Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   What's missing from this statement? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"   ( americanthinker.com) divider line
    More: Fail, unalienable rights, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, happiness, creator, President Obama, liberties  
•       •       •

6834 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2010 at 4:43 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-09-18 01:15:56 PM  
I don't know why anyone pretends this sort of thing matters. I mean, it's not like this country is really free anymore anyways. Geez...we are all just one traffic stop gone wrong from losing our careers, reptuation and ending up in jail for years.
 
2010-09-18 01:18:17 PM  
I see a comma is missing, subby.


/and some word that begins with "C"
 
2010-09-18 01:19:24 PM  
Where's your god now?
 
2010-09-18 01:19:36 PM  
'By their Creator' is completely extraneous, given that you believe men are created in the first place.

If men are created, then they are necessarily created by their creator.

I fully support the removal of any and all tautologies from the mart of ideas.
 
2010-09-18 01:20:18 PM  

Weaver95: I don't know why anyone pretends this sort of thing matters. I mean, it's not like this country is really free anymore anyways. Geez...we are all just one traffic stop gone wrong from losing our careers, reptuation and ending up in jail for years.


Only for the sheep, dood. Only for the sheep.
 
2010-09-18 01:21:20 PM  
omg. He's a MUSLIM ATHEIST!!!!1!
 
2010-09-18 01:21:36 PM  
Or he could have seen that the section "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" was not there, thought for a second if he could quote the line right and then decided to move on.

How a person perceive things is pretty much tied to their affinity to tinfoil hats.
 
2010-09-18 01:23:29 PM  
"that among these"

/And Adams would have insisted that it was "inalienable" rights.
 
2010-09-18 01:24:32 PM  

Weaver95: I don't know why anyone pretends this sort of thing matters. I mean, it's not like this country is really free anymore anyways. Geez...we are all just one traffic stop gone wrong from losing our careers, reptuation and ending up in jail for years.


I hate to disagree with you, but we're as free as we ever were, and in many ways more.

I'd contend that our society hasn't gotten worse at all, it's just that your sensitivity to personal freedom has increased.
 
2010-09-18 01:26:52 PM  
I don't notice anything terribly important missing from that quotation.
 
2010-09-18 01:29:19 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "that among these"


Oh, yeah, that's about the only important thing I see missing. Life, liberty, and happiness are big ones but they're not the only natural rights. Funny how some apparently think that it's much more vital to have a religious reference tossed in there, though. Priorities, I guess.
 
2010-09-18 01:32:58 PM  
Give him a break. He's a Constitutional scholar, not an American History scholar.
 
2010-09-18 01:35:54 PM  
awesome
 
2010-09-18 01:39:45 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Give him a break. He's a Constitutional scholar, not an American History scholar.


Heh
 
2010-09-18 01:41:07 PM  

Weaver95: I don't know why anyone pretends this sort of thing matters. I mean, it's not like this country is really free anymore anyways. Geez...we are all just one traffic stop gone wrong from losing our careers, reptuation and ending up in jail for years.


Not if I destroy my laptop first.... er... I mean....
 
2010-09-18 01:50:15 PM  
Well I don't think he was trying to quote it verbatim as evidenced by his other missing item. "That among these are" - However, leaving out "Endowed by their Creator" ignores one of the major philosophical lynch pins behind the creation of the country. Until that time the Europe had been ruled by Monarchies, figure heads who derived their power from God and then conferred it upon the population they ruled. This is why monarchies were handed down via bloodline.

The notion that our Creator is the one who endowed us with our inalienable rights, is the major shifting of power that separates the US Representative Republic from past monarchies, yes, even those watered down by the Magna Carta. (One could call the Magna Carta the idea that eventually gave birth to the Founders idea.)

Neglecting that little word demonstrates a vast difference in Philosophy from our current President from those who founded the country, and it just so happens to be the one that governs who holds power over whom. He paused too long for that to be a slip-up, so I do hope he catches some hell from Historians for it.
 
2010-09-18 01:53:17 PM  

CanisNoir: Neglecting that little word demonstrates a vast difference in Philosophy from our current President from those who founded the country, and it just so happens to be the one that governs who holds power over whom.


So by changing the quote from:
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights

to:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

it means that Obama is a Monarchist?
 
2010-09-18 01:58:09 PM  
This is an outrage?
 
2010-09-18 01:58:47 PM  

hillbillypharmacist:
it means that Obama is a Monarchist?


Um, no, it just demonstrates that our Constitutional Scholar of a president either doesn't understand or just simply disagree's with the philosophy underlying the Bill of Rights, which we could extrapolate to mean he also doesn't understand or disagrees with the notion that the Constitution was meant to *limit* Governmental powers. (Hence assigning the "Giver of Rights" title to Our Creator, as opposed to a Government or Monarch).


Really, it's not too subtle of a point to grasp if you understand the context of the time, you might even begin to better appreciate what the founders did, though that could be stretching it.
 
2010-09-18 01:59:19 PM  
Alright, seriously, can you figure out what you are going to accuse Obama of being? First he's a radical black power Christian, then he's a Muslim, now he's an atheist. Why can't the Right just agree to hate him because he's black, since that is the real reason in the first place.

If Obama came out and said, "I don't believe in God" I would become his biggest fan ever. All would be forgiven, because you know we atheists would only vote him because he's one of us.
 
2010-09-18 02:00:38 PM  

CanisNoir: it just demonstrates that our Constitutional Scholar of a president simply disagree's with the philosophy underlying the Bill of Rights


Okay. Let's examine this.

Here are the two quotes again:
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights


What, precisely, is the difference in meaning?
 
2010-09-18 02:04:40 PM  

CanisNoir: He paused too long for that to be a slip-up, so I do hope he catches some hell from Historians for it.


Sorry, most historians are busy researching and discussing things that actually matter. Not imaginary refutations of our natural rights (which extend quite a while before our history and also include many important documents and declarations other than the freaking Magna Carta).
 
2010-09-18 02:05:33 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: What, precisely, is the difference in meaning?


He who giveth can also taketh away. If your endowed with those rights simply because a government document says so, they can be taken away by nature of another government document. If they are endowed by our Creator, then no government can infringe upon them regardless of how many laws they write.

Why do you think Slavery and the Civil Rights violations were so morally reprehensible to most people? The laws of the time allowed it, but many understood that those God Given rights were being infringed upon because not even Government could take it away.

Again, freedom of religion was not freedom *from* religion. One could ask, if there were no reason for the word to be there in the first place, why put it there? The answer, of course, is, it was put there for a reason.
 
2010-09-18 02:05:36 PM  

Ennuipoet: Alright, seriously, can you figure out what you are going to accuse Obama of being? First he's a radical black power Christian, then he's a Muslim, now he's an atheist. Why can't the Right just agree to hate him because he's black, since that is the real reason in the first place.


Because the narrative they are spinning is that "He's an enigma who isn't like you or me". It doesn't matter if you can't decide if he's a Muslim or an Athiest or if he hates America because his father's anti-colonial blood runs through his veins. What matters is convincing people that he is just far too different to be trusted.

This of course, despite the fact that he's governing like any fairly gutless centrist democrat.
 
2010-09-18 02:07:48 PM  

CanisNoir: He who giveth can also taketh away. If your endowed with those rights simply because a government document says so, they can be taken away by nature of another government document.


Except what Obama said was precisely opposite this.

...all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights
 
2010-09-18 02:09:25 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights


Which begs the question "endowed by whom"?

Your answer?
 
2010-09-18 02:13:03 PM  

CanisNoir:

Which begs the question "endowed by whom"?

Your answer?


Who cares? The key phrase is "unalienable". The rights cannot be taken away regardless. The "Creator" part has no real relevance.
 
2010-09-18 02:15:03 PM  

CanisNoir: Which begs the question "endowed by whom"?


Unless you're contending that men are created by their government, it doesn't matter. The rights are unalienable. And the original language isn't explicit, either, unless 'Creator' is someone's name.

Let's not be coy, here. You'd really like it if Obama said that Government is God. Then you'd have a really meaty, distasteful sort of idea you could deride. But the fact is that he hasn't said anything like that.

Like I said in my original post: men are created... by their Creator is a tautology. It lends no meaning, and omitting it removes no meaning.
 
2010-09-18 02:16:39 PM  

CanisNoir: Why do you think Slavery and the Civil Rights violations were so morally reprehensible to most people?


BAHAHAHA

Says the guy that identifies with the party that still employs the Southern Strategy and has done everything in its power to keep the accursed little niglets in their places. Holy laughers, you farking clown.

/nice try at rewriting history, though
//is that an eraser in your pocket or are you happy to see ken mehlman?
 
2010-09-18 02:16:44 PM  

CanisNoir: Um, no, it just demonstrates that our Constitutional Scholar of a president either doesn't understand or just simply disagree's with the philosophy underlying the Bill of Rights


Bill of Rights? Where is there any mention of a creator in the BOR?
 
2010-09-18 02:18:52 PM  
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.

so
either things were paraphrased to be shorter and less religious
or someone made a mistake on the prompter ??

worse, was an epic fail on getting the quote right

was he pausing thinking, fark, this isnt right, there are words missing here!! dammit, what were they again??
 
2010-09-18 02:21:15 PM  

House of Tards: CanisNoir:

Which begs the question "endowed by whom"?

Your answer?

Who cares? The key phrase is "unalienable". The rights cannot be taken away regardless. The "Creator" part has no real relevance.


Since 95% of the planet believe in a Creator in one form or another, it's very relevant.
 
2010-09-18 02:21:18 PM  
The likely truth is that the speechwriter got it wrong, and so it was wrong on the teleprompter.

President Obama hesitated because the information he was being fed didn't match what he knew to be true, just like when the Chief Justice mangled the Oath of Office.

But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country, the OMG Atheist story is juicier than the truth... even though the truth supports another one of their favorite Talking Points. Here's where we are. Even when Reality itself supports the Right, they lie about it.
 
2010-09-18 02:21:37 PM  

House of Tards:
Who cares? The key phrase is "unalienable". The rights cannot be taken away regardless. The "Creator" part has no real relevance.


No, the key word is "endowed" which makes the word "Creator" quite important and "inalienable" necessary.

Endowed: Provided or supplied
Creator: That which endowed us with rights.
Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

We were supplied certain rights. By whom? Our Creator. Can those rights be repudiated? No, they are inalienable.

In other words, the document as written says "We were provided by our Creator certain rights that cannot be repudiated or transferred to another."
 
2010-09-18 02:22:45 PM  

CanisNoir: hillbillypharmacist: ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights

Which begs the question "endowed by whom"?

Your answer?


There does not have to be a "whom" for the sentence to make sense.
For example, I am endowed with a very large penis. I was born with it; it was not a birthday present.
 
2010-09-18 02:22:50 PM  

Grandmaster Poopypants: But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country,


And the Left is trying to incite a Race War.
 
2010-09-18 02:23:20 PM  

GaryPDX: Since 95% of the planet believe in a Creator in one form or another, it's very relevant.


Sure, it's relevant. Luckily, Obama's quote directly says that men were created.

So it's all cool, right?
 
2010-09-18 02:23:21 PM  
BTW - "women" is the more striking omission.
 
2010-09-18 02:23:24 PM  

GaryPDX: Since 95% of the planet believe in a Creator in one form or another, it's very relevant.


If you do not mention that humans had a "creator" were they still created?
 
2010-09-18 02:24:08 PM  

Dinki: CanisNoir: Um, no, it just demonstrates that our Constitutional Scholar of a president either doesn't understand or just simply disagree's with the philosophy underlying the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights? Where is there any mention of a creator in the BOR?


Bill of Rights, Preamble - you know what I'm talking about. You didn't see me give that one guy shait for "unalienable" instead of "inalienable" did you?

Try not to be such a bottom feeder eh?
 
2010-09-18 02:24:16 PM  

GaryPDX: Grandmaster Poopypants: But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country,

And the Left is trying to incite a Race War.


Nice job, playing the race card so early in a thread. Really gets it out of the way.
 
2010-09-18 02:24:55 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: 'By their Creator' is completely extraneous, given that you believe men are created in the first place.


I gave my children certain inalienable rights.
 
2010-09-18 02:25:14 PM  

CanisNoir: Bill of Rights, Preamble - you know what I'm talking about. You didn't see me give that one guy shait for "unalienable" instead of "inalienable" did you?

Try not to be such a bottom feeder eh?


Haha, you didn't know that wasn't from the Bill of Rights? And you're making fun of Obama for omitting "Creator"?
 
2010-09-18 02:26:03 PM  

WelldeadLink: hillbillypharmacist: 'By their Creator' is completely extraneous, given that you believe men are created in the first place.

I gave my children certain inalienable rights.


So if we don't say that you gave them, are they still there?
 
2010-09-18 02:26:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Grandmaster Poopypants: But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country,

And the Left is trying to incite a Race War.

Nice job, playing the race card so early in a thread. Really gets it out of the way.


If you'll scroll back, two lefties already played it.
 
2010-09-18 02:27:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nice job, playing the race card so early in a thread. Really gets it out of the way.


If *this* doesn't indicate you're a non-thinking bottom feeder


Haha, you didn't know that wasn't from the Bill of Rights? And you're making fun of Obama for omitting "Creator"?


That certainly does. Anyway, I've been listening to too many Joseph Campbell lectures to think eliminating mythos from our society is any kind of a good idea. So yea, you're still on the wrong side of the debate.
 
2010-09-18 02:27:51 PM  

GaryPDX: Grandmaster Poopypants: But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country,

And the Left is trying to incite a Race War.


meanwhile, the Republicans are selling off bits of the country to wall street, who are looting everything not nailed down and the Democrats are busy stealing whatever is left over and giving it to themselves.

helluva system we've got.
 
2010-09-18 02:28:00 PM  
Saying the word 'their Creator' is exactly as helpful in identifying who created man as saying the 'their murderer' is helpful in identifying who killed someone.
 
2010-09-18 02:28:31 PM  

CanisNoir: That certainly does. Anyway, I've been listening to too many Joseph Campbell lectures to think eliminating mythos from our society is any kind of a good idea. So yea, you're still on the wrong side of the debate.


Because some guy lectures you, I'm wrong?

WTF is up with that logic?
 
2010-09-18 02:29:24 PM  

GaryPDX: cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Grandmaster Poopypants: But since the Right is currently trying to incite a Holy War in this country,

And the Left is trying to incite a Race War.

Nice job, playing the race card so early in a thread. Really gets it out of the way.

If you'll scroll back, two lefties already played it.


And you used the word "dood" in another thread. I'm proud of you for being such a ridiculous moron yet still making it to 51 years old. It's very entertaining.
 
Displayed 50 of 416 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report