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

[Iliad]

This is one of the most desperate attacks on Obama I've seen.
Firstly: Maybe Obama doesn't want to invoke a "Creator" at a time of great religious conflict. And either way if he did Fox news, and then obviously you guys would be complaining about how he invoked a vague god and whether this is proof of him being Muslim. No matter what he does, you will be displeased.

Secondly: You wanna know his motives: Anything that he leaves out is probably held to be irrelevant to the point he's making. If I quote a line of a book it doesn't matter I secretly despise the next and previous line, it just means they are not as relevant to my point or the quote I'm providing is enough for my point and quoting further is just being too verbose.

Or maybe Obama is a sekrit evil Muslim Socialist. You never know so remain as paranoid and terrified as you can.

[Night Strike]

This is one of the most desperate attacks on Obama I've seen.
Firstly: Maybe Obama doesn't want to invoke a "Creator" at a time of great religious conflict. And either way if he did Fox news, and then obviously you guys would be complaining about how he invoked a vague god and whether this is proof of him being Muslim. No matter what he does, you will be displeased.

Secondly: You wanna know his motives: Anything that he leaves out is probably held to be irrelevant to the point he's making. If I quote a line of a book it doesn't matter I secretly despise the next and previous line, it just means they are not as relevant to my point or the quote I'm providing is enough for my point and quoting further is just being too verbose.

Or maybe Obama is a sekrit evil Muslim Socialist. You never know so remain as paranoid and terrified as you can.

It's desperate to say that our president is omitting a key word from our Declaration of Independence? It's a fact, not an attack. What's desperate is saying it was a slip-up when he has now done it at least 3 times in the past month. Your second point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. When you're quoting a line, so as long as you don't just go to the third sentence, you're not leaving anything out. Obama's choice was to clearly remove 1 word from the middle of a sentence, not the next word following where he ended his quote. Why would he repeatedly misquote an important text?

[PLAYER57832]

It is desperate and stupid to insist that his refusal to adhere to one specific RELIGIOUS idea, interpretation is dangerous. We are not a theocracy, therefore whether he inserts or omits the word "creator" is irrelevant.

And yes, insisting that he is "not Christian" or at least not acting a Christian and therefore is doing dangerous things IS very much an "attack".

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

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

Yes, this IS an attack. And a very, very dangerous attack on BOTH on the nature of the presidency, what it stands for AND the man himself. In either case, you should be ashamed, though I know you will hide it in pride.

[Metsfanmax]

Unless I'm remembering it incorrectly, I don't think anyone agreed that it was a slip-up since the first page of this thread.

[Night Strike]

It is desperate and stupid to insist that his refusal to adhere to one specific RELIGIOUS idea, interpretation is dangerous. We are not a theocracy, therefore whether he inserts or omits the word "creator" is irrelevant.

I never said he had to believe in a Creator. I just said he has no right to completely remove the word from a founding document when he quotes it. He's the president who is supposed to uphold the ideals of our country. Those ideals were included in the Declaration of Independence, so if he wishes to provide a direct quote of that document, he has a responsibility to quote it properly.

[Metsfanmax]

It is desperate and stupid to insist that his refusal to adhere to one specific RELIGIOUS idea, interpretation is dangerous. We are not a theocracy, therefore whether he inserts or omits the word "creator" is irrelevant.

I never said he had to believe in a Creator. I just said he has no right to completely remove the word from a founding document when he quotes it. He's the president who is supposed to uphold the ideals of our country. Those ideals were included in the Declaration of Independence, so if he wishes to provide a direct quote of that document, he has a responsibility to quote it properly.

And clearly he does not wish to provide a direct quote of that document, so honestly, just shut up.

[Night Strike]

It is desperate and stupid to insist that his refusal to adhere to one specific RELIGIOUS idea, interpretation is dangerous. We are not a theocracy, therefore whether he inserts or omits the word "creator" is irrelevant.

I never said he had to believe in a Creator. I just said he has no right to completely remove the word from a founding document when he quotes it. He's the president who is supposed to uphold the ideals of our country. Those ideals were included in the Declaration of Independence, so if he wishes to provide a direct quote of that document, he has a responsibility to quote it properly.

And clearly he does not wish to provide a direct quote of that document, so honestly, just shut up.

Can't listen to viewpoints you disagree with? I thought you preached tolerance and openness.

If this is not a direct quote, such a thing does not exist:

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.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is blatantly dishonest to claim that he wasn't directly quoting.

[Metsfanmax]

Can't listen to viewpoints you disagree with? I thought you preached tolerance and openness.

This is not a viewpoint. It's a constant background sound of whining and bitchiness that is completely irrelevant to anything that matters.

It is blatantly dishonest to claim that he wasn't directly quoting.

No it's not. To directly quote something is to use the same words. Obama is not using the same words. If you're mad at him for using some of the words of our founding fathers but not all of them, then say that. But don't start whining because he's quoting the Declaration and also somehow not quoting it. You sound like a moron when you say that.

[Night Strike]

Can't listen to viewpoints you disagree with? I thought you preached tolerance and openness.

This is not a viewpoint. It's a constant background sound of whining and bitchiness that is completely irrelevant to anything that matters.

It is blatantly dishonest to claim that he wasn't directly quoting.

No it's not. To directly quote something is to use the same words. Obama is not using the same words. If you're mad at him for using some of the words of our founding fathers but not all of them, then say that. But don't start whining because he's quoting the Declaration and also somehow not quoting it. You sound like a moron when you say that.

Anyone who states that wasn't supposed to be a quote of the Declaration is deceiving themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

Can't listen to viewpoints you disagree with? I thought you preached tolerance and openness.

If this is not a direct quote, such a thing does not exist:

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.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is blatantly dishonest to claim that he wasn't directly quoting.

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

You choose to make such an issue of it becuase you have alterier motives. This is not about Obama's words. This is about your view that Obama is some kind of "evil Satan" (though you may not have used those exact words). Obama's paraphrasing, for whatever reason was his right, as long as he did not say "I quote..". YOU, by contrast have voiced much here that indicates you believe this is to be a theocracy and that the only valid leader is one who is not just a Christian, but YOUR BRAND of Christianity. As a CHRISTIAN, I find that offensive and dangerous. It is dangerous politically, because there is no end to that road. Either we tolerate all but the outright dangerous or we become opporessive.

Furthermore, it is not what Christ instructed us to do. You take the spiritual and demean it to petty politics. That is blasphemy. (Even aside from the "false witness" bit).

[Metsfanmax]

I'm going to make this pretty simple.

Statement 1:

In the words of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Statement 2:

In the words of the Declaration of Independence,"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."

Statement 3:

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.”

Okay. Here are the facts:

Statement 1 is a quotation of the Declaration of Independence.

Statement 2 is an incorrect quotation of the Declaration of Independence. That is, the author of this fictitious quote intended to repeat the words of that document, but missed some of the words.

Statement 3 is not a quotation of the Declaration of Independence. You might even call it a paraphrasing of that document, but to do so would still be incredibly presumptive (and therefore utterly idiotic), because it denies the possibility that there were decades before the Declaration of Independence was written where people actually had this idea and based their actions off of it, and it implies that somehow this idea only came into existence once it was written in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore those words belong to that document. I mean come on, I know Jefferson didn't directly quote John Locke, but seriously?



That is the end of this thread. Done. Finished. Over.



Hopefully some mod will come in here and lock this thread, because it's just inane.

By the way, if you ignore the fact that I said this conversation is over, and respond to this post, you had better say the following:

I'm sorry, Metsfanmax. I don't like Obama and how he runs this country, but it was just plain petty of me to try to attack him this way. I promise never to do it again, and in the future I will take more time and put more thought into my criticisms before I post them.

If you don't say that, I'm putting you on ignore and never reading a single one of your posts ever again.

[Night Strike]

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If that's not meant to be a quote, such a thing does not exist. Did you never take high school English? A paraphrase is NOT a rearrangement of words or the removal of just a few words. If you choose to call that a paraphrase, it can be construed as plagiarism because you neither directly quoted nor sufficiently reworded the statement.

You choose to make such an issue of it becuase you have alterier motives. This is not about Obama's words. This is about your view that Obama is some kind of "evil Satan" (though you may not have used those exact words). Obama's paraphrasing, for whatever reason was his right, as long as he did not say "I quote..". YOU, by contrast have voiced much here that indicates you believe this is to be a theocracy and that the only valid leader is one who is not just a Christian, but YOUR BRAND of Christianity. As a CHRISTIAN, I find that offensive and dangerous. It is dangerous politically, because there is no end to that road. Either we tolerate all but the outright dangerous or we become opporessive.

Furthermore, it is not what Christ instructed us to do. You take the spiritual and demean it to petty politics. That is blasphemy. (Even aside from the "false witness" bit).

I have ulterior motives? We know there are progressive organizations who wish to wipe out any reference to God or Christianity in the public sphere, so why wouldn't they try to remove it from the Declaration? Removing God means that the only place rights come from is the government, therefore it can add or remove rights on a whim. I have never said, nor even though, that Obama is an "evil Satan". I'm saying his beliefs are against what our country was founded on. A theocracy is a government that forces its citizens to follow a certain religious belief: i.e. Iran and colonial England. The US was specifically barred from becoming a theocracy, but that DOES NOT mean religion can't be used to influence policies and politicians.

[Woodruff]

Still just a slip-up?

No...an irrelevancy.

It's desperate to say that our president is omitting a key word from our Declaration of Independence?

Key word? What the f*ck? It is absolutely NOT a "key word" in our Declaration of Independence.

[Woodruff]

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he did not, Night Strike. I mean...if you're really going to try to be this picky about a paraphrase, he simply did not say every other word in the phrase. To highlight my point, where precisely do you want to insert (the only word he left out) "Creator" into the statement?

[Night Strike]

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he did not, Night Strike. I mean...if you're really going to try to be this picky about a paraphrase, he simply did not say every other word in the phrase. To highlight my point, where precisely do you want to insert (the only word he left out) "Creator" into the statement?

Does no one in this country know the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence???

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (No claims that the punctuation is correct as I did it from memory)

Obama 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.”

Yes, the Creator phrase was the only thing he left out of the quote, so it's pretty obvious where it should be returned to form the proper quotation.

[john9blue]

If Obama tried to claim them as his own words, it would be considered plagiarism.

If Obama tried to paraphrase it, he would have made other changes, instead of changing only the single part mentioning a Creator. For example, "certain inalienable rights, such as life..." could be changed.

It's pretty funny how some people are desperately trying to convince themselves that Obama was "just paraphrasing" and that the Creator bit was the only bit left out both times by complete and utter coincidence.

Does anyone here truly believe that Obama's omission of Creator both times was unintentional?

IF SO, you're an idiot.

IF NOT, why do you think he left it out?

[PLAYER57832]

If Obama tried to claim them as his own words, it would be considered plagiarism.

If Obama tried to paraphrase it, he would have made other changes, instead of changing only the single part mentioning a Creator. For example, "certain inalienable rights, such as life..." could be changed.

It's pretty funny how some people are desperately trying to convince themselves that Obama was "just paraphrasing" and that the Creator bit was the only bit left out both times by complete and utter coincidence.

Does anyone here truly believe that Obama's omission of Creator both times was unintentional?

IF SO, you're an idiot.

IF NOT, why do you think he left it out?

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

[Tripitaka]

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he did not, Night Strike. I mean...if you're really going to try to be this picky about a paraphrase, he simply did not say every other word in the phrase. To highlight my point, where precisely do you want to insert (the only word he left out) "Creator" into the statement?

Does no one in this country know the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence???

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (No claims that the punctuation is correct as I did it from memory)

Obama 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.”

Yes, the Creator phrase was the only thing he left out of the quote, so it's pretty obvious where it should be returned to form the proper quotation.

Perhaps you should be rolling your eyes at your own reading comprehension Night Strike.
You originally said " HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Woodroof was just pointing out that that wasn't the case and that if "Creator" was the only word he missed out of his speech then it should be able to be slotted back in somewhere and still make sense, when clearly it can't be....because it was not the only word he missed out.

[Phatscotty]

If Obama tried to claim them as his own words, it would be considered plagiarism.

If Obama tried to paraphrase it, he would have made other changes, instead of changing only the single part mentioning a Creator. For example, "certain inalienable rights, such as life..." could be changed.

It's pretty funny how some people are desperately trying to convince themselves that Obama was "just paraphrasing" and that the Creator bit was the only bit left out both times by complete and utter coincidence.

Does anyone here truly believe that Obama's omission of Creator both times was unintentional?

IF SO, you're an idiot.

IF NOT, why do you think he left it out?

3rd time leaving out "creator" was the charm for me.

[Woodruff]

No, it is blatantly dishonest to say that he claimed it was a direct quote. He was paraphrasing, which is allowed. Had he said "to quote....", then you might have a justified argument. I would still argue its a petty and stupid argument, but you take this well beyond that.

HE SAID EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE PHRASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he did not, Night Strike. I mean...if you're really going to try to be this picky about a paraphrase, he simply did not say every other word in the phrase. To highlight my point, where precisely do you want to insert (the only word he left out) "Creator" into the statement?

Does no one in this country know the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence???

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (No claims that the punctuation is correct as I did it from memory)

Obama 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.”

Yes, the Creator phrase was the only thing he left out of the quote, so it's pretty obvious where it should be returned to form the proper quotation.

You should work on your reading comprehension. Then you can work on writing what you intend to mean instead of something else. Then after that, maybe you can stop rolling your eyes because you won't look quite so stupid that way.

[john9blue]

.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Obviously they're being treated like people, and that amendment wasn't meant to be applied to businesses. Whatever word they used like "entity" to fit a business under such rights is complete bullshit, so your argument is still besides the point.

It's ridiculous that businesses were entitled such rights, so if they're going to be entitled such, then let's give them the package deal to make this whole matter seem even more ridiculous, so that people can realize how ridiculous it is in the first place.

[BigBallinStalin]

.


wasted some time on that pic, huh?

[Woodruff]

.

I'm rather confused...is saying that I don't lack comprehension intended to be insulting?

[john9blue]

Nope. Only someone with stellar comprehension skills would use the word "comprehension" so much.

The pic took about five minutes, BBS. Thanks for your appreciation!