Mock away.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bed44/bed443ea514c5d81027b1d68d40b0fdfa23597dd" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c27c4/c27c46f86f3f260b26c7e6dcb7506dda2fd581f8" alt=""
The result was an overweight, softly sprung roadster that looked great outside, was agonizingly boring inside, and dreary to drive. And at about $40,000, it was stupidly expensive. If anyone was going to drive this T-Bird, it was platinum-haired women prone to carrying small dogs wherever they goDeserves at least a quick read!
"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere."
But there is another issue here, that they are ignorning (and which falls in line with the new complaint of no bible at the oath). Wait, I thought the argument was that he hadn't been a stickler for the rules as set forth in the Constitution. Right? Shouldn't they be arguing that the oath, as administered, is still wrong?
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:You will notice that the words "So help me God" are not there. They are not part of the "official oath". So, even if he repeated the oath word for word from Roberts, Obama still hasn't said the 'right oath" -- don't hear the wingnuts complaining about that. Can you imagine the hysterics if a President ommitted them?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States."
Article VI, 3: ...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.I thind the whole thing is a non-issue, really. Bible, no bible, split infinitive or no split infinitive. It makes no difference except to fill airtime on the hundreds of news shows. My real interest is the swirl of conjecture, conspiracy theory, and nutty ideas that are being floated out there. It's fascinating and irrational and amusing.
Chris Wallace of FOX News wondered if, due to the fumbled oath, Obama really was president.Was he joking? I really can't tell.
By law, Obama became president at noon Eastern, regardless of the ceremonial oath of office. But that didn't stop some from speculating and others from kidding.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."Yes. That is change I can support. I'm sure the hand-wringing will start soon that he's "not really christian" (along with the wingnut assertion that he's not even american) and religious groups will decry his inclusion of those other religions, but I can only hope that this is a sign that the goverment will have a more secular bent. Tolerance of other views has been lacking lately. I appreciate that Obama, up front, recognized that there are many different and valid views. Yeah!
As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.Might I point something out, dimwit? You received those briefings before 911 too. You just didn't pay any attention to them.
This vehicle category was created as part of a bargain with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), so that the automobile manufacturers could postpone producing mandated zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), which will require the production of electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. - from Wiki.I'm not arguing with the progress (yeah for low emissions vehicles), but with the nomenclature. It's just stupid and silly and misleading. Call it "Almost Zero", if you have to, to add to the confusing maze of acronyms related to car emissions, but "Partial Zero?"