President Re-Takes Oath

I don't see that Jesus made any exception. So we all make our own... you think it 'has to do' with pagan oaths. Some think it's a question of semantics, and they will say "affirm" but not "swear." Some will say "swear" or "affirm" as long as it's not "by ___ [anything]".

But although I have stated my case [exception, that is], I will do it again in different terms: accepting an oath of public office, or being sworn in as a witness or a juror is entirely a legal obligation to tell the truth, meaning one is subjecting oneself to legal penalty for being false, the choice of words "swear" or "affirm" notwithstanding. That's all it is-- accepting a legal responsibility.

 

Interesting...leaving room for error yet calling me untrue. You can ignore the definition of a word but that does not make it true. True or untrue that is the question...I shall forever remain untrue to you...

Transparency? Not So Much, Say Reporters Left Out of Obama's Second Oath

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...arency-say-reporters-left-obamas-second-oath/

 

I didn't leave room for error. You were wrong. The tactic I used is called "assumed true for the sake of argument." In other words, even if your statement was true (and it isn't), it doesn't matter.

You were.

I didn't ignore it. I quoted it, and showed that it doesn't fit. Something of which there is a recording, photographs, and news reports is, by definition, not secret. Not sure how that is confusing to you.

 

Well, I wish I had a dollar for every wedding in which the bride or the groom, having been rehearsed and coached the night before, either blew their lines or looked at me for a repeat, during the "I Bubba take you Cutie to be my wedded wife...." stuff. I have yet to do a retake. I just assure them that they are married no matter what they said. It's about the heart!

The Chief Justice could learn a lot from most pastors about pacing those "repeat after me" lines. Let the guy finish before you give him the next piece.

At another level, I am reminded about a baptism I did years ago. The boy being baptized was so light-weight that he floated and did not get fully immersed. Yes, I could have pushed him down, but I was a bit flummoxed and did not. His father wanted to know if he was really baptized since parts of him did not go under! It's the heart, folks, it's the heart.

But I do understand why the Obama team wanted no cloud to linger over his legitimacy.

 

I strongly disagree with you. It was not open for public view. That's a fact. It was done discreetly without the eyes of the world in a private setting. It was only known and shared by a private group until after the fact.

Even the press is upset that it was done in secrecy. It was very private. I’m not sure how you can state otherwise.

I stand by my comment.

 

That doesn't mean it was done in secret. It was publicized.

It is hard to imagine any legitimate definition of "secret" that involves pictures, recordings, and witnesses in the room who make it public. I don't think you get to make up your own dictionary, no matter how much you dislike Obama (which I can assure you is less than I dislike him). But we have a duty to tell the truth.

You shouldn't. It was incorrect.

In any event, it is still irrelevant. This was pure show and silliness. It is shameful that the new president has such a poor sense of priorities that he is doing stupid stuff like this.

When the nation signed on for "change," somehow I don't think they were anticipating the presidential oath, it's time, and it's location were in play.

Silly nation ...