards the future, and anything else seems retroactive at this point.

Mostly, I've grown weary of the Us v. Them mentality that has dominated the national dialogue for so long, and I'm giddy as hell at the prospect that this might be dulled in the coming years. Am I naive? Maybe. Am I optimistic? Definitely.

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

tommy: "History will record that Obama spectacularly succeeded or that he abysmally failed."

You can't fail, when you're fixing someone else's mistakes. You can only improve upon them.

"my hunch is the latter scenario as he is unqualified to take on the enormous economic challenge which confronts him."

So what qualifications did Bush show us in office again?

"You will continue to be among the first to ride the wave which the herd is enjoying riding right now and the last to be listened to upon your return to the shore to wolf down some humble pie."

Considering Bush's approval rating, I think you got the wrong set of supporters.

"But why should I be joking or a "dickhead" if I air my concern about his lack of experience?"

Dunno what you should be, but to bring it up now is kind of pointless, since he won on the basis that he'd at least try to make up for his lack of experience, which is the complete opposite of Bush's style of governance.
Plus, there is something to be said about life experience.
For example, Bush was fairly horrible at running a business, even when it was given to him by his father.
Meanwhile, Obama was a community organizer and went to Harvard through his own effort. It's funny that when conservatives normally argue that as an ideal for members of the black community, it's suddenly not enough when Barry meets it.

biu: "Bush took the walk of shame hoping that history sheds a tear for him (his words), we may be a little kinder to him but only in the way we were kinder to Carter and Nixon."

We're kind to Carter and Nixon, because they did occasionally do useful things in office. Bush did absolutely nothing unique.

Josh: "There is a middle ground, you know. It's the same place nearly every president has landed in, including W."

No, Bush has definitely landed in the crapper, along with the likes of Harding and Andrew Johnson.

"So you're saying he failed because he was too liberal?"

No, he failed, because he was too fascist. Being "too liberal" would at least suggest he occasionally tried to play well with others.

"As a fiscal conservative, I agree with your listed criticisms of Bush, but I refuse to consider him a complete failure because he succeeded in his most important task - keeping us safe from another attack after 9/11."

If you don't consider the bankers who destroyed our economy the equivalent of terrorists, sure. If you're talking about the real thing, well, then I guess you haven't been paying attention to our embassies getting blown up, or Al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and Mumbai. Or our peanut butter getting salmonella and our toys being lined with lead. Or that recent used coal flood in Tennessee. Yeah, we're totally safe from those guys sabotaging us.

"Leaders adapt to their surroundings. Bush changed his administration's focus when it became clear what his priorities were. Revisit the 2000 election - terrorism was not a major theme for either candidate."

No, but occupying Iraq was Bush's major theme in 2000 as much as 2001. And I guess global warming leading to New Orleans being flooded isn't a priority, even though the Pentagon has said that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism. But last time I checked, he was calling himself a compassionate conservative. And yet, even before 9/11, he had no problem adding lead to our drinking water and gutting family planning funding for Third World countries.

"None of us were happy with all of the results, and there were very clear mistakes made - but his policies have so far prevented another attack on our soil."

That's only because our troops are being used as human shields as a practice run for the next 9/11. Not because he was actually any good at national defense.

"Unless you think al Qaida was just fat and happy with 9/11, and never intended on doing anything else."

No, I think it pretty much don't need to do anything else, because it wanted Bush to screw up this badly.

"And I certainly don't see the current state of our country as some Mad Max wasteland like many apparently do."

You mean the number of Americans who voted in higher numbers for Obama than Bush during either of the latter guy's Presidential races? Yeah, they only make up "many" of the population, and not most of us.
BTW, speaking of wastelands, have you been to east Tennessee or New Orleans lately?

tears: "Today should be a celebration of what makes this country great, and should serve as an opportunity to put this anger behind us and focus on what unites us, not what divides us."

We *are* putting the anger behind us by putting the apologists in their place.

"It's sadly ironic to see so many commentators wishing someone harm while "defending" a man who wholeheartedly advocates such ideals as understanding, bipartisanship and working towards a common good."

I haven't see anyone wishing anyone harm on this thread; I have seen Coulter suggesting that blowing up the NY Times Building is a great idea, though.

"And while I agree that bipartisanship doesn't mean agreeing on everything, I also don't think it means calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "paranoid, gullible, irrational fools"."

That's not what was being said. What was being said was that voters were being manipulated against their best interests.

comment #47

Josh Massey says ...

Ok, we have "Godwin" for when somebody ends an argument by throwing "Nazi" around. We really need a word for when D.Z. enters the fray and slams on the brakes.

comment #48

nemo says ...

"As a fiscal conservative, I agree with your listed criticisms of Bush, but I refuse to consider him a complete failure because he succeeded in his most important task - keeping us safe from another attack after 9/11."

I guess we don't count the unsolved anthrax attacks.

When it comes to attacks on American soil, al Qaeda seems to be pretty much a one-hit wonder. It seems likely that they don't see any point to another direct attack on America. The element of surprise, the main factor in their 9/11 success, is gone. Every time the administration announces they've caught a new batch of "terrorists", there always either turns out to be nothing going on (Lackawanna and others) or they turn out to be a bunch of pathetic losers (those Miami clowns who couldn't even make bus fare to Chicago or buy a map).

And the Bush administration has responded beautifully from al Qaeda's point of view, draining America's influence, treasure, and blood in a pointless war that is completely unrelated to the attacks. Osama lost his two best friends, Bush and Cheney, today.

comment #49

JapAdapters says ...

How about whiplash?

comment #50

nemo says ...

The presidential oath is written out in Article II of the US Constitution. This isn't the first or the last time Roberts gets the Constitution wrong.

comment #51

MindlessObamaton says ...

nemo = genius. seriously. Mind boggling, sir.

comment #52

nemo says ...

Here's a good article from the libertarian-oriented Reason summarizing the weak case that the Bush administration has done much to prevent domestic terrorism since 9/11:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36832.html

Where's the Terror?
Post-9/11 prosecutions end with a whimper

"None of this is proof that the country is not crawling with organized terror-planners, who may strike even while you are reading this sentence. However, when we look behind the headlines that attend an initial "terror cell bust," we don't seem to find any solid evidence that the country is harboring large numbers of terrorist conspirators—or if it is, that U.S. law enforcement is doing any good at capturing them, with or without post-9/11 law enforcement tools and emphasis."

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

http://www.thetalentshow.org/2009/01/20/the-walk-of-shame/#comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j5viYaNIK0&feature=related

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=13170
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=13169
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=13167

comment #55

K. Bowen says ...

Something that both right and left can agree on -- what passes for modern poetry sucks.

comment #56

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"We really need a word for when D.Z. enters the fray and slams on the brakes."

Zelter-lash?

It's not so much his general incoherence or off-topicness that bothers me as much as this: Why in fuck's name does he copy entire segments of text, only to add in a pithy remark that usually has nothing to do with what he quoted?

Jesus, even if you try to scroll past his comments it takes longer than it should.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/479382

comment #58

Howlingman says ...

Has "Zeltergeist" been tabled yet? If not it's my pick. Something that intrudes otherwise normal surroundings and throws everything into disarray. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

comment #59

D.Z. says ...

Howlingman: You're confusing me with neo-conservatism.

comment #60

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

D.Z. nobody likes you or wants to hear anything you have to say.

comment #61

drgogol says ...

I guess I'm the opposite of everyone else here.

I think everything DZ writes is genius. I scroll through threads and read only his extensive dicta and commentary. I have collected his works and paid to have them calligraphed on parchment.

I also eat my own scat on crackers and call it fois gras.

comment #62

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of hyper v high availability

comment #63

Kodak Sport zx3 says ...

very nice post! There is a middle ground, you know. It's the same place nearly every president has landed in, including WP

460 sli benchmark | 580 benchmark | 570 benchmark | 560 Ti benchmark | 6990 benchmark | 590 benchmark | 480 benchmark | 6970 benchmark | 5670 benchmark | 4670 benchmark | 6850 benchmark | 6870 benchmark | 6950 benchmark | Black Ops benchmark | 5870 benchmark | 5850 benchmark | 5830 benchmark | The Witcher 2 benchmark | gt 240 benchmark | 295 benchmark | 5450 benchmark | 5570 benchmark

comment #64

kaos futsal says ...

very nice article! I just think that right now we have such a golden opportunity as a nation to try and come together to work towards the future, and anything else seems retroactive at this point.

baju futsal | jersey futsal | kaos bola