Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol , page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:50 AM by alien

CUE STANDARD MOD SPEECh

Hi People,

As you may notice theres a whole bunch of Off-Topic Warns here...

Please remain on-topic.

IF someone has a go at you, then please just Alert Staff to it (as was done, thank you)- however...please do not continue to debate with them reply after reply as that just keeps it going Off-Topic and results in the above numerous Off-Topic Warns.

Also - please try to remain civil with replies...theres no need for sidejabs and snarky tit-for-tat stuff...

Cheers,
ALIEN

[edit on 9-5-2009 by alien]

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 01:19 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
The president is no religious leader , he is however bound by oath to up hold the constitution , you know the whole preserve protect and defend thing , wether he likes it or not . As such he needs to know his roll .

Maybe this got lost in all the wonderfully spirited debate but as this was asked politely and even thought the person being asked, posted and posted over again, this question was still not answered. It is more than relevant to the thread and I am genuinely asking.

What does the constitution say about covering up a statue during a photo op?????????????????????

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:02 PM by WonkoTheSane

I'm sorry but you do not go to a catholic School and cover up a depicted symbol for J.C. When Obama entered onto the schools grounds, he was their guest, not the other way around. Interesting that the Catholics didn't deny his request though. I'm not saying either outcome is wrong or right, what I am saying is that Berry shouldn't have done that. In doing so he overstepped his place. plain and simple.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:05 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by WonkoTheSane
I'm sorry but you do not go to a catholic School and cover up a depicted symbol for J.C. When Obama entered onto the schools grounds, he was their guest, not the other way around. Interesting that the Catholics didn't deny his request though. I'm not saying either outcome is wrong or right, what I am saying is that Berry shouldn't have done that. In doing so he overstepped his place. plain and simple.

Was he invited there or did he barge his way in?

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:09 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

So using that form of logic , if the government ever does a photo op in your presence then can we expect them to drape something over you ?

Of course not . Our rights are guaranteed , photo op or no photo op .

The symbol was not covered as a means to disassociate from one religion or another .

As the reason for the covering was stated earlier in this thread I will refrain from repeating what has already been said and will count on those few people left interested in this topic to check the back posts for them selves .

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:12 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

Perhaps you can answer me a question , at what point does a persons rights and freedom take a back seat to a branch of government ?

If they are invited in or not ? Perhaps you can show that amendment in the constitution ?

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:25 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

So using that form of logic , if the government ever does a photo op in your presence then can we expect them to drape something over you ?

If I invite them in to do so, yes. That is what I get for inviting the president.

Of course not . Our rights are guaranteed , photo op or no photo op .

The symbol was not covered as a means to disassociate from one religion or another .

What right? This was a private institution inviting a guest and then making concessions to that guest. That is how you get reluctant guests over, you make concessions. Please explain what right you are on about? There is not one thing about this in the constitution.

As the reason for the covering was stated earlier in this thread I will refrain from repeating what has already been said and will count on those few people left interested in this topic to check the back posts for them selves .

The reason could be that it would clash with his cuff links.

He was an invited guest. There is no right guaranteed by the constitution governing this. If you invite the president to come speak at your house tomorrow, do you think you will have to make some changes in order for him to actually show up?

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:27 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

Perhaps you can answer me a question , at what point does a persons rights and freedom take a back seat to a branch of government ?

If they are invited in or not ? Perhaps you can show that amendment in the constitution ?

Ok, I will ask a 4th and final time. If you cannot answer me, I fail to see why I should give you any more respect.

What part of the constitution governs this exactly? Please show me the right being trampled. I would gladdly answer anyone's questions but not after I ask 3 times and still get no answer.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:31 PM by depth om

LOL, they actually had a piece of wood fitted into the triangle where the name was.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:32 PM by Max_TO

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

As the reason for the covering was stated earlier in this thread I will refrain from repeating what has already been said and will count on those few people left interested in this topic to check the back posts for them selves .

That was the answer , if you care to read what's has already been said you will see that no right was subverted .

Seeing how I have answered you perhaps you can answer me , at what point does a persons rights and freedom take a back seat to a branch of government ?

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:35 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
That was the answer , if you care to read what's has already been said you will see that no right was subverted .

Seeing how I have answered you perhaps you can answer me , at what point does a persons rights and freedom take a back seat to a branch of government ?

What? So you admit that there were no rights trampled.

You admit the constitution does not have a thing to do with this

and then you still ask about rights?

Which rights? Which rights are you referring to exactly. Perhaps I just need you to be more clear.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:43 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

Dear God I had stated this repeatedly

You sir refused to check back posts and you refused to read what was being said .

No right was subverted as I have pointed out a number of times , given there reason to cover the symbol was actually based on respect of the symbol . But seeing how you refuse to check the back posts you have missed this entirely .

I am replying to your belief that the government has a right to subvert the constitutional right of a person . They do not have that right wether they are invited in or not .

Edit to add .. Perhaps you need to pay attention to what's being said and read a thread before you jump in and make assumptions ?

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:49 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

Dear God I had stated this repeatedly

You sir refused to check back posts and you refused to read what was being said .

No right was subverted as I have pointed out a number of times , given there reason to cover the symbol was actually based on respect of the symbol . But seeing how you refuse to check the back posts you have missed this entirely .

I am replying to your belief that the government has a right to subvert the constitutional right of a person . They do not have that right wether they are invited in or not .

Edit to add .. Perhaps you need to pay attention to what's being said and read a thread before you jump in and make assumptions ?

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Max_TO]

LOL. You are the one that railed on and on about how what obama did was against the constituion, I simply asked when and where?

Nice attempt at covering your tracks.

I never think it is ok for the government to take any of my rights away, whether invited or not.

That is not what happened here though, is it?

So. Now you have my answer. Now you have (kind of) admitted you were way off about the constitution thing. Anything else I can do for you?

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:51 PM by RRconservative

When Mr. Obama was campaigning he did everything he could to distance himself from looking like a Muslim, including removing Muslims from the front row of a speech he had. Now that he has been elected he is doing everything he can to distance himself from Christianity.

Combine this with the total diss of the National Day of Prayer, and the people who questioned if Mr. Obama is really a Muslim may have had a point.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:54 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by RRconservative
When Mr. Obama was campaigning he did everything he could to distance himself from looking like a Muslim, including removing Muslims from the front row of a speech he had. Now that he has been elected he is doing everything he can to distance himself from Christianity.

Combine this with the total diss of the National Day of Prayer, and the people who questioned if Mr. Obama is really a Muslim may have had a point.

How does shunning two religions make you more likely the former?

I am really not looking to pick another round and round for no reason. I just do not get it. You say he tried not to look muslim. Now he tries not to look christian. He snubbed both by snubbing national prayer day (muslims do pray you know.) How does that make him possible a muslim? If anything that makes him possibly an atheist.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 02:59 PM by RRconservative

reply to post by evil incarnate

The same reason he shunned his middle name (Hussein) when he was campaigning, then on inauguration day he proudly stated it when he was sworn in.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 03:02 PM by Snisha

It seems he had no problem with the religious symbolism surrounding him at his photo ops and speeches in Turkey including his visit to the "Blue Mosque"...
"Blue Mosque" Photo Op

In fact he was felt it necessary to be respectful enough of the Muslim faith that he had no problem with removing his shoes before entering the mosque

Evidently during the Presidential Campaign his views on appearing in the proximity of "Christian Symbolism" were a bit different, hmmmmm...Obama in Selma, AL

I suppose it is a delicate tightrope he walks. In this day and time of politically correct "bullscat", one must make all efforts not to offend anyone(except Christians of course)

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Snisha]

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 03:21 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by evil incarnate

The same reason he shunned his middle name (Hussein) when he was campaigning, then on inauguration day he proudly stated it when he was sworn in.

Beleive me, I know why he does these things. It is merely to portray an imaged to an intended audience to sell a product.

My problem is that he was an invited guest and they made a concession. That is not against the constitution nor a trampling of anyone's rights. Max_TO insisted it was so I was obliged to play that game. Now that he had to pretend he already admitted what he was not man enough to, we can all return back to the real world where we do not really have rights anyway.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 03:37 PM by nomorecruelty

No - Barry didn't break any "laws" requesting/demanding that the symbol be covered up.

What he did do though was to trample all over the religious rights of an academic facility.

It was tacky and extremely disrespectful to the school. Consider the source - and the shock value goes down.

reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 03:50 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
No - Barry didn't break any "laws" requesting/demanding that the symbol be covered up.

What he did do though was to trample all over the religious rights of an academic facility.

How so?????????? Please explain. I have asked that this be explained many times and the best I got so far was Max_TO admitting that this is NOT what happened. What rights were trampled? I cannot believe I am asking again.