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

[jonesthecurl]

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!

Some people think ALL questions are about colour...

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that so many right wingers seem intent on convincing people that acceptance and tolerance of others means discrimination against the right wingers?

[tzor]

Why is it that so many right wingers seem intent on convincing people that acceptance and tolerance of others means discrimination against the right wingers?

"Acceptance and tollerance" of others, if is it not a half hearted slogan of a hypocrite, demands acceptance and tollerance of everyone; even Sara Palin, Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck. If you cannot do that, you have condemned youself as a hypocrite. So for most liberals this term is just code words "accept my side but not yours."

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that so many right wingers seem intent on convincing people that acceptance and tolerance of others means discrimination against the right wingers?

"Acceptance and tollerance" of others, if is it not a half hearted slogan of a hypocrite, demands acceptance and tollerance of everyone; even Sara Palin, Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck. If you cannot do that, you have condemned youself as a hypocrite. So for most liberals this term is just code words "accept my side but not yours."

There is a big difference between criticizing ideas, not wanting someone to be our next president, not feeling they represent us, etc. and wanting to pass laws that declare you cannot have the tax and other legal benefits of a marriage. There is a big difference between saying we will not agree with x person and saying that they have no right to build a community center OR church/mosque/synagogue wherever they wish as long as practical zoning laws are followed. There is a BIG difference between saying that someone who disdains science is an idiot and saying that anyone who follows a particular broad, wide religion (not talking some small truly wacko sects by anybody's measure) is to be considered a suspect terrorist or terrorist supporter.

Above all, there is a HUGE difference between insisting that Obama's omission of "creator" is somehow leading to the destruction of the US or and indication of evil intent and criticizing Glenn Beck and Pallin for flat out lying and expressing views that truly will lead to harm in this country (Glenn Beck-hatred and ignoring science, Pallin -both xenophobia type sentiments and complete disdain for true science).

[tzor]

It really is fascinating watching the liberal mind at work. You just can’t stop those ad homonym mudslinging attacks. So let’s start from the top and work our way down. I was discussing acceptance and tolerance of “Sara Palin, Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck” and you reply with “not wanting someone to be our next president.” First of all, none of them ran against Obama for president and any discussion of 2012 is premature at best. I don’t know what that has to do with the general insulting, degrading, and strutting that most liberals have when discussing these people, but I never really want to know the mind of a liberal anyway. I hear it’s just like the mind of Great Cuthulu; so vastly beyond reality as to drive you permanently insane.

Likewise the whole Mosque thing is so beyond you that I’m no longer going to try to explain it. If you can’t understand, that’s your fault. Once again it’s that lack of empathy and that faux acceptance and tolerance. If you want we can have this discussion again when you lose your loved one to some bastard and have a symbol of that bastard erected anywhere near the site where your loved one died.

Finally, let’s talk about science. Everyone loves to talk about how Bush disdained science (even as Al Gore was faking numbers to support his convenient lie) but at least he didn’t try to cover up science and silence scientists as did the Obama administration during the first weeks of that oil spill. He didn’t say one thing and do another. We have to hitchhike rides from the Russians to get to space these days. Yes, talk about science, like you talk about everything else.

I have to eat dinner now; when I return I might explain the whole creator thing to you.

[Woodruff]

It really is fascinating watching the liberal mind at work. You just can’t stop those ad homonym mudslinging attacks. So let’s start from the top and work our way down. I was discussing acceptance and tolerance of “Sara Palin, Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck” and you reply with “not wanting someone to be our next president.” First of all, none of them ran against Obama for president and any discussion of 2012 is premature at best. I don’t know what that has to do with the general insulting, degrading, and strutting that most liberals have when discussing these people, but I never really want to know the mind of a liberal anyway. I hear it’s just like the mind of Great Cuthulu; so vastly beyond reality as to drive you permanently insane.

Likewise the whole Mosque thing is so beyond you that I’m no longer going to try to explain it. If you can’t understand, that’s your fault. Once again it’s that lack of empathy and that faux acceptance and tolerance. If you want we can have this discussion again when you lose your loved one to some bastard and have a symbol of that bastard erected anywhere near the site where your loved one died.

Finally, let’s talk about science. Everyone loves to talk about how Bush disdained science (even as Al Gore was faking numbers to support his convenient lie) but at least he didn’t try to cover up science and silence scientists as did the Obama administration during the first weeks of that oil spill. He didn’t say one thing and do another. We have to hitchhike rides from the Russians to get to space these days. Yes, talk about science, like you talk about everything else.

I have to eat dinner now; when I return I might explain the whole creator thing to you.

It really is fascinating watching the conservative mind at work. Whining about ad homonym mudslinging attacks all while doing so themselves.

[tzor]

So why is the notion of a “creator” important in the Declaration of Independence and what does it say when one attempts to omit it? This is, actually a very deep and complex question that involves the application of natural law as the root of all positive law. The basic argument in the declaration is that there are rights; that these rights are inalienable and they weren’t given by some king or despot or someone with a very large army, but are innate to every person.

These rights can neither be given (because they are already possessed) nor taken away by any despot (POTUS) or oligarchy (SCOTUS) or insane idiot with a popular television program. The use of having a “creator” endow these rights is that it makes clear that it is neither the despot nor the oligarchy that has endowed these rights and thus not within their power to add or subtract. By removing this reference to a “creator” the speaker potentially makes the argument that he (or they) are the endower of these rights, given from the magnificence of the speaker and thus causes all to be indebted to the speaker.

This is continued in the declaration by asserting that not only is the rights not given in a top down manner, but that the creation of government itself is something derived bottom up from the people and it is the people who have all rights and authority to form and abolish government.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our inalienable rights do not come from President Obama, nor from the Supreme Court, no matter how vainly they might think otherwise. The omission of the other is merely an attempt to remove the other from their own self deluded visions of power. Such actions have no place in a true government of the people, by the people and for the people.

[tzor]

It really is fascinating watching the conservative mind at work. Whining about ad homonym mudslinging attacks all while doing so themselves.

Pleae point out the "ad homonym mudslinging attacks" in the above post.

Oh and mind your own business Mr. Spock. I'm sick and tired of your half breed interference.

[Woodruff]

It really is fascinating watching the conservative mind at work. Whining about ad homonym mudslinging attacks all while doing so themselves.

Pleae point out the "ad homonym mudslinging attacks" in the above post.

Ok...

I don’t know what that has to do with the general insulting, degrading, and strutting that most liberals have when discussing these people, but I never really want to know the mind of a liberal anyway. I hear it’s just like the mind of Great Cuthulu; so vastly beyond reality as to drive you permanently insane.

Likewise the whole Mosque thing is so beyond you that I’m no longer going to try to explain it.

[Woodruff]

So why is the notion of a “creator” important in the Declaration of Independence and what does it say when one attempts to omit it? This is, actually a very deep and complex question that involves the application of natural law as the root of all positive law. The basic argument in the declaration is that there are rights; that these rights are inalienable and they weren’t given by some king or despot or someone with a very large army, but are innate to every person.

I agree absolutely, and yet I do not believe in any "creator". A creator is not at all necessary to believe that certain rights are innate to every person. I honestly don't understand why some individuals believe that the "creator" is so necessary to this argument.

[Phatscotty]

[Woodruff]

An idiotic trolling picture about Obama

I suppose you'd prefer that we not list all of the "family values with religion" folks who have gone wayward, right?

[PLAYER57832]

It really is fascinating watching the liberal mind at work. You just can’t stop those ad homonym mudslinging attacks. So let’s start from the top and work our way down. I was discussing acceptance and tolerance of “Sara Palin, Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck” and you reply with “not wanting someone to be our next president.” First of all, none of them ran against Obama for president and any discussion of 2012 is premature at best.

Pallin DID run against Obama and the attacks on those people are about their ideas, not who they are. Attacks on Obama have almost nothing to do with his ideas. In fact, much of the criticism has to do with absolute untruths about his ideas, such as that he is "not a Christian", etc.

BIG dfference!

I don’t know what that has to do with the general insulting, degrading, and strutting that most liberals have when discussing these people,

I don't answer for "most people". I do answer for myself and your post was directed at me, so I am answering.

I don't have any respect for someone who touts her beliefs in idiocy (Pallin), nor for someone who so blithely condemns whole groups of people and then hasn't even the balls to admit it (Glenn Beck and "oh, oops, sorry.. Muslim terrorists [wink, wink] ). As for Riley? I don't know what he says, so I have never insulted him. Seems you are the one trying to blow things out.

but I never really want to know the mind of a liberal anyway.

Yes, we know. Yet you seem to feel you can condemn the thinking anyway.. and you call them hypocritical!

I hear it’s just like the mind of Great Cuthulu; so vastly beyond reality as to drive you permanently insane.

Hmm... and here I thought this was about how liberals are insulting, as opposed to you right-wingers.

Likewise the whole Mosque thing is so beyond you that I’m no longer going to try to explain it. If you can’t understand, that’s your fault.

No, I have given you some pretty clear reasons why that is NOT the case. In fact, several of your "examples" were not even correct, (such as when you tried to compare the Greek Orthodox church and the Muslim community center). You claim to be "knowledgeable", yet you still don't get the difference between a Mosque and a community center.

Once again it’s that lack of empathy and that faux acceptance and tolerance.

Nice twist, I won't condemn a whole religion for the crimes of a few and I am the one who is "intolerant"?
I think you need to review the term "intolerant" in the dictionary before you use it again.

If you want we can have this discussion again when you lose your loved one to some bastard and have a symbol of that bastard erected anywhere near the site where your loved one died.

Been there, done that. MY family lived through Nazi occupation. Yep.. the same country with whom we are now extremely close allies, etc, etc, etc.. so you can go shove that thought up your %$^&

Finally, let’s talk about science. Everyone loves to talk about how Bush disdained science (even as Al Gore was faking numbers to support his convenient lie) but at least he didn’t try to cover up science and silence scientists as did the Obama administration during the first weeks of that oil spill. He didn’t say one thing and do another. We have to hitchhike rides from the Russians to get to space these days. Yes, talk about science, like you talk about everything else.

You do NOT know enough about those subject to even open your mouth. And yes, unlike you and this mosque issue, I actually DO have the experience, credentials AND data to support what I say.

[PLAYER57832]

This poster is Living proof that the right wing will stop at nothing to spread lies and untruths in pursuit of their agenda.

[Snorri1234]

[PLAYER57832]

So why is the notion of a “creator” important in the Declaration of Independence and what does it say when one attempts to omit it? This is, actually a very deep and complex question that involves the application of natural law as the root of all positive law. The basic argument in the declaration is that there are rights; that these rights are inalienable and they weren’t given by some king or despot or someone with a very large army, but are innate to every person.

These rights can neither be given (because they are already possessed) nor taken away by any despot (POTUS) or oligarchy (SCOTUS) or insane idiot with a popular television program. The use of having a “creator” endow these rights is that it makes clear that it is neither the despot nor the oligarchy that has endowed these rights and thus not within their power to add or subtract. By removing this reference to a “creator” the speaker potentially makes the argument that he (or they) are the endower of these rights, given from the magnificence of the speaker and thus causes all to be indebted to the speaker.

This is continued in the declaration by asserting that not only is the rights not given in a top down manner, but that the creation of government itself is something derived bottom up from the people and it is the people who have all rights and authority to form and abolish government.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our inalienable rights do not come from President Obama, nor from the Supreme Court, no matter how vainly they might think otherwise. The omission of the other is merely an attempt to remove the other from their own self deluded visions of power. Such actions have no place in a true government of the people, by the people and for the people.

And here I thought I was supposed to be the one known for long-winded explanations.

Its not complex at all. These rights are ours, enforced but not given by governments. Whether you believe in a creator or not is irrelevant. We are not, have never been a theocracy. Therefore insisting that our president must, in his offical capacity acknowledge a creator is beyond ludicrous, it is actually dangerous.

If out president, Mr Obama can be condemned for omitting the word "creator", despite the fact that he is plainly a practicing Christian (plain to any who care to see with real eyes instead of some right wing agenda), then so, too can ANYONE be condemned for not believing in the way anyone else wants... oh, gee. that is EXACTLY what the right wing is trying to accomplish!

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Section 1 of the United States Code states that a person is defined to include corporations.

Weird thought...does that make the stock market akin to slavery?

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

Sounds perfectly legitimate to me if you can prove the owner knowingly allowed the violations to occur.

I believe in that particular case, yes...it was proven. But he wasn't. And on top of that, he had a past history of similar problems and even worse actions on his part.

Depends on how well they influence key actors.

As for corporations having free speech, then they should have the right to vote since they're now considered to be a "person."

[Metsfanmax]

Depends on how well they influence key actors.

As for corporations having free speech, then they should have the right to vote since they're now considered to be a "person."

The decision did not grant "personhood" status to corporations. People really need to stop saying that.

[Phatscotty]

An idiotic trolling picture about Obama

I suppose you'd prefer that we not list all of the "family values with religion" folks who have gone wayward, right?

no

[Night Strike]

During a speech Monday, President Barack Obama once again omitted the Declaration of Independence‘s mention of man’s “Creator” as the source of his “unalienable rights.” While delivering remarks at a dinner fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in Rockville, Md., President Obama spoke about what he called the “essence” of the upcoming midterm election:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The sole mention of man‘s Creator in Obama’s remarks came at the end when he thanked the audience and said, “God bless you.”

This isn’t the first time the president has selectively edited the Declaration in not acknowledging the role of God in bestowing these rights upon man. During a Sept. 15 speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, the president omitted the religious reference, but the White House dismissed criticism, saying that Obama “went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.” But just a week later, the President made the exact same “mistake” speaking during another fundraiser, this time in New York City.

When asked why the president did not use the words “endowed by their Creator” in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-c ... ependence/

Still just a slip-up?

[john9blue]

either political correctness or something worse. either way it's pretty worrisome.

[Night Strike]

either political correctness or something worse. either way it's pretty worrisome.

Even political correctness doesn't outright omit something from a founding document.

[Neoteny]

Wow. You guys are still really depressing.

[john9blue]

love you too neo.