Inauguration Day

[luke warm]

he is an impressive orator... i hope his presidency is equally as impressive... i wish him the very best

[JoAnneM]

Just the consensus of this group with a positive repsonse (all but one), is a sign that this was an historical day. I just know that Obama will live up to the expectations.

[mtvesuvius]

Just the consensus of this group with a positive repsonse (all but one), is a sign that this was an historical day.  I just know that Obama will live up to the expectations.

Yes... And everyone here are real critics :ph34r:

 

If they are positive, then anyone can be :)

[naresh301]

Listening to the speech, I thought that this is what a leader and a statesman should sound like. Sadly, it has been a while since I've felt that way.

 

Every nation deserves its leaders, and so I think the people of the US are to be congratulated.

[Phil]

Nice to have a President that acts, well, presidential.

 

Loved the speech. Chock full of sound bytes but I wonder that the 'Ask not what your country will do for you", or the "four score and seven years ago" excerpt will be. Perhaps the "unclenched fist" line.

 

He'll have a blank check over the next few months. Lets see what he does with it.

[orlam]

Nice to have a President that acts, well, presidential.

 

Loved the speech. Chock full of sound bytes but I wonder that the 'Ask not what your country will do for you", or the "four score and seven years ago" excerpt will be. Perhaps the "unclenched fist" line.

 

He'll have a blank check over the next few months. Lets see what he does with it.

Acknowledging non-believers is a pretty remarkable first -- but seems safe to say this won't make it into the golden quotes list.

[Gerben42]

There was some of that, true, but then in most countries a king does not have four previous kings in attendance to wish him well.

 

Right, having more than one attending is very unusual (in the Netherlands, it is quite usual for kings and queens to call it a day at some point so they can actually enjoy retirement a bit. I suppose a coronation is coming in the next 5 years).

[kenberg]

Nice to have a President that acts, well, presidential.

 

Loved the speech. Chock full of sound bytes but I wonder that the 'Ask not what your country will do for you", or the "four score and seven years ago" excerpt will be. Perhaps the "unclenched fist" line.

 

He'll have a blank check over the next few months. Lets see what he does with it.

Acknowledging non-believers is a pretty remarkable first -- but seems safe to say this won't make it into the golden quotes list.

As a "non-believer" I was not all that thrilled by this acknowledgment. It's not something I would fuss about but I don't care to be defined by what I am not or by what I don't believe. But I am content to take his point as being that there should be no insistence that you must have certain religious beliefs to qualify as a good American. It is a little stunning that this is not self-evident to everyone. Happily I think it is to most.

 

A day later I think that the speech, if anything, sounds even better upon reflection than it did at the moment. Even George Will had some good things to say about it. Michael Gerson, a strong supporter of George Bush, didn't care that much for the rhetoric but, interestingly, expressed high regard for the substance.

 

My tendency has been to take the "African-American President" aspect of this as "Of course, why not, what's the big deal" but this is an error. I was living near DC in the summer of 1960 (I worked for NASA Goddard for the summer). Some African dignitaries were traveling from DC up to the UN in NY. They stopped for lunch and would not be served. I guess you could say there have been some changes.

[keylime]

I was not that impressed by the overall tone of the speech; there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power (that's the SOTU, then get after it there). One of the pundits used the phrase "very muscular"; to me it was at times tinged with arrogant elitism.

 

There were tho definitely parts of it that was impressive and formative in my mind (the line about the patchwork heritage not being a weakness is prevalent on my mind). Additionally, there was a certain fervor and purpose that was not only desired by me, but seen. It didn't matter whether I agreed with him; what did matter was that he is determined to etch out for himself something different.

 

All in all, not bad. The sights of seeing the mass of humanity stretching as far as the eye can see, I will never forget. Yes, I was there, braving the cold, seeing what my President (none of this "he's not my President b.s. unlike before; he got elected, therefore he's my President") would emote on the first day of office. And admittedly, the parade, and seeing Michelle in a most fashionable outfit, was worth the cold soaking my body took.

[PassedOut]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

[kenberg]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

 

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

 

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:

To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back

To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.

To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

 

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

[Al_U_Card]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

Hopefully rejoining truth and justice with the american way...

[Al_U_Card]

For the most part, a refreshing change from the last 8 years of bombast, bluster and rhetoric that served no useful or sensible purpose.

He may well be "The great black hope" or at least I hope so.

[Winstonm]

I certainly understand Dwayne's concerns about criticizing the outgoing administration and whether or not this was correct timing, but I also believe the Vice-President did not help matters when in his last week in office he said that Guantanemo should stay open and Obama should keep the Bush Administration security apparatus intact, and that authorizing torture had been the right thing to do and should be continued.

 

Mr. Cheney in the past has made his position clear - he would keep pushing his agenda until someone pushed back.

 

The new President pushed back.

 

When it comes to political prisoners, their treatment is of worldwide concern and so it only makes sense that at this moment it was appropriate to address changes that will be made. It was a worldwide audience.

 

And let's hope the changes are quick, dramatic, and help to restore the some of the dignity that has been lost.

 

And let's hope we haven't seen the last of pushing back.

[mike777]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

 

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

 

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:

To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back

To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.

To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

 

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

 

I would hope the new President would change America so the poor can have a decent house, food, health care, education...etc....

 

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

 

"Denmark 'happiest' country in the world"

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/natio...ness/index.html

[Lobowolf]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

 

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

 

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:

To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back

To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.

To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

 

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

Maybe he should rent, rather than people who DIDN'T over-borrow, and are paying rent/mortgages of their own (i.e. "the government") buying his house for him.

[mike777]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

 

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

 

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:

To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back

To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.

To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

 

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

Maybe he should rent, rather than people who DIDN'T over-borrow, and are paying rent/mortgages of their own (i.e. "the government") buying his house for him.

I assume if you are poor, you do not have money for rent...you are poor or to use the word I did,,,broke...

 

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

 

"Denmark 'happiest' country in the world"

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/natio...ness/index.html

[keylime]

I certainly understand Dwayne's concerns about criticizing the outgoing administration and whether or not this was correct timing, but I also believe the Vice-President did not help matters when in his last week in office he said that Guantanemo should stay open and Obama should keep the Bush Administration security apparatus intact, and that authorizing torture had been the right thing to do and should be continued.

Winston,

 

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country. There is the other part of me that believes in the right of due process and discovery of the truth.

 

I can see Mr. Cheney arguing vociferously for the maintaining of the status quo. I can also see why the President moved very quickly on this topic.

[Lobowolf]

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

Sorta makes you wonder why we have fewer suicides.

[kenberg]

there were sections that were quite definitive in its bluntness and veiled criticism of Bush, which I strongly feel is not the appropriate tone for a transfer of power

Obama was elected to reverse those very failings he listed so bluntly. I think he was right not to pussy-foot around the truth.

It was an announcement that things were now going to be different and there really is no way to say that without implying that there was something wrong with the way things had been done. Further, he was not just talking about Georege Bush or Republicans or conservatives.

 

Possibly we all read into the speech something of what we want to see in it. But the repeated calls to responsibility were, I think, a very big deal. Of course no none is advocating irresponsibility but again there is a matter of what he chose to emphasize.

 

Of course anyone can find there tut tut examples, but here is one. A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post did another of the stories on foreclosures. Maybe it was a slow news day. But this guy bought a house for around 220K, borrowed another 180K against its inflated value (numbers approximate but pretty much right), spent it all, and now is in trouble. Well, no *****! I am sort of hoping the call to responsibility means something like this:

To the bank/mortgage brokers/derivative investor: The money is gone, you dumb fools. You won't be getting it back

To the owner: Your house is gone, you idiot. From here on in no one will be lending you the price of a beer.

To the community: We will see to it that with all possible speed this house is taken from the idiots and sold to some family that grasps the concept of paying off, not enlarging, a mortgage.

 

Yes, like everything else (Middle East, the auto industry, etc) I know it isn't that simple. But I wanted to get this off my chest.

I am not quite sure what you are advocating. This guy and his children should be thrown out into the street and starve? The government pay for his house, food, health care etc?..... other? Clearly this guy is poor, very poor in fact broke.

 

I would hope the new President would change America so the poor can have a decent house, food, health care, education...etc....

 

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, at least we have a model to be happy.

 

"Denmark 'happiest' country in the world"

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/natio...ness/index.html

Well, to some extent I was just emoting. And I definitely do not want to derail the rather fine purpose of this thread for discussing the inauguration. But one of the items the president addressed was responsibility and the lack of it, and I think that at least some of the foreclosure crisis has been caused by people making almost unbelievable stupid choices. And I say this as someone who has made some pretty stupid choices. I realize that there are a variety of causes, not everything is simple, and so on. But in this case it seems that the community will suffer from the foreclosure. I would like to put some of our effort, and money, into helping them. The guy that squandered 180K because he could can fend for himself (there are no kids in this particular case, and no longer a wife either, she at least has some sense).

[Phil]

So today he suspends actions at Gitmo, institutes some pretty amazing lobbying reforms and freezes pay hikes at the White House.

 

Not bad for a 1st day. I'm really starting to like this guy.

[mike777]

Keep in mind

1) actions in gitmo not suspended

2) Lobbying not suspended

3) pay hikes not suspended

[Gerben42]

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

 

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

[mike777]

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

 

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

[Al_U_Card]

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

 

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

 

Neocon tactic.

 

Disgusting.