My boycott of TV news begins

sunb! said:
The power off button is one wonderful invention.
Click to expand...

I have also found that on average there is at least one (but rarely more) of the 500 other channels showing something worth watching, even if it is just a fawlty towers repeat.
 
Duty Honor Country said:
Whenever big events are plastered all over the news, I tend to turn off the television news channels. After the TV segment on people getting Obama tattoos, I decided it is time to once again ignore the network news channels. It was the same after 9/11, the Northeastern blackout, Katrina, the 2004 election, the 2008 election and now the 2009 Inauguration.

When the 24 hour news networks spend 24 hours on one subject, I tune out.
Click to expand...

I've been watching Westerns for the past two days..... Thank God for "On Demand" cable and Encore's Western Movie channel.
 
I have several episodes of house and a few good movies recorded on the dvr box, between that and scifi, I should be able to miss most of the Obama crazy till it wears off
 
Duty Honor Country said:
don't forget, Obama is not even a citizen and Palin never had her son with Down syndrome...

...how sad has the media become?
Click to expand...
and did you hear the latest one? (read it online)

A Fox News reporter thinks that because the oath was botched by Roberts that Obama is not officially president. Which is not true; Obama got the job at noon, regardless.
 
The Other Guy said:
and did you hear the latest one? (read it online)

A Fox News reporter thinks that because the oath was botched by Roberts that Obama is not officially president. Which is not true; Obama got the job at noon, regardless.
Click to expand...

Article 2 of the the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath before he enters in the execution of his Office.

The 20th Amendment; however states that the terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

It has been suggested that the wording of the 20th Amendment, that makes no reference to the oath, superseded the requirement set out in article two of the Constitution, that the oath be taken before the President begins the discharge of his duties.

It has also been suggested, however, that the oath is still necessary, because the 20th Amendment only stipulated that the four year presidential term of office shall start at noon on January 20th, not that the President shall enter upon the exercise of his Office at that moment. The start of the term does not exactly coincide with the new President entering upon the execution of his duties. President Washington's first four-year term, for instance, began on March 4th and ended exactly four years later, but he only assumed the Presidency on April 30th, when he took the oath of office. Vice-Presidents succeeding to the Presidency also assume office to finish a term that has long started. So the start of the term does not coincide with "entering upon the execution of the Office".

The controversy, however, is not of much relevance, since all Presidents who assumed office since the adoption of the 20th Amendment have continued to take the Oath. It should be noted, however, that the Presidents-elect who took office after the enactment of the 20th Amendment were not treated as President by the judges officiating at the inauguration ceremonies before the actual oath taking (e.g. Chief Justice Warren Burger asked "Vice-President" Ford, "Governor" Carter, and "Governor" Reagan if they were prepared to take the oath; Chief Justice William Rehnquist addressed George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton as "Mr. Vice-President" and "Governor," respectively, when asking the same question; and in like manner Chief Justice Roberts posed the same question to Obama four minutes past noon, addressing him by the title of "Senator")
Click to expand...
On January 21, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. EST (00:35 UTC) in the Map Room of the White House, Chief Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath a second time to President Obama "out of an abundance of caution," according to the White House.

..........
 
It is no longer the News it's the President Obama Razzle Dazzel hour. But it can be good for a few "This is freakin news?" chuckles.
 
I heard that on the 21th he didn't have his hand on the Bible, anybody able to confirm the validity of this?
 
Who cares. We got him. The sharp shooting loop hole chit needs to stop. He ain't goin nowhere any time soon.
 
wolfen said:
I heard that on the 21th he didn't have his hand on the Bible, anybody able to confirm the validity of this?
Click to expand...
Does not matter. Many presidents in the 19th century did not even use a bible. He was president at noon regardless.

MontyB said:
I have also found that on average there is at least one (but rarely more) of the 500 other channels showing something worth watching, even if it is just a fawlty towers repeat.
Click to expand...
I could watch that for the rest of eternity. Throw some Monty Python's Flying Circus in there and you will satisfy me forever.
 
Yea I know it don't matter but there is a really big argument at my work with money riding on the outcome.
Thats the only reason I'm asking, I have money on it LOL
I really don't care who is president since my president (1) can't serve again, and (2) is dead.
 
Duty Honor Country said:
as long as the tea is not served in the House of Commons, it might end up being thrown :p
Click to expand...

Purely as a matter of interest (perhaps boring), in the house of commons is a red line on both sides of the house called the "Sword Line". The distance between the two lines is two sword blade length's. MPs must not cross the line, in case they attack each other with sword's during a heated debate.

As cups of tea arent allowed in the chamber, there is little chance of any being thrown.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top