It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


One more time for the benefit of those that refuse to read the thread in its entirety

No right was violated in the context in which it had happened , covering it to show respect , as the way in which it would have shown up on camera , if it wasn't covered , would have only shown a part of the symbol in an undesired manor .

If the symbol was removed do to the government not wanting that symbol being displayed and if they had used any form of pressure to remove or hide so said symbol then that would most certainly be a violation of the constitution .




[edit on 9-5-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


One more time for the benefit of those that refuse to read the thread in its entirety

No right was violated in the context in which it had happened , covering it to show respect , as the way in which it would have shown up on camera , if it wasn't covered , would have only shown a part of the symbol in an undesired manor .

If the then that would most certainly be a violation of the constitution .


Ok, now tell everyone else on the thread that is still claiming it was a violation of rights. They seem to not agree with you. I am still curious what right THEY feel has been violated so please, stop being obsessed with me and let someone else speak for themself. I got your answer. Yes, no yes no yes no yes no. Perhaps the you from a few pages back needs to meet up with this post and NOT get on my case in the first place for saying "NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED."

I could care less what it might have been, could have been, had the potential of being. Was there a violation of anyone's rights?

NO.

Move on now, MAX_to





[edit on 10-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I could care less what it might have been, could have been, had the potential of being. Was there a violation of anyone's rights?



Sense the premiss of your argument was based on the symbol being covered do to the government wanting to disassociate them selves from a religious symbol your last statement is not interlay correct . You were playing the what if , what could have been game and in the context that you were claiming a just action I was pointing out that the government is bound by oath to respect the rights and traditions of the people .

No right was violated in the context in which it happened , however in the context that you insisted in presenting , as a means to disassociate , there could have been a good case for a violation of rights .

As for me moving on , I will be very happy to . I just wish you had of took the time to read the whole thread before jumping in part way and presenting arguments based on false premises .



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I could care less what it might have been, could have been, had the potential of being. Was there a violation of anyone's rights?



Sense the premiss of your argument was based on the -


Just stop right there. I already told you I am done with you and your lies. If you must go back and re-read. My premise was that there was NO violation of RIGHTS. That is all my premise was.

I said that NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.

That is where I started, that is where I leave it.

If I am wrong about that, show me. If not, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

What exactly does the constitution say about covering up statues or hiding religious figures from photo ops?



Originally posted by evil incarnate
it was a photo op. It was staged in a particular manner. That means they controlled the forground as well as the background. Why don't you just tell us what the reported reason is then? Maybe you and I know better than to automatically believe that he is endorsing the symbol in the picture makes no difference. You and I were not the intended audience. The majority of America was.


That was the foundation of your argument and yes it was wrong as that was NOT the reason that it was covered .

If you had of READ the thread before jumping in you would have seen that this was resolved way back on pg. 3 When the real reason for covering the symbol was mention I then promptly admitted my mistake and stared the person for offering the bit of info .

Had you have read that then perhaps you would not have tried to link this issue to one of disassociation from a christian symbol , as that was not the case .


Originally posted by evil incarnate
You do realize that as a guest speaker anywhere, it is THEIR obligation to set a comfortable stage for you.


Wrong yet again as that was not the case in this instance .


Originally posted by evil incarnate
Why on earth would anyone want our president representing only Christians or appearing that way?


Once again wrong as it WASNT THE REASON it was covered .


Originally posted by evil incarnate
I quite clearly stated that YOU ARE TRYING TO JUST HATE OBAMA. Not this thread, but yes you!


And that was just plain silly and inflammatory .

Your words as per your request .

There you are official left alone now .



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
That was the foundation of your argument and yes it was wrong as that was NOT the reason that it was covered .


Dude!

I have never been as flattered by anyone as I am by you but no means no. My premise was that there were no rights violated. That is it. You need to look up the word premise. You insisted someone's rights were violated. You were wrong at the very base of this entire thread and you cannot admit it. I started with the premise that it was not a violation of rights and even after you admit I was right, you want to go back and haggle over the details?

Were anyone's rights violated or not?

Just answer that because that is the premise. So it was not covered up for this reason or that reason. I already admitted I was wrong about that detail and assert that my premise still stands. Now, how many ways do you need me to admit I was wrong about a detail before you can admit that you were both wrong in premise and have lied and whined and threatened for pages on end now?

You know that no rights were violated. That is and was my premise. Why you insist on making yourself look less honest and more pathetic is beyong me but have at it.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I admitted back on page 3 that no rights were violated YES PAGE 3 . Long before you even entered into this thread . As I had repeatedly said READ WHAT WAS ALREADY SAID

You were trying and trying to make this into a justification for covering a symbol based on not wanting to be associated with a symbol . That premiss WAS WRONG and if you had of READ WHAT WAS SAID perhaps you would not have tried to make an incorrect link between covering a symbol as a means of disassociation as opposed to the real reason THAT WAS STATED BACK ON PAGE 3 .



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wideawake08
 


Wide Awake 08, Kudos on your post! Very well said.

I think it is tragic, uncouth and offensive that the Christian symbolism in the hall was removed for Barrack Obama. Georgetown University is Catholic and specifically Jesuit. The Jesuits deserve our respect and gratitude for foundations they laid in Canada nd the United States, which contributed much to the United States as we know it today. Many of the earliest pioneers were Jesuits and many outposts which would later become thriving metropoli were founded by the Jesuits...examples...Quebec, St. Augustine Florida, St. Louis Missouri, Louisiana, etc. The University system they have gifted our world is a gift to humanity itself. All done in the name of Jesus Christ. So when at Georgetown, the President should have been mindful of the culture of the place and been more respectful of it. I tune in to many Catholic sites and , Wide Awake08, as you probably understand, this has realy upset people.

The apocrophal books explain it all, you are right about that , WideAwake08.

And how is he going to cover up Touchdown Jesus when he visits Notre Dame in Indiana? lol



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


President Obama has also not attended church services since he has been elected, he also did not place his hand on the Bible when he was re-sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts. Only President in the history of the US to act this way. The founding fathers stressed we need a government run by people who have strong faith and morality and without that we would be doomed. George Washington wrote about this often.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...:Gaston_hall.JPG
_javascript:hyperlink(en.wikipedia.org...:Gaston_hall.JPG)


The IHS is a symbol for the name of Jesus accidentally derived from Latin and Greek.

Interestingly enough though, it was also the adopted seal and monogram of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. So once again, I still think Obama came into their place, told them to cover their culture and trampled all over it.

[edit on 5/10/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]

[edit on 5/10/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO

No elected official should ever have the right to tell a place or person what they can or can not do if it is a right granted by the constitution . If they government has an issue with how a person or place is expressing there constitutional right well then the government has the right to simply not go to the place .



Page 5.

Which constitutional right are you speaking of exactly?


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 .



Page 6

Again I ask, exactly which part of the constitution was being violated here?


Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by amazed
 


If any form of government ever comes to your house and makes a request of you to cover your religious symbols of choice I would be happy to come stand by your side and defend your right to display whatever you like as guaranteed by the Constitution .


In general I see the erosion of the Constitution as a bigger and bigger issue with each passing day .


This gem is from page 4.

Ok, so you admitted on page 3 that no rights were violated? Then what constituional trampling are you talking about throughout the rest of the thread? I asked one simple question. What rights are being violated. You now claim none and say you admited as much on page 3 but it only took 4 minutes to find at least 3 quotes claiming he violated the constitution. Please explain.

Look what we have from page 3


However , the government went there and simply should not put its self over the places it goes to as long as the respected place was operating within its constitutional rights .

IMHO we see far to often the erosion of individual rights and we in general have become to complacent when ones rights are infringed upon .


There is that pesky constitutional trampling again. What does any of this have to do with the constitution?

Which individual rightst are you speaking of here?

Why can't you just admit that you are wrong? Why is it so hard. I am sure I will not get a real explanation for all of these quotes that completely contradict your last post to me. Double talk and insults are all I get from you and I would really rather not discuss anything with you if you cannot just answer what I ask you instead of all this BS double speak to get around admitting you are wrong.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
dp

[edit on 11-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
tp

[edit on 11-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I was responding to the context in which you were presenting your argument .

Second line



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Do you disagree that you were making a case for covering the symbol based on a means of disassociation ?

Based on how you presented your argument thats sure how it seemed .

Yes IMHO no rights were subverted in this instance , however , if someone want to make the argument that was ok to cover , based on a means of dissociation then I would humbly disagree with that position and I would go as far as to make a case agents that position .

Thats the whole ball of wax right there my friend I can not say it any other way .



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
I was responding to the context in which you were presenting your argument .

Second line


No, you were not. Stop lying. I never once hinted at, implied, or said anything about someone's rights being violated or the constitution until AFTER you claimed both had happend. Look, I just posted it all up there for you. You just want to argue with me. This thread is NOT about me. Get over it. You were wrong. If you cannot admit it, then at least leave me alone.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Do you disagree that you were making a case for covering the symbol based on a means of disassociation ?


Yes I do. I was making the case that NO rights were violated and that it was not against ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION. My first post makes that very clear. Go back and read it. I did not give my wrong answer about why it was covered up until after that. You really want to harp on this issue though. I admitted I got that part wrong 3 times now. I do not care. That was not my premise. I was responding to people saying this is unconstitutional and a violation of rights. You are one that said it more than anyone else. You were wrong about that. Now you are lying to pretend you did not, even after I reposted your exact quotes. Where are all the quotes from me doing the things you claim? Lucky for you, the mods took down most of your posts accusing me of threatening you among other things because you cannot prove that either.


Based on how you presented your argument thats sure how it seemed .


Then you are not very bright. Sorry, that is just how it is. You keep telling me that I need to read. HOW ABOUT YOU TRY READING WHAT I ACTUALLY POST.


Yes IMHO no rights were subverted in this instance , however , if someone want to make the argument that was ok to cover , based on a means of dissociation then I would humbly disagree with that position and I would go as far as to make a case agents that position .

Thats the whole ball of wax right there my friend I can not say it any other way .


Dude, who cares why he covered it up?????

The reason matters not. If it was just for dissassociation, is it then violating anyone's rights? Does the reason for covering it up change the constitution?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My argument stays the same no matter why it was covered.

I say it was not against the constitution.

You said it was.

I said not one person's rights were being violated. You insisted they were.

I admitted 3 times that I was wrong about something but that something does not matter in the least.

What if it was for dissassociation? How does that make it a violation of anyone's constitutional rights?

It does not. Stop this. Leave me alone. You insisted it was against the constitution. I posted you claiming that at least 3 times just above. All of them come after you claim to have admitted it was not the case. Still, you went on claiming it was. You are lucky so many of your posts have been deleted by the mods because it helps to cover your tracks a little but lucky for me, enough posts with you saying what I say you said are still here. Look up and read the 3 I quoted from you.

You claimed it was a violation of rights.

I claimed it was not.

The reason for covering it up could be because he thought it kepy tapping him on the shoulder, because he is a satanist, whatever. Who cares? The reason has nothing to do with whether or not it is a violation of rights.

How many times do I need to say this to you? What does my first post in this thread say????????

Give up. You cannot admit that you were wrong. That is your problem. Go be wrong and lie about it to someone else now. I made my point and I WAS RIGHT.



new topics




 
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join