A third time?

[SolomonVII]

*facepalm* it is constitutionally NOT the role of the US government to have an opinion on that question!

You are not making a lot of sense to me, sorry.
You seem to think that the Creator referred to was not the Creator referred to in Christian texts.
Personally, I am on record here as stating that the Creator referred to is a poltical term that even atheists can believe in.

 

[Alicia_M]

“No taxation without representation”. That rhetoric initially inspired the DOI (according to my history classes). It makes me consider the love of money; its root. Personally, I think it only natural that early Americans (or any human being for that matter) would rise up against such persecution. They didn’t even *have* an “intercessor” at that point.

Conditioned to persecution from all angles, the forefathers set out to structure a form of government that would protect the *freewill* of the majority: the branches of government to check and balance one another so that one would never be more powerful than the other. Three branches. Three equal branches that function as a whole. Do I *think* this structure is perfect when employed by man alone? Nope, but there *is* hope for it. Were the forefathers fully aware of what they were doing? Only God knows. Are the three branches still functioning as separate but equal to this day, or is one branch gaining power over the others? *shrugs*

Obama pounds home familiar theme of choice as election nears; many see him as factor in vote
SEATTLE (AP) — Closing out a perilous election season for Democrats, President Barack Obama's final argument sounds like this: Do you want to stick with progress or return to failure?
He's talking about control of Congress, not himself, but there is no escaping his imprint on this election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39767941


Unfortunately, majority is as majority does (Forest Gump). The *will* of human beings change: sometimes for the better, other times, the worse. As it is, the “citizens” are responsible for straying off the path lain before them. Through tribulation, a nation is born. It grows to this very day. It is not yet finished.

How we (the majority) exercise our free will, will determine our state in the end. There will be those of us stuck in the minority, suffering the will of the majority.

Americans died for the rhetoric contained within the DOI. Are they still? I think many veterans/active service personnel would say yes.
　

 

[AMDG]

Personally, I am on record here as stating that the Creator referred to is a poltical term that even atheists can believe in.

I agree. It's a term that just about all religions (and that includes the atheist religion) can agree on. It's non-specific. Just as the prayer we used to say each morning in public school (right before the Pledge of Allegiance) in the early 1960s. BTW, mentioning the Creator was perfectly okay--and even encouraged--until then.

 

[Alicia_M]

President Obama is not the first President to appoint people to positions referred to as "czars". Do a search on the "czars" appointed by George W. Bush - you will find a very long list! Was Bush violating the constitution when he appointed his long list of "czars"? They are not the same thing as the "czars" spoken of in the constitution.

A previous poster said they felt sorry for Obama because people are hanging onto his every word. Considering the president’s extensile education, it wouldn’t be a leap to understand why some wouldn’t appreciate these types of labels for positions.
When Obama took office, I’m sure he did so with the foreknowledge that everything he said would be taken seriously by the American public. He is, after all, our foremost representative.

I do have pity for Obama; he has the most difficult job in our nation. I’m sure he didn’t consider the position lightly. Rhetoric and politics are married. The forefathers knew this. Obama does, too.

 

[wondering1]

A previous poster said they felt sorry for Obama because people are hanging onto his every word. Considering the president’s extensile education, it wouldn’t be a leap to understand why some wouldn’t appreciate these types of labels for positions.
When Obama took office, I’m sure he did so with the foreknowledge that everything he said would be taken seriously by the American public. He is, after all, our foremost representative.

I do have pity for Obama; he has the most difficult job in our nation. I’m sure he didn’t consider the position lightly. Rhetoric and politics are married. The forefathers knew this. Obama does, too.

So, when Bush appointed "czars" no problem, when Obama does - big problem? Where was all the concern about this during the Bush administration?

 

[wondering1]

You're joking right?

CBS is certainly more neutral and reliable than Fox!

 

[AMDG]

So, when Bush appointed "czars" no problem, when Obama does - big problem? Where was all the concern about this during the Bush administration?

That's funny. It's now "Obama can do what's wrong for the country because Bush did it first".

Like I once said, "a pox on both your houses".

 

[JoabAnias]

That's funny. It's now "Obama can do what's wrong for the country because Bush did it first".

Like I once said, "a pox on both your houses".

Passing the buck fixes nothing does it?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I do have pity for Obama; he has the most difficult job in our nation.

I disagree since Obama typically gets a free pass with the mainstream media who are very reluctant to criticize him. Obama gets criticized by a few AM radio station talk show hosts and one news channel while Bush had the big guns of the mainstream media (Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times) constantly attacking him. There were even anti-Bush Hollywood major movie productions promoted in all the mainstream media and in all the theaters.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

CBS is certainly more neutral and reliable than Fox!

Yeah and especially after Dan Rather was caught using a forged document to show that George Bush didn't do his guard service properly, CBS has been bending over backwards to be impartial.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

LivingWordUnity

I disagree since Obama typically gets a free pass with the mainstream media who are very reluctant to criticize him.

Really, what free pass has Obama gotten?

I mean after all isn't Fox News considered "mainstream," media?

Obama gets criticized by a few AM radio station talk show hosts and one news channel while Bush had the big guns of the mainstream media (Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times) constantly attacking him.

Obama gets hammered in the neoconservative talk shows, and he also gets criticised in the New York Times by conservative columnist like George Will, and Nancy Parker.

The New York Times includes conservative and liberal columnist on a regular basis. You just have to read them in order to know.

There were even anti-Bush Hollywood major movie productions promoted in all the mainstream media and in all the theaters.

Well, Bush provided the material for these things.

Obama hasn't been the embarrassing joke Bush was, so there is less to attack him on.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Can't y'all stop with the "he did it"/"no, he did it"? It's so childish. Can't you see that both failed and we deserve better?

Can't we go back to our foundational documents, realize that unlike what Obama said, our founding documents even say that our rights come from our Creator, and go from there? Can't we have the change (a change from the "politics as usual") that the people really wanted instead of this re-writing of our founding documents and this destruction of our nation through politician's power grabs? The U.S. was once a great nation, even a "super power". It's heartbreaking to see what she's become--what anything becomes without acknowledging the Creator.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Can't y'all stop with the "he did it"/"no, he did it"? It's so childish. Can't you see that both failed and we deserve better?

Can't we go back to our foundational documents, realize that unlike what Obama said, our founding documents even say that our rights come from our Creator, and go from there? Can't we have the change (a change from the "politics as usual") that the people really wanted instead of this re-writing of our founding documents and this destruction of our nation through politician's power grabs? The U.S. was once a great nation, even a "super power". It's heartbreaking to see what she's become--what anything becomes without acknowledging the Creator.

Sure, our Declaration of Independence says that our inalienable rights are
endowed by our creator. However, it doesn't mandate that every American state this when making speeches.

Obama leaving it out, is his right and we don't know why. It may be perfectly legitimate for him to leave "creator" out of his speeches.

I just don't have a problem with it, as you do.

Jim

 

[Wirraway]

why is this important? the Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document and has no force of law and the USSC has only referred to it a few times.

so the president does or doesn't believe in God. big deal, its a "gotcha" moment.

 

[AMDG]

why is this important? the Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document and has no force of law and the USSC has only referred to it a few times.

so the president does or doesn't believe in God. big deal, its a "gotcha" moment.

Well, because I don't think it's a "gotcha" moment. He did it purposely--three times. And the Declaration of Independence shows the thinking of behind the Constitution. (Our country wasn't "built on shifting sand"--hmm, the Bible notes that things built on shifting sand cannot last.) If the president doesn't believe in a Creator, it's a big thing and it shows just how "out of touch" he is with the majority of the citizens--and our Founding Fathers who wrote the "binding" Constitution.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

why is this important? the Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document and has no force of law and the USSC has only referred to it a few times.

so the president does or doesn't believe in God. big deal, its a "gotcha" moment.

The president does believe in God.

My guess as to why he left out "creator" is that when he is speaking, believers and atheist are listening, including foreign atheistic nations, and that despite their dis-belief in a creator, every human being has inalienable rights.

If he had used the words "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," as the DOI states, atheist would countered with, we don't believe in a creator.

I think he's sending out the idea of inalienable rights in order to reach those who don't believe in God nor those rights.

Either way, this is only my guess as to what he intended.

Jim

 

[Wirraway]

Well, because I don't think it's a "gotcha" moment. He did it purposely--three times. And the Declaration of Independence shows the thinking of behind the Constitution. (Our country wasn't "built on shifting sand"--hmm, the Bible notes that things built on shifting sand cannot last.) If the president doesn't believe in a Creator, it's a big thing and it shows just how "out of touch" he is with the majority of the citizens--and our Founding Fathers who wrote the "binding" Constitution.

while I'm all for beating up obama at every opportunity, this isn't a major deal. the president has said he's a christian who believes in God, and, whether you believe him or not, this minimizes his gaff. and, remember, you don't have to be a christian to be president. you could be an islam, for that matter.

it really is just a gotcha moment that's not going to count for much in any practical way.

 

[Wirraway]

The president does believe in God.

My guess as to why he left out "creator" is that when he is speaking, believers and atheist are listening, including foreign atheistic nations, and that despite their dis-belief in a creator, every human being has inalienable rights.

If he had used the words "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," as the DOI states, atheist would countered with, we don't believe in a creator.

I think he's sending out the idea of inalienable rights in order to reach those who don't believe in God nor those rights.

Either way, this is only my guess as to what he intended.

Jim

he's walking a fine line to be sure. to me, the arguments made from his statements are like the pixel counting done to "prove" that the moon landings were faked.

that there are inalienable rights not originating in a government is the key message.

 

[stone]

Here's an analogy, the burger is... heh.

YouTube - "Where's the Beef?" Commercial - 1984!!!

 

[Michie]

(CNSNews.com) – On the campaign trail for Democrats in recent days, President Barack Obama said the word “Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence, although he omitted the word in several earlier speeches this year. The addition of "Creator" came after press reports noted the omission in Obama's earlier speeches.

The Declaration of Independence says, “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.”

In four speeches on Friday, Saturday and Monday, Obama cited the word “Creator.” CNSNews.com, Fox News and other media outlets had reported on Obama's numerous omissions, including two last week.

Continued- http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-says-creator-citing-declaration-in