Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Phatscotty]

typical player response. ignore her and you will be smarter

[PLAYER57832]

typical player response. ignore her and you will be smarter

Yes, ignoring anyone who disagrees is one way to convince yourself you are smart.

[Phatscotty]

typical player response. ignore her and you will be smarter

Yes, ignoring anyone who disagrees is one way to convince yourself you are smart.

oh no, it is not on the basis of disagreement. it's based on the level of incorrect information that I believe you intentionally spew.

[Lionz]

Tzor - There might have been more than 9 mason signers in truth, but maybe I was hinting at individuals being named off the top of people's heads or something like that anyway. How many male astronauts can you name who are not freemasons without going to look up names online or in a book?

Phat - Have you read from Morals and Dogma? The great architect might actually be a codename for the devil or something like that. Freshwater ice melts when it gets above 32 degrees F?

There might be little to no good reason to bicker over politics. An extreme right Bush was followed by an extreme left Obama and now Ron Paul or someone like him will be used to help bring people together and usher in rebel angels? We were hoodwinked and the only form of government that will succeed is a Divine Monarchy under a Truly Merciful (non-false Messiah) King?

[tzor]

I see, so you want to return to the days when slavery was legal, anyonly thoseowning property could vote?

And herein lies the joke. I don't own any property.

I would want to return to the days when no person was above the law and those who thought so were rightly called despots.

I would also want to return to days when I actually had ... something called rights ... as opposed to just being told I have them

John Dickinson: What's so terrible about being called an Englishman? The English don't seem to mind.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so you want to return to the days when slavery was legal, anyonly thoseowning property could vote?

And herein lies the joke. I don't own any property.

I would want to return to the days when no person was above the law and those who thought so were rightly called despots.

I would also want to return to days when I actually had ... something called rights ... as opposed to just being told I have them

John Dickinson: What's so terrible about being called an Englishman? The English don't seem to mind.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his.

No, I don't believe you truly want to return there.. yet you argue that this is what we should do. Thus, the irony.

Our constitution was intended to be changeable because society changes. Those things I mentioned are just among the most prominent of the changes. You cannot have it both ways.. either we are stuck in the late 1700's or we are not. I choose "not".

[PLAYER57832]

typical player response. ignore her and you will be smarter

Yes, ignoring anyone who disagrees is one way to convince yourself you are smart.

oh no, it is not on the basis of disagreement. it's based on the level of incorrect information that I believe you intentionally spew.

Well, there's the thing. I don't have to "believe" what I know to be true.. I can verify it. When I cannot, I definitely phrase it as opinion, not fact.

[tzor]

Our constitution was intended to be changeable because society changes.

First and foremost, things do change, that is why it is possible to amend the constitution. (You do realize that the constitution is technically an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, dropping the articles and replacing them with the constitution. It would be quite odd to have an amendment not subject to amendments.) But the fundamental nature of man, the fundamental inalienable rights of man, and the fundamental strucutre of government remains the same today as it did then. There is a difference between making something changeable and abandoning the structure entirely.

The three way war between the Federalists, the Monarchs, and the Republicans (United States in the plural, United States in the singular, and the government of the people) is a valid then as it is today. "Might makes right" is a cute expression in its day but it is as wrong then as it is now; the "progressive" notion of having a single all encompassing government is anathema to the comprise reached at the constitutional convention no matter how many Democrat or Republican presidents think otherwise.

Clearly the drafters of the constitution (nor the ratifiers of the constitution) did not fully consider the corruptability of men; this is why they generally left the Supreme Court as a giant question mark (and in fact during the ratification they insisted that they would first try to get along without courts). There is much that can be improved in the current system.

Considering that we have been living in the past century and a half where many of the presidents wanted to burn the document (from Lincoln, to both Rosevelts, and on and on) there is a vast difference between reasonable change and chucking the whole thing out the window.

[The Bison King]

Just popped in to see if this thread was as much bullshit as I imagined it was. Turns out it is. He left out one word fucking forget about it. It's not going to "f*ck up" the nation, it's one word one time. It's not like he re-wrote the damn document. Also Phatscotty you are fucking crazy. Barrack Obama isn't on a mission to f*ck up the country in every way possible that's fucking retarded. And for God's sake's AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!! there are christian people who live here yes, but that doesn't mean the place belongs to you.

[PLAYER57832]

Our constitution was intended to be changeable because society changes.

First and foremost, things do change, that is why it is possible to amend the constitution. (You do realize that the constitution is technically an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, dropping the articles and replacing them with the constitution. It would be quite odd to have an amendment not subject to amendments.)

I have vague memories of hearing something a bit different actually back in eigth grade, when we studied such things. But, they are technicalities that don't really and truly matter today. Our federal government now is based on, formed by (essentially) the constitution.

But the fundamental nature of man, the fundamental inalienable rights of man, and the fundamental strucutre of government remains the same today as it did then. There is a difference between making something changeable and abandoning the structure entirely.

If the rights are fundamental and inalienable, then no constitution can give or remove them. Again, an irrelevant argument. Sure, the forefathers cited those rights as why they wanted to leave the so "gracious" King George's rule, but it is rhetoric, not political reality.

As for "abandoning it completely". Again, the constitution itself is designed to be changed. Really, you have 2 ideas for constitutions. One is a framework upon which laws are based. That is our system. The other is a set of laws themselves that detail the rules. That is the system of California and several other states.
The framework of our government is very much as it was back then. The details have changed phenomenally. Except.. some of those details very much do approach framework changes. It is not by accident or to be mean that we keep bringing up slavery and rights of non-property holders, women, etc. Those are very fundamental changes in law that were allowed because our constitution was designed to be flexible.

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did they sky change? No, just your vision. Our vision of the constitution has changed because we have changed. Unlike sitting in a tent, though, we would say it was our forefathers who had the distorted vision and we who have come to see that slavery is wrong, women are people, etc.

The three way war between the Federalists, the Monarchs, and the Republicans (United States in the plural, United States in the singular, and the government of the people) is a valid then as it is today. "Might makes right" is a cute expression in its day but it is as wrong then as it is now; the "progressive" notion of having a single all encompassing government is anathema to the comprise reached at the constitutional convention no matter how many Democrat or Republican presidents think otherwise.

Anytime you bring out lables you turn from debating the points to debating the meanings of those terms. And, since the meaning of most political terms have been turned on their heads by conservative Republicans particularly in the past 30 years... its a mute point and irrelevant. None of those words have meaning any more because so many peopl keep switching the names around. THAT is why I harp on this bit about people not understanding liberalism. Because the term liberal is used a lot in past years.. but has nothing at all to do with what people claim to be liberal today.

Clearly the drafters of the constitution (nor the ratifiers of the constitution) did not fully consider the corruptability of men; this is why they generally left the Supreme Court as a giant question mark (and in fact during the ratification they insisted that they would first try to get along without courts). There is much that can be improved in the current system.

You must think those people were pretty stupid, then. Let's see, they decided not to be rules by a despotic ruler (their terms.. not going to argue the point ), saw truly henious crimes committed both before and during the war (no exaggeration there!), etc. and yet, you don't think they fully considered the corruptability of men?

I would say almost the opposite. It is BECAUSE they knew men were corruptable that they created such high standards to making fundamental change, even while allowing that change would be necessary. They did not, in fact could not, bind us utterly to their vision. No parent can truly bind their child that way, not if they allow their child sanity.

Considering that we have been living in the past century and a half where many of the presidents wanted to burn the document (from Lincoln, to both Rosevelts, and on and on) there is a vast difference between reasonable change and chucking the whole thing out the window.

Really? Depends on who you are and where you sit. You think Lincoln and Roosevelt terrible guys? I do not. Not saying I agree with all they did, but I like many of the changes they brought (and yes, I DO know that Lincoln didn't really end southern slavery, among other issues). I am not really interested in getting into that debate, though. Whether I like them or you like them is utterly irrelevant. THAT is the point. The point is that they existed, they wrought change and so will every president into the future. It is that way because that was how our system was designed. You might wish it differed, but you are stuck with what is, not what you wish were true.

AND... if you want to blame one person for utterly changing the government, look no further than the Republicans. I knew when I listened to all the debate that talk of abortion and stem cell research, etc were all red herrings. It was not until the ruling that corporations were people that I truly understood the depths of depravity to which the Republican establishment has dropped.

You want to claim it is the DEMOCRATS who are altering our constitution? BULL!

And, even so... I have faith that while we are certainly going to be in for some really, really bad times as a result of that ruling, I have to have faith that things will continue. However, truth is.. we are far closer to a world ruled by Big brother than ever before.

[Night Strike]

Just popped in to see if this thread was as much bullshit as I imagined it was. Turns out it is. He left out one word fucking forget about it. It's not going to "f*ck up" the nation, it's one word one time. It's not like he re-wrote the damn document. Also Phatscotty you are fucking crazy. Barrack Obama isn't on a mission to f*ck up the country in every way possible that's fucking retarded. And for God's sake's AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!! there are christian people who live here yes, but that doesn't mean the place belongs to you.

Actually, it was one word twice. Twice, in speeches relatively close in time (matter of days) indicates a conscious effort to omit rather than a slip-up.

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table. The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race. The various rights for women were included later as the country changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one and more women began to leave their homes. The right to vote based on owning property was removed so that the newly freed blacks would be able to vote (although the arguments behind owning property before voting are quite compelling, even though they would not be practical in today's society of living in apartments). When people want to return to the intent of the Constitution, they want to return to the power being with the people instead of with the government. It's quite a simple argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table.

Not really. Either it changes or it doesn't. Just because you like some changes and not others doesn't make the idea of those changes fundamentally wrong. That is why it is a very pertinent argument, because we know no sane person today wants to return to those days, but so many of you argue that you want to return to the "vision of our forefathers".. further, you don't really mean them "en masse" you mean only specific folks with whom you agree.

The constitution was not designed to do everything everybody wants. It was designed to be workable for all. Compromises always leave something to be desired. Even so, I think this one stands up pretty well. Or it did, until the Supreme court ruled that companies were "people too".

The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race. The various rights for women were included later as the country changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one and more women began to leave their homes. The right to vote based on owning property was removed so that the newly freed blacks would be able to vote (although the arguments behind owning property before voting are quite compelling, even though they would not be practical in today's society of living in apartments). When people want to return to the intent of the Constitution, they want to return to the power being with the people instead of with the government. It's quite a simple argument.

Yes, I understand the history, but that last statement is not true. What you really want is most definitely not a return to "power of the people", no matter how much the Republicans try to take that claim. What you advocate for over and over and over again is power to the businesses and the already powerful in this country. I disagree with that thinking. But what makes you a hypocrite is your denial of that truth.

Every time you chastise any disagreement, any attempt to say that people who are not wealthy, have not been gifted with the best, etc.. that they need more, all you can say is "but THEY don't DESERVE more"! Guess what, they are people, too. Ignoring them is not "giving the people what they want", it is giving the elite, the wealthy Republicans (and yes, Democrats not far behind) what THEY want.

And worse, this claim that Obama dropping "creator" from the speech indicates a desire to have a theocracy. A government is not ruled by God, some people are. Whether people choose that rule or not is up to them. I have, you have, Obama has, but many people do not. Our government rules us all. The truth is that the acknowledgement of the creator was a reflection of the times.. a time not very far removed at all from when people who failed to attend church were put in stocks, when certain religious "crimes" got one harsh penalties. (and I don't even mean things like adultry, I mean taking the lord's name in vain, etc.). I am a Christian, I certainly honor God above all, but I am not proud of all that has been done in the name of religon in this country. Claiming that Obama is destroying America because he dropped "creator" (and note.. most president's don't actually write their own speeched, often don't read them before they give them.) might not be the worst thing done in the name of Christianity, but it is pretty low. Why all this effort to claim Obama is not a Christian. He is. Why do so many supposed Christian flat out lie about that? Bearing false witness is a commandment! Why is it OK for all these people to break a commandment, yet if our political leader, the president, while in his official capacity as leader of ALL in this country.. religious or not, omits on word, (for maybe no reason at all, like that flag/no flag hoopla in the campaign) suddenly that means he is the embodiment of Satan? There is something pretty stinky in those claiming church, nowadays, but it is NOT Obama!

[Woodruff]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

[BigBallinStalin]

@tzor, nightstrike, and any guys along their line in this thread)

But isn't the Constituion a double-edged sword?

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that businesses are entities endowed with the freedom of speech, and are thus able to give campaign contributions and create all sorts of influence on American politics due to the Constitution. That's going to be extremely difficult to reverse (if ever), given the way the system works.

There needs to be a huge overhaul of this government.

But before I jump in here, let me try to understand y'all's view better. Are you (tzor, Nightstrike) that a reversion to the Constitution is what's needed?

Or are you suggesting that the Constitution should be applied differently than it is today?

If so, how?

[BigBallinStalin]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

I go camping in a green tent, and I can't verify this to be true... Perhaps it just depends on the person's "tent" more so than their "vision," huh, PLAYER?

[PLAYER57832]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

I go camping in a green tent, and I can't verify this to be true... Perhaps it just depends on the person's "tent" more so than their "vision," huh, PLAYER?

Might need to be a certain spectrum of green. (This was an old canvas pale green one). Also, you have to stay in there a while. The only time I had this happen was when I was stuck watching my little brother nap for a long time. I was reading, then came out and the sky looked pink. It was quite strange, but definitely did happen.

I have since verified this with doctors. You can get similar responses by wearing colored glasses for a while. After a bit, everything looks normal. Your brain has adjusted to the new spectrum (that's how I understood it, anyway). Take them off and for a time, you see things as if the colors were all changed.

[Metsfanmax]

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table. The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race.

It is not fair to cherry-pick who the "founders" of the nation are. While it may be true that James Madison and the other writers of the text did not support the clause, the fact is that it was ratified that way, making it the majority view of the delegates who founded the nation.

That being said, I agree with the content of your message: one can want to return to some of the original ideas of this nation, while ignoring the ones which are universally considered to be bad by today's standards. Still, at that point one must recognize that it's an arbitrary thing to do - when you recognize that today's standards invalidate some of the prevailing views of the 1780s, there is no non-arbitrary line for determining which ones are still valid. Once you poke a hole in the absolute validity of our founding ideas, they're no longer special - they're just one of many points of view of what the Constitution should mean.

[ViperOverLord]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

Well technically the sky is not blue. The sky is colorless. The full spectrum of colors hits the atmosphere, but the particles in the air deflect the other colors more than the blue, so it is the blue that shows.

[rdsrds2120]

HRM HRM Subject that be, Obama dropping Creator from Declaration. I personally don't have a problem with this. America has become a much, much more diverse nation since the creation of the Constitution, and we don't all hold the religious roots of the original Americans that started here. If anything, taking 'Creator' out makes it more fair to all because it doesn't exclude people who either don't believe that there was a Creator, or people that believe that there were multiple Creators. One core value of America is having religious freedom, and by saying that 'Creator' MUST be imposed into quoting that part of the Constitution, it doesn't represent what the Constitution stands for.

[PLAYER57832]

HRM HRM Subject that be, Obama dropping Creator from Declaration. I personally don't have a problem with this. America has become a much, much more diverse nation since the creation of the Constitution, and we don't all hold the religious roots of the original Americans that started here. If anything, taking 'Creator' out makes it more fair to all because it doesn't exclude people who either don't believe that there was a Creator, or people that believe that there were multiple Creators. One core value of America is having religious freedom, and by saying that 'Creator' MUST be imposed into quoting that part of the Constitution, it doesn't represent what the Constitution stands for.

Exactly, which is why several of us say those upset by this are trying to bring us toward theocracy, even though those posting those demands claim they do not.

Simply having "creator" in the constitution did not make us a theocracy, particularly given the way things were back then. However, claims that removing it will "destroy the constitution" or "destry America".. is something pretty indicative of someone what wants us to move toward theocracy.. whether they believe that is true or not.

[Woodruff]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

Well technically the sky is not blue. The sky is colorless. The full spectrum of colors hits the atmosphere, but the particles in the air deflect the other colors more than the blue, so it is the blue that shows.

Yes, that's pretty common knowledge. And?

[Metsfanmax]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

Well technically the sky is not blue. The sky is colorless. The full spectrum of colors hits the atmosphere, but the particles in the air deflect the other colors more than the blue, so it is the blue that shows.

Incorrect. I know I'm biased because I'm a physicist, but really - sight is fairly simple. You "see" photons that are reflected off objects and enter your eye. The particles in the air scatter blue the most, which is why you see blue.

[BigBallinStalin]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

Well technically the sky is not blue. The sky is colorless. The full spectrum of colors hits the atmosphere, but the particles in the air deflect the other colors more than the blue, so it is the blue that shows.

Incorrect. I know I'm biased because I'm a physicist, but really - sight is fairly simple. You "see" photons that are reflected off objects and enter your eye. The particles in the air scatter blue the most, which is why you see blue.

Man... VOL just can't get a break!

[PLAYER57832]

Put it another way, if you stay in a green tent for a while, then come out, the sky looks pink, not blue. Did the sky change? No, just your vision.

Really? I did not know this.

Well technically the sky is not blue. The sky is colorless. The full spectrum of colors hits the atmosphere, but the particles in the air deflect the other colors more than the blue, so it is the blue that shows.

Incorrect. I know I'm biased because I'm a physicist, but really - sight is fairly simple. You "see" photons that are reflected off objects and enter your eye. The particles in the air scatter blue the most, which is why you see blue.

But more importantly, our brain percieves those sensations as the color blue. Putting on colored glasses, (or staying for an extended time in a colored tent) alters that. We "know" that things are supposed to be certain colors, so even when the photons reaching our eyes are changed, our brain still converts them to a "normal" image. Then, when the distortion is removed, there is a time before the brain re-adjusts. For a time, we "see" the altered colors, not the colors we are "supposed" to see.

[rdsrds2120]

This is getting really off topic =\