You think Chief Justice Roberts intentionally made Obama mess up reciting the oath?

[DealMonkey]

Interesting! Looks like Obama re-took the oath after Roberts managed to bungle it:

Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts' mistake

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration.

Roberts administered the oath the second time as well, according to the White House.

The move was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take -- in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence -- and erase any question that Obama is legally the president.

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House counsel Greg Craig said in a written statement.

"But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time." Watch Tuesday's oath »

The second oath took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room, according to a pool reporter who witnessed it.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

On Tuesday, Roberts, apparently working without a copy of the oath handy, started out by reciting a six-word phrase, but Obama broke in halfway through and repeated the first three.

That seemed to throw the chief justice off stride, and he proceeded to mix up the order of the words in the next phrase.

The Constitution sets out the language that should be used in the oath: "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."

Roberts moved the word "faithfully" back nine spots, and used "to" instead of "of." That threw the president off base, and he smiled and paused to collect his thoughts, then decided to follow Roberts' lead.

But the chief justice at the same time attempted to correct himself.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI.../obama.oath/index.html

Oh no, Cad! The drive-by media is blaming Roberts! Egads! Quick get El Rushbo on the horn!

:laugh:

 

[HomerJS]

Methinks this thread in in its last throes!

 

[chess9]

I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: chess9
I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

He took full responsibility because he was responsible. Obama know exactly where the pauses were and the order of the words. There was supposed to be a pause after the name just like in 2005, Roberts got that wrong also.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: chess9

I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well.

It's your innauguration day as President, you're on world wide TV, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America has just blown the lines he is supposed to speak for the ceremony.

Roberts screwed up when he fluffed the line. Obama did his best to roll with it. All of you trying to make any big deal of this, go ahead, and tell us how, at that instant, off the cuff, YOU would do a better job of dealing with it. :laugh:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: chess9
I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

He took full responsibility because he was responsible. Obama know exactly where the pauses were and the order of the words. There was supposed to be a pause after the name just like in 2005, Roberts got that wrong also.

No pause in 2001 after the name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YufAf32ilQ

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: chess9
I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

He took full responsibility because he was responsible. Obama know exactly where the pauses were and the order of the words. There was supposed to be a pause after the name just like in 2005, Roberts got that wrong also.

No pause in 2001 after the name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YufAf32ilQ

Your point? We were talking about 2005.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: chess9
I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

He took full responsibility because he was responsible. Obama know exactly where the pauses were and the order of the words. There was supposed to be a pause after the name just like in 2005, Roberts got that wrong also.

No pause in 2001 after the name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YufAf32ilQ

Your point? We were talking about 2005.

Who says 2005 is the way its 'supposed' to be done? Obama cut him off, plain and simple.

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to clarify my earlier comments.

As I saw what happened, that Obama did not say the oath exactly as the constitution requires, I was thinking further about that. It's one of those things that bugged me; the constitution is very exact about this, and we have a tradition of being careful about the constitution. One word changing can be huge, although not in this case.

So on the one hand, I made a parody post of the right-wing trying to make a big issue of this, while expecting what is most likely is for everyone to ignore it as unimportant.

But as I thought about it, I think that it's a 'loose end' that should not remain, and I decided I'd like him to bring Roberts over for a re-do, just to 'make it clean'.

I wondered if he did, if Roberts would be shocked; would he even refuse? Would it be a big media story? Would it make Obama look incompetent? It seemed unlikely.

But it still bugged me a bit to have it where he had not done it as specified.

Today, I heard a news report that the White House did bring Roberts over for a re-do.

I was glad to hear it. Not that it 'mattered', just as the histories of the creation of West Viriginia not following the rules, or other 'technical' errors, are not raised today.

 

[growled]

I just don't see what the big deal is about this.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting! Looks like Obama re-took the oath after Roberts managed to bungle it:

Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts' mistake

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration.

Roberts administered the oath the second time as well, according to the White House.

The move was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take -- in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence -- and erase any question that Obama is legally the president.

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House counsel Greg Craig said in a written statement.

"But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time." Watch Tuesday's oath »

The second oath took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room, according to a pool reporter who witnessed it.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

On Tuesday, Roberts, apparently working without a copy of the oath handy, started out by reciting a six-word phrase, but Obama broke in halfway through and repeated the first three.

That seemed to throw the chief justice off stride, and he proceeded to mix up the order of the words in the next phrase.

The Constitution sets out the language that should be used in the oath: "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."

Roberts moved the word "faithfully" back nine spots, and used "to" instead of "of." That threw the president off base, and he smiled and paused to collect his thoughts, then decided to follow Roberts' lead.

But the chief justice at the same time attempted to correct himself.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI.../obama.oath/index.html

Oh no, Cad! The drive-by media is blaming Roberts! Egads! Quick get El Rushbo on the horn!

:laugh:

Oh no! They didn't use the Bible this time!?!

TUM TUM TUM!

Secret muslim president AND chief justice! It's all a cover-up. Rush will uncover it--you just wait!

 

[umbrella39]

How does this thread have 100 replies?

A simple... No, /thread would have sufficed.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: chess9
I see Roberts did the elegant thing and took full responsibility for the mistake, however, Obama screwed up as well. If we cannot admit Obama makes mistakes and is very human, please, let the hagiography commence!

I have immense pride in our nation for electing Obama, but let's not turn him into Lincoln, or Saint Barack, at least not until he is dead.

The re-do was to please the nit-pickers out there and had no legal significance, IMHO.

-Robert

He took full responsibility because he was responsible. Obama know exactly where the pauses were and the order of the words. There was supposed to be a pause after the name just like in 2005, Roberts got that wrong also.

No pause in 2001 after the name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YufAf32ilQ

Your point? We were talking about 2005.

Who says 2005 is the way its 'supposed' to be done? Obama cut him off, plain and simple.

Here's what we know. Neither you or I exactly know if there was a pause after the name. Here's what we know. Obama knew where the word faithfull belonged, not Roberts. Absent a copy of the draft the best reference is the last swearing in.

If Roberts had brought notes like the rest of the CJsOTSC this would have ben moot.

 

[Carmen813]

I [insert name here], having been appointed a 2nd Lt. in the U.S. Air Force, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely, without any purpose of evasion, and That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me god.

It's been like 3 years since I left ROTC and I still remember that oath. To bad I never got to actually take it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
And when the right sues that Obama, by the law in the constitution, did not say the oath and is not president, guess who will hear the case? John Roberts. Neat coup!

Just when you think you've seen wacky paranoia at it's height...

You come along and fail to notice the sarcasm in his post.

His history denotes there's some seriousness to it.

Three choices:

- Provide the examples to back up your attack

- Withdraw and apologize for the attack

- Be see as the dishonest poster you woudl be if you do neither.

Easy enough:

Link

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

 

[ericlp]

Roberts was pissed McSame didn't get in... And in his sheltered life it's probably the first time he's ever seen a black man... Let alone having him for his boss. hehehe

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, I don't think so, from what I heard on NPR, prior justices READ the oath, Roberts tried to memorize it and failed. It was not intentional, and trust me, I loathe the fact that person is the chief justice, but he would not do that, I think he respects the office too much.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Roberts was pissed McSame didn't get in... And in his sheltered life it's probably the first time he's ever seen a black man... Let alone having him for his boss. hehehe

Roberts has life tenure...Obama isn't his boss.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
And when the right sues that Obama, by the law in the constitution, did not say the oath and is not president, guess who will hear the case? John Roberts. Neat coup!

Just when you think you've seen wacky paranoia at it's height...

You come along and fail to notice the sarcasm in his post.

His history denotes there's some seriousness to it.

Three choices:

- Provide the examples to back up your attack

- Withdraw and apologize for the attack

- Be see as the dishonest poster you woudl be if you do neither.

Easy enough:

Link

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

I see you chose option 3: be seen as the dishonest poster you are by doing neither.

You did not provide "exampleS" to back up yout lie about a 'history' showing the attack you made - 'wacky paranoia'.

You posted one link to one 9-page thread without even quoting any text from me having anything to do with your attack.

The one quote you did make is that I said I am rarely facetious, without the context.

So let's make it easy for you - I'll post here every word I posted in that thread, and you can show the quote - only one though it would be - on 'wacky paranoia'.

My summary of this non-issue:

Ons should not hope that Obama or any president simply fails, because there should be some area of commonality for the 'good of the nation'.

To say otherwise is to say that either the speaker or Obama wants nothing but the destruction of the nation, which hardly seems appropriate or correct.

On the other hand, there are areas pretty much everyone has in which they disagree with Obama. It's perfectly ok to hope he fails in specific policies you think are wrong. Rush Limbaugh needs to keep his audience that is based on hating liberals, and so he's going to use straw men and hyperbole in dishonest commentary to flame the fire.

I'll even condone ambivalence about a president's success insofar as it helps him get bad policies implementsd. If Bush were to do great at one thing that gave him the popularity to get something else (say, destroying Social Security) that was a much larger harm, I can see not wanting him to get that credit, to remain politically weak. But it's better to want him to get the good done and oppose the specific bad policies, if possible.

Rush is not that interested in talking about the areas of agreement usually - why would anyone want to hear Rush on those areas?

Anyone who thinks Rush is above hypocrisy in demanding loyal support for a Republican president and undermining a Democratic president, is pretty blind IMO. This is a guy in a group who were more than happy to imply the democratic president is a murderer, to cripple his ability to function legitimately, to abuse the impeachment process.

It's fine to condemn Rush for his wrongful commentary, but better to suggest not listening to his waste of a program IMO.

Instead, how about an actually excellent commentator, like:

Gleen Greenwald

or the best collection of commentators on the web IMO:

Common Dreams


[Responding to arguments that blue state policies 'have less money to spend' and 'accelerate job losses':]
Yes, the same way that high tax rates have made blue states the poorest populations, and unions have moved so many middle class workers into the lower class.


[In response to California's problems being raised:]
We are still a great state, despite the harm from Repubicans - our democratic governor Gray Davis had the state on track for a balanced budget until the Republican-linked firm Enron targetted the California economy, and Republican governor Arnold reversed Davis' policies. To thid day, Republicans are radical obstructionists keeping us from having a budget and otherwise blocking the good legislation democrats pass (we'd have gay marriage now if not for the Republican veto).

How have the unions affected the auto industry since they began stronger in the 30's? Well, GM has been the world leader in auto sales the last 77 years.

But now, the Republicans have greatly weakened the unions at the same time the average American has seen their share of the nation's growth get shifted to the very wealthy.


"[Oh yeah I almost forgot in order to be a Dem you have to be a victim..."
More idiocy, predictably.


"Gay marriage..... if it wasn't for the republicans and the MAJORITY of Californians it would have passed."
Wrong. The *legislature* passed it previously, and that would have done it, apart from any court decision or proposition, but for the veto.


"Times change, industries adapt and unions don't if it wasn't for the unions GM would be in the black (no offense BHO). "
More idiocy, predictably. I guess the unions are just inherently disastrous for companies, while the strengthen the middle class; it just takes 77 years for the effect to happen.

[In response to someone sarcastically responsding to my comment:"Yes, the same way that high tax rates have made blue states the poorest populations..." pretending to agree with its literal statement:]

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

If you think blue states have the poorest people, you need to do some learnin'.


Arkaign: check out:

- Thom Hartmann, Air America

- John Rothmann, KGO Radio (online archives to sample him)

I haven't listened a lot of Maddow, but what I've heard is good. If you demand they not espouse liberal viewes, then you have the problem; if you want a good commentary, though, as you say you do, then you get it from these people, who are consistenly liberal (other than Rothmann on Israel, but he's largely fair to the Palestenians on the facts).

FYI, Rothmann used to work for the Nixon administration, but has moved to the left. He's probably the best informed commentator I've heard, a 'walking encyclopedia'.

Thom Hartmann, you can't ask for a much more rational approach; he regularly has right-wing gusests on whom he debates.

Oh, and there's exactly one facetious sentence in all those posts - one more than in most threads - proving my statement, that I am rarely facetious, as well.

You have chosen to be seen as the liar you are.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
And when the right sues that Obama, by the law in the constitution, did not say the oath and is not president, guess who will hear the case? John Roberts. Neat coup!

Just when you think you've seen wacky paranoia at it's height...

You come along and fail to notice the sarcasm in his post.

His history denotes there's some seriousness to it.

Three choices:

- Provide the examples to back up your attack

- Withdraw and apologize for the attack

- Be see as the dishonest poster you woudl be if you do neither.

Easy enough:

Link

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

I see you chose option 3: be seen as the dishonest poster you are by doing neither.

You did not provide "exampleS" to back up yout lie about a 'history' showing the attack you made - 'wacky paranoia'.

You posted one link to one 9-page thread without even quoting any text from me having anything to do with your attack.

The one quote you did make is that I said I am rarely facetious, without the context.

So let's make it easy for you - I'll post here every word I posted in that thread, and you can show the quote - only one though it would be - on 'wacky paranoia'.

Pointless long quote snipped...

Oh, and there's exactly one facetious sentence in all those posts - one more than in most threads - proving my statement, that I am rarely facetious, as well.

You have chosen to be seen as the liar you are.

Wow.

Please follow the conversation, if you can:

(1) I comment that your comment sounds paranoid.
(2) Red Dawn comments that you are being sarcastic.
(3) I reply that your denotes seriousness.
(4) You proceed to say I'm "attacking" you.
(5) I respond with your own quote that you avoid sarcasm.
(6) You call me a liar.

Wow. I guess that passes for "logic" in your world.

So - we you being sarcastic in your quote, and lying about "avoiding sarcasm", or were you not being sarcastic, and then trying to back out of it? Neither one is very genuine.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Roberts was pissed McSame didn't get in... And in his sheltered life it's probably the first time he's ever seen a black man... Let alone having him for his boss. hehehe

Uhhh...ummm...uhhhhh


What?


You might want to take a look at the makeup of the Supreme Court, along with how Executive/Judicial branches work.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
And when the right sues that Obama, by the law in the constitution, did not say the oath and is not president, guess who will hear the case? John Roberts. Neat coup!

Just when you think you've seen wacky paranoia at it's height...

You come along and fail to notice the sarcasm in his post.

His history denotes there's some seriousness to it.

Three choices:

- Provide the examples to back up your attack

- Withdraw and apologize for the attack

- Be see as the dishonest poster you woudl be if you do neither.

Easy enough:

Link

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

I see you chose option 3: be seen as the dishonest poster you are by doing neither.

You did not provide "exampleS" to back up yout lie about a 'history' showing the attack you made - 'wacky paranoia'.

You posted one link to one 9-page thread without even quoting any text from me having anything to do with your attack.

The one quote you did make is that I said I am rarely facetious, without the context.

So let's make it easy for you - I'll post here every word I posted in that thread, and you can show the quote - only one though it would be - on 'wacky paranoia'.

Pointless long quote snipped...

Oh, and there's exactly one facetious sentence in all those posts - one more than in most threads - proving my statement, that I am rarely facetious, as well.

You have chosen to be seen as the liar you are.

Wow.

Please follow the conversation, if you can:

(1) I comment that your comment sounds paranoid.
(2) Red Dawn comments that you are being sarcastic.
(3) I reply that your denotes seriousness.
(4) You proceed to say I'm "attacking" you.
(5) I respond with your own quote that you avoid sarcasm.
(6) You call me a liar.

Wow. I guess that passes for "logic" in your world.

So - we you being sarcastic in your quote, and lying about "avoiding sarcasm", or were you not being sarcastic, and then trying to back out of it? Neither one is very genuine.

You're the one who needs to follow the thread. You said that the history of my posts suggests 'wacky paranoia', rather than a facetious interpretation of my post.

You can't back that up. It's a lie.

Now, you want to claim oh no, you never said that, it's all about my saying I *avoid* sarcasm and am *rarely* facetious, but you have one whole example of facetious.

I try to choose my words carefully, and I could have, but did not, say I am never sarcastic or facetious. If I had, you could take a victory lap with your one example.

Instead, I said I *avoid* sarcasm, which means I use it less often, that I am *rarely* facetious, which means not often, but more than zero.

Just the sort of statement that is consistent with the one use you found, while if you get several other random selections, you will find there isn't any.

You can try to pretend you have an argument by pretending that "rarely" is the same as "never", but it isn't, and you are wrong.

So, what I said is exactly right, and your secondary attack is a lie as well.

Having said all that - you might note I did later say that I came to have real concerns about the topic, the oath not being taken correctly, that I laid out about why they were both trivial but also non-trivial in other ways, and it was best to correct with a second oath, which turns out to be exactly what was done by the administration, on the advice of constitutional legal scholars who said while there was no doubt he was president, it was better to redo it for the reasons I'd had a concern.

You can say you are wrong and apologize, or continue to be seen for the liar you are.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
And when the right sues that Obama, by the law in the constitution, did not say the oath and is not president, guess who will hear the case? John Roberts. Neat coup!

Just when you think you've seen wacky paranoia at it's height...

You come along and fail to notice the sarcasm in his post.

His history denotes there's some seriousness to it.

Three choices:

- Provide the examples to back up your attack

- Withdraw and apologize for the attack

- Be see as the dishonest poster you woudl be if you do neither.

Easy enough:

Link

I avoid sarcasm and am rarely facetious, and the exchange here shows I'm right to do so.

I see you chose option 3: be seen as the dishonest poster you are by doing neither.

You did not provide "exampleS" to back up yout lie about a 'history' showing the attack you made - 'wacky paranoia'.

You posted one link to one 9-page thread without even quoting any text from me having anything to do with your attack.

The one quote you did make is that I said I am rarely facetious, without the context.

So let's make it easy for you - I'll post here every word I posted in that thread, and you can show the quote - only one though it would be - on 'wacky paranoia'.

Pointless long quote snipped...

Oh, and there's exactly one facetious sentence in all those posts - one more than in most threads - proving my statement, that I am rarely facetious, as well.

You have chosen to be seen as the liar you are.

Wow.

Please follow the conversation, if you can:

(1) I comment that your comment sounds paranoid.
(2) Red Dawn comments that you are being sarcastic.
(3) I reply that your denotes seriousness.
(4) You proceed to say I'm "attacking" you.
(5) I respond with your own quote that you avoid sarcasm.
(6) You call me a liar.

Wow. I guess that passes for "logic" in your world.

So - we you being sarcastic in your quote, and lying about "avoiding sarcasm", or were you not being sarcastic, and then trying to back out of it? Neither one is very genuine.

You're the one who needs to follow the thread. You said that the history of my posts suggests 'wacky paranoia', rather than a facetious interpretation of my post.

You can't back that up. It's a lie.

Now, you want to claim oh no, you never said that, it's all about my saying I *avoid* sarcasm and am *rarely* facetious, but you have one whole example of facetious.

I try to choose my words carefully, and I could have, but did not, say I am never sarcastic or facetious. If I had, you could take a victory lap with your one example.

Instead, I said I *avoid* sarcasm, which means I use it less often, that I am *rarely* facetious, which means not often, but more than zero.

Just the sort of statement that is consistent with the one use you found, while if you get several other random selections, you will find there isn't any.

You can try to pretend you have an argument by pretending that "rarely" is the same as "never", but it isn't, and you are wrong.

So, what I said is exactly right, and your secondary attack is a lie as well.

Having said all that - you might note I did later say that I came to have real concerns about the topic, the oath not being taken correctly, that I laid out about why they were both trivial but also non-trivial in other ways, and it was best to correct with a second oath, which turns out to be exactly what was done by the administration, on the advice of constitutional legal scholars who said while there was no doubt he was president, it was better to redo it for the reasons I'd had a concern.

You can say you are wrong and apologize, or continue to be seen for the liar you are.

No matter how many words you type, nor how intelligent you think you are, nor how much you try to deflect, the fact that has been presented is you say that you "avoid sarcasm." Trusting that you mean this, your post isn't sarcasm. What, then, can I interpret it to be?

Of course, considering you quote yourself in your signature, I doubt you'll really understand what I'm saying :laugh: