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 has trouble quoting the Declaration of Independence.

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
wow, the pointless Obama bashing is about as useful and constructive as the Bush-bashers and their complaints about Bush's IQ.

I coldl really care less about him mis-speaking. Clearly that is a minor distraction. That's like mocking a typo instead of debating the facts.

I DO care about the economy, Afghanistan, CONGRESS, etc.

what next, complaining about how he ties his shoes? This is DISTRACTION!

Do such petty, trivial issues REALLY concern you?


edit on 19-9-2010 by justadood because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


". Who cares if it was written that way, he isn't Ron Burgundy, he wouldn't tell the people to F themselves if the prompter told him to would he?"



Ummmm-yeah I actually think he would.....



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CynicalM
 




Seems to me those at the WH think THEY have the right to give and take our rights,not the Creator.


Seems to me that the Constitution, not the Declaration OR any supernatural being is what established those rights. If they were established by a God wouldn't they be Universal? Why would man need to put something like the Constitution in place to preserve something given to us by a supernatural being? God didn't write the Constitution, man did.

As for Obama who knows why he left it out, maybe he, like many of us, sees how absurd it is in the 21st century to think that our rights came from some spooky invisible guy in the clouds.


First of all, no the Constitution did NOT establish those rights. The Constitution only created the form of government and checks and balances and then reaffirmed through the Bill of Rights what rights already exist naturally so that there be no debate regarding those particular issues - seeing as how they had previously a King who was overbearing (but of course, their real agenda was to become the next Kings anyhow, but that's beside the point).

Secondly, the Declaration of Independence is exactly that -- To make clear, to announce the peoples' independence. This does not establish rights, but it REAFFIRMS their existence naturally.

The Constitution is a federal contract. The real reason for it is to put less responsibility in the hands of each individual and put more into the hands of the government. Although, it is definitely the best document that man has probably created to the end of independence with a government, it is still designed to simply put to letter what basic boundaries and checks and balances are required. More rights exist than are written in the Constitution -- would you have it be in complete control of our lives by putting to letter all rights?

We have more rights without language. This is the purpose of written language, to record for contract -- because verbal contracts are witnessed by God, but not by man.

The Creator, most obviously, created the universe - man did not. Therefore, man can only manipulate the laws of nature to his end.

And as for Obama omitting "the creator" from his reading, it was blatant. Don't be so silly as to try and give him the benefit of the doubt. Get real. It's all an act.

The fact is, no where is the Christian God given credit for the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The fact that all people were endowed by their creator inalienable rights is not something to stumble over. We all have our creator, creators, Creator, nature, the Great Force, God, Jesus -

Who cares what people call It, because they aren't claiming a specific name, but just simply saying what is obvious for the purpose of being redundant. Because it's OBVIOUS. It's being put to letter to CONTRACT.

And if you leave out any part of the contract, when reading it, are you not committing a serious crime? You cannot omit any part of a contract without breach of contract, without the consent of all parties involved -- of course the signers are, in fact, dead... but they are an example.d

And maybe what we should do is have a Declaration of Independence signing - maybe we should print this stuff and go around and have people sign it! Reaffirm what we know and make the contract together that this is how we stand.

In fact, that is the only way the Declaration of Independence is valid -- is if the signers are living!

I found my next mission.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Just to clarify things, the document referred to in the speech is the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. I believe because of the anti-american attitude of the president and his administration that correct quote was intentionally left out of the speech. Why? Because the omitted words do not comply with their thinking.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
i also heard obama didnt conjugate a verb in a sentence recently, because he hates the past and future tense of the American English language!



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

The New Declaration from a Government Perspective...



We hold these truths to be entirely subject to interpretation and adjustments , that all men are created equal, that they are allowed by their President certain subjective Rights, that among these are Life, Government service and the endless pursuit of jobs. — That to secure these rights, the People are instituted among Government, deriving their just powers from the consent of the corporate powers, — That whenever any Form of dissent becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the President 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.




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Yeah, he was a constitutional law professor so he should've known about it. But I've read the constitution a lot and I don't have all of it memorized. What it says is important but people study how it's interpreted a lot more. It's kind of pointless just to study and memorize the constitution without knowing what it actually means.


Funny we are just refering to the preamble... which I personally had to memorize to PASS 8th GRADE US HISTORY and again in civics and again in some class or another... and he taught constitutional law at a prestigious law school and he's the ****ing PRESIDENT!!!

Yes we have EVERY right to expect him to KNOW THIS backward forward upside down and naked while having his arm hair burnt with a red hot butter knife

Constitutional ammendment time people the presidential PRE TEST!!!

In order to even be allowed to RUN FOR OFFICE you must demonstrate a working knowledge of the basic documents that make up the LEGAL MORAL and PHILOSIPHICAL underpinnings of our entire Freaking society. In addition to this you must be able to recite the preamble on command with no teleprompter as Every single person that passed 8th grade when I did somehow managed to do. and for the essay question pick the federalist or anti federalist papers as your view point and argue it's case in plain language while also listing at least five valid points from the opposite paper.

Now for the oral exam I think it's not unfair to have each candidate use some of his campaign war chest to run their taking of the oral exam as their tv and radio advertisement for the first month of their campaign.

The written should be posted where every single person in america can read it and preferably it should be hand written and have a 60 minute time limit no re writes no revisions/



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Actors forget their lines all the time, even some of the greats who assume character for months before shooting begins,
It has to be tiring to constantly be reading from a script and being in character every single moment of every single day.
This is a blooper, remember there was an entire tv series built around them.
Mr Soetoro just made a mistake that's all,
He has to be many different people at any given moment so mistakes are bound to happen,
He's a lawyer, a teacher, a family man, a christian, a muslim, a new world order puppet, the guy next door,
an activist, a cia operative, a corporate leader, hell sometimes he's even kenyan or american,
and we all know how dumb americans have become.
He's going to make mistakes, how can he remember all of the different people he is all at the same time?
What really matters is, he's entertaining, he'll continue to say all of the right things for the most part,
and nothing will get in the way of the final disassembly of the usa as a functioning country.
To add; I dont think Barry is going to get to play the role twice though, and I've been trying to figure out who is being groomed to be the new president in the next..... (s)election,
Theyve been getting pretty creative with choice and I wouldnt put it past them to go 'female' for the next season.




edit on 19-9-2010 by HappilyEverAfter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilgrim1938
because of the anti-american attitude of the president and his administration that correct quote was intentionally left out of the speech.


I'm sorry. The 'anti-American attitude'?

You base that on what? His choice in football teams? The way he combs his hair? Him not being an old white man?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It looks like the part you are referring to was not part of his speech, but an off the cuff addition at the last minute. For those who are intrested, The text of the Presidents speech is usually provided to news outlets for anlaysis and so the media can discuss the issue before the event to draw more people in.

Here is the text of his speech from the video.

America.Gov - Obama addresses National Hispanic Caucus - 9/17/10


Yep, you're correct. That phrase is not in the speech you linked to. The problem is, you linked to the speech from 2009, not 2010.

From your link:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
September 17, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE
CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS INSTITUTE’S
32ND ANNUAL AWARD GALA
September 16, 2009


Read more: www.america.gov...

Did you even read it? If so, how do you explain the inclusion of the word "applause" scattered throughout your source? Do you think they put that there, before the speech is given? No, it is a "transcript" of the speech as recited, not as written.

Here is the 2010 speech, containing this comment


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


www.whitehouse.gov...

Sorry, but thanks for playing


And to those two who starred the post, without evven reading the link....FAIL


edit on 19-9-2010 by WTFover because: Add last line



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by pilgrim1938
because of the anti-american attitude of the president and his administration that correct quote was intentionally left out of the speech.


I'm sorry. The 'anti-American attitude'?

You base that on what? His choice in football teams? The way he combs his hair? Him not being an old white man?


How about the fact that Obama compaigned in OTHER COUNTRIES while he was running for president?




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 




what rights already exist naturally


So the right to Freedom of Religion, or free press, or due process, occur NATURALLY? The idea in the Declaration is that these rights are inborn, that you are born with them, but that isn't the case. If it were the case we wouldn't have seen people burnt at the stake as heretics in Europe because their natural and already existing rights would have prevented that. In truth rights are just an idea. Now yeah they are a great idea but they do not come from nature.



This does not establish rights, but it REAFFIRMS their existence naturally.


I agree. The Founders did think certain rights are natural and inborn, I think the idea very silly. I already stated in my first post that it was the Constitution and not the Declaration that established which rights were to be protected. The Constitution, of course, was written at least a decade after the Declaration.



More rights exist than are written in the Constitution -- would you have it be in complete control of our lives by putting to letter all rights?


No and this goes back to my point about how the idea that rights are natural is absurd. We are born as 100% free with no artificial construct restricting our behavior. The Constitution sets up a government and talks about a few of the rights that are most worth protecting. On the other end of the spectrum laws decide what we can't do. So these artificial constructs put limits on our behavior and help protect those parts of our former 100% freedom that we don't want to live with out: Freedom of Religion, expression, etc.



We all have our creator, creators, Creator, nature, the Great Force, God, Jesus -


Fair enough.



I found my next mission.


Good luck with that and thanks for the response



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KerbDune
 


hardly religious people eh if you are referring to me simple fact i havent read a bible or stepped inside a church for over 25 years.

but i can acknowledge the fact and it is a fact that i-you and everyone in this country owe their very exists to those people of faith.

whether its the pilgrims or the founders who DID HAVE a belief in god and the writings of the constitution, the declaration of independece.

to me comments like further valid that the leftists in this country try to kill god at every chance they get to be come gods.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by witness63
 


BULLCRAP

the largest reason this country is so screwed right now is because of

social security
medicare
medicaid
food stamps
housing welfare ie fanny and freddy
corporate welfare
educational welfare
department of education
unions
regulations financial and banking
destroying the financial system that every american has had in the past to make themselves financially independent.


hell all those great "Accomplishments" of the "great democratic party"

how many trillions of dollars have you people spent for the betterment of americans and yeah take a good look at your handy work EVERY SINGLE thing you people have done have made more people broke more stupid and more people dependent and live in poverty.


since fdr you people every chance you people have gotten to screw more people over than you ever thought about helping.

please you leftists have done more harm than anyone ever could including islamic radicals.


for hundreds of years this country grew it prospered and it succeeded . all those supposedly" greedy" walt street people built this country with out their money this country wouldnt even exist.

ever since the leftists and the socialists interference has led to every single problem we face today.

every single thing they have done has created the situations that we are facing now.

you say the greed of wallstreet i say its the greed OF the leftists.





edit on 19-9-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by witness63
 


BULLCRAP

the largest reason this country is so screwed right now is because of

social security
medicare
medicaid
food stamps
housing welfare ie fanny and freddy
corporate welfare
educational welfare
department of education
unions
regulations financial and banking
destroying the financial system that every american has had in the past to make themselves financially independent.


hell all those great "Accomplishments" of the "great democratic party"

how many trillions of dollars have you people spent for the betterment of americans and yeah take a good look at your handy work EVERY SINGLE thing you people have done have made more people broke more stupid and more people dependent and live in poverty.


since fdr you people every chance you people have gotten to screw more people over than you ever thought about helping.

please you leftists have done more harm than anyone ever could including islamic radicals.






edit on 19-9-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



Well the actual history books will show the debt and this insane mode of governing starting with Reagan.

In fact 20 of the last 30 years we have had right wing POTUS's as presidents

2/3's of the time -

You mean to tell me these leftist ideas, that only the left use could not have been dismantled in that amount of time? Not even one, why is that??? Are you all secret liberals?

Let us see then what the GOP does when they come to power shall we???

Are you gonna bitch at them to get the job done? I wanna see this board alight demanding that your conservative politicians eliminate these awful evils, I am so sure they will be.

Since the Dems can't be credited for all the glory, I think it is safe to say this amassment of wealth that has increased rapidly can be attributed to Right Wing political outlook and policies. So you should throw a party when we christen the first Trillionaire! What an accomplishment indeed!




edit on 19-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Seriously? This thread is idiotic. You're going to criticize the man for leaving out THREE WORDS from his speech? I'm sure you're a perfect public speaker too right? You never have mistakes. Oh that's right I forgot, everyone wants to think the President is some Perfect God who can commit no wrong. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, and for you to make a thread because the man mis-spoke just really goes to show just how AGAINST our President you are.

You know what's sad? Obama bashing has become Bush-Bashing 2.0

Atleast with Bush bashing I ACTUALLY had something to bash, like i don't know....His policies...With Obama the only thing his opponents can think of is his mis-speaking on 3 words in the Declaration. Perhaps Obama doesn't believe in a Creator?

He never said "Our Declaration says", he only read the words, so who are you to decide if he said what he meant to or if he mis-spoke. PLEASE come up with better material if you're going to try to slander our POTUS. It's getting very old....

Is that you Ahmadinejad????

Surely you're not American as you show no respect for the title of POTUS. Atleast when I disagreed with Bush's policies and Wars I STILL kept the respect for the man BECAUSE he was the President at the time


edit on 9/19/10 by ElijahWan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


That's actually true.. Reagan and the Neo-Conservative movement generally spend far more than typical Democrats.

The problem as to why that is, is that Republicans (at least those that get elected, but I'd bet a larger portion of the actual masses as well) are "Socialist" in nature. They never actually cut back on the social programs, and several Presidents expanded them. But the actual difference between Repubs and Dems, is that Repubs expand the Military Industrial Complex to extreme levels, and with it bring on a massive national debt. Be it for the sake of invading innocent countries or spending hundreds of billions "chasing one man in a cave" or just research.. Repubs will always spend more in general than Dems.

Hopefully the Fiscal Conservative movement takes hold and begins kicking Neo-Cons out of office.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Janky Red
 


They never actually cut back on the social programs, and several Presidents expanded them.


Actually, social programs have been cut by NUMEROUS Republicans and democrats alike. The last 30 years of governance is nothing BUT examples of this.


Hopefully the Fiscal Conservative movement takes hold and begins kicking Neo-Cons out of office.


It would appear the so-called "tea Party" movement is doing exactly the opposite-they are forcing the fiscal conservatives out of the Right wing. All that will be left are the social conservatives who want to legislate morality.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


multi-trillion on-going war(s) started and championed by the Right (and many on the left, too) who champion 'fiscal conservation' and your whining about social security???

i just pooped my pants laughing.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Janky Red
 


That's actually true.. Reagan and the Neo-Conservative movement generally spend far more than typical Democrats.

The problem as to why that is, is that Republicans (at least those that get elected, but I'd bet a larger portion of the actual masses as well) are "Socialist" in nature. They never actually cut back on the social programs, and several Presidents expanded them. But the actual difference between Repubs and Dems, is that Repubs expand the Military Industrial Complex to extreme levels, and with it bring on a massive national debt. Be it for the sake of invading innocent countries or spending hundreds of billions "chasing one man in a cave" or just research.. Repubs will always spend more in general than Dems.

Hopefully the Fiscal Conservative movement takes hold and begins kicking Neo-Cons out of office.


Well I would take that honestly - If I could get the Neo Cons out and felt it would Cleanse the "conservative"
movement I would vote libertarian from here on out. However I am not sure how that will ever happen given the
commonality in the economic department, e.i deregulation, eliminating taxes, etc...

This unholy union with the most shadowy parts of the government that the non libertarian "conservatives" pursue will perpetuate endless war, endless military spending and might be used to induce a real security state
apparatus that we cannot imagine now. It seems the various political factions all have a role in keeping
the "state" in the state it is in now.

Neo, the guy I am responding too, gets no flack from the "right" here, yet he is a big spending, pro defense
"conservative" who buys into the military might deal. However he is able to be liberal in that regard because
he opposes social programs, taxes and the rest... So practically speaking, I don't see how in the hell he will ever be ejected/shunned by popular conservatism because he knows the talk and believes he is as conservative as can be. Unfortunately there is no real way to separate him out, next time there a terrorist attack
he will be the first one puffing his chest and we will spend ungodly sums because his cabal does not associate
war with money. If a new security scam is desired, he and his cabal will us fear and demand action.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join