Obama's speech to Hispanic caucus gala leaves out CREATOR when he quotes the Preamble

[saveliberty]

Obama holds God into an image that must meet his boundaries and needs. That is part of Black Theology. Why would Obama give away any power toward a God?

Yeah, because only Black Theology radicals ever ask God for anything, lol.

Your obviously commenting on a post you misunderstood. At least yo ugot a laugh out of it, before we got one out of you.

 

[Political Junky]

Interesting, seeing as Hispanics are Catholic and mostly very religious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ask any scholar of the Declaration of Independence and they will tell you that is the preamble.

The Declaration of Independence is made up of five distinct parts: the introduction; the preamble; the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion.


INTRODUCTION

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

PREAMBLE
Some claim all of this is the preamble:

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Declaration of Independence: Preamble

::snore:: "I found a website that arbitrarily divided up the Declaration and called the divisions by name, so that means ALL SCHOLARS agree!"

Read the definition of the word "preamble". While it may make it easier to discuss the various sentences in the Declaration to assign them names, it does not in actuality have a preamble, which is why - as I already said, and you decided to gloss over - the various websites touted on this thread each refer to a DIFFERENT SENTENCE as being the preamble.

By the way, the sentence YOU have chosen to believe is the "preamble to the Declaration" isn't the one Obama was quoting.

Read the definition of the word "preamble".

OK
pre·am·ble   /ˈpriˌæmbəl, priˈæm-/ Show Spelled
[pree-am-buhl, pree-am-] Show IPA

–noun
1. an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
2. the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3. a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.
4. ( initial capital letter ) the introductory statement of the U.S. Constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”
Preamble | Define Preamble at Dictionary.com

I really don't understand what your argument is? There is a preamble to the Declaration of Independence

hello

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama holds God into an image that must meet his boundaries and needs. That is part of Black Theology. Why would Obama give away any power toward a God?

Yeah, because only Black Theology radicals ever ask God for anything, lol.

Your obviously commenting on a post you misunderstood. At least yo ugot a laugh out of it, before we got one out of you.

lol, what power have you given to God?

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting, seeing as Hispanics are Catholic and mostly very religious.

Racially profile much?

 

[Charles_Main]

interesting, seeing as hispanics are catholic and mostly very religious.

racially profile much?

roflmao

 

[Quantum Windbag]

::sigh:: Quantum, I love you, and God knows I hate to have to contradict you on something like this, but the fact is, the Declaration doesn't really have a Preamble. The desire of some people to break it up into sections and attach labels to them is entirely THEIR little red wagon, and has no real meaning except to them.

If you look at pictures of the original Declaration and Constitution, you can see that the Constitution was written in sections, clearly labeled, and the entire document is headed with a separate section, what we call the Preamble. In other words, it was actually written and formatted to have one. The Declaration, on the other hand, is just one big chunk, not even broken into paragraphs, let alone sections. The most you can say is that it has a topic sentence, lots of exposition, and a concluding statement.

If you click on your links, you'll notice that they're each referring to different sections of text as the "Preamble".

Every properly constructed document contains a preamble, even if we call it the theme statement or topic sentence. The theme of the Declaration of Independence is actually the second paragraph, which makes it the preamble. The only link I posted that does not agree with this is the single link I would not use if I was writing a formal thesis.

Since the Declaration was written by one man there was no need to break it into sections like the Constitution.

No, by definition, a topic sentence is NOT a preamble, nor is a theme statement.

And you posted multiple links which didn't agree with each other on which sentence or section was the "preamble".

I already posted the definition of "Preamble". Not doing it again. Go back and look at it. It is a prior statement of intent. A preamble to the Declaration, had one existed, would have said (paraphrased), "We are now going to tell you our plans for going independent, and why we have decided to do so". The Declaration doesn't do that. It goes straight to "We are out of here, effective immediately, because you guys are all assholes" (also paraphrased). It may be more flowery than I phrased it, but it still jumps right to the meat of the matter, with no intro.

Oh, and the Declaration most certainly was not written by one man. The draft was written PRIMARILY by one man, but by that same token, you could say movie scripts are written by one man, and we all know THAT ain't true. Ever seen the text of the original draft Jefferson submitted, compared to what actually got signed? That sucker had quite a bit of input from a bunch of folks betwixt and between.

I did?

The links I posted all point to the introduction of the Declaration as the Preamble. That introduction is the first two paragraphs which frame the reasons listed in the body of the Declaration that the US separated from the UK, specifically from the government under King George. I looked them over more than one, and they do not contradict each other by more than excluding the first sentence from the preamble. Since my intent was to prove that the Declaration does have a preamble they were sufficient to my needs.

Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence in the same sense that Tom Clancy is the author of his books. They both may have had editorial help, but the ideas, and the words, are theirs. That can be seen easily enough by comparing Jefferson's draft with the final product. The only major change was the excising of the paragraph about the slave trade.

Quibble all you want, the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum, even if the word "preamble" had changed meaning over the last two hundred-plus years - which it hasn't - it wouldn't matter.

There's a huge difference between the lead-in provided by a topic sentence and the formal introduction to a document provided by a preamble. You don't need a prior statement of intent for a declaration, because a declaration - by definition - states its own intent. Laws, on the other hand, require explanation for their passage, which is why the definition of "preamble" says that they're linked with constitutions or statutes.

Think of it like a prologue. The Constitution has one. The Declaration of Independence just jumps right into the story.

The story is the grievances against the government of King George, not the fact that we have rights. That serves to frame the discussion, it is an introduction to the story. That makes it a preamble, however you feel about it. Since I posted a reputable, scholarly, link to back up my position, and multiple other links to add weight, I think you have to do more than argue that I am misinterpreting the clear text and the meaning of the word.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not a preamble. That's a topic sentence.

Preamble = Topic Sentence = Preamble

You keep believing that silliness. Anything to not admit that the OP is wrong.

Why would I care if the OP was wrong or not? I didn't write, so have no emotional involvement with it. A preamble is an introduction, and this is an introduction. Or are you going to insist there is not an introductory statement/paragraph?

 

[Stephanie]

Isn't this where that one poster always comes in, what's her name? oh yeah...Stephanie...

and does some big hem and haw about how this is a stupid non-issue?

Where is she today?

SHE was at WORK. and I know this isn't as important to ya lefties as someone "dabbling" in witchcraft when they were a teenager, but tough.

Well, keep up your appetite, because you're going to eat this thread every time I see you pull that stunt on some lib thread...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And to Progressives those documents are just different names for toilet paper

I would say, at least we know the difference between them....and between them and toilet paper.

Sadly, this is not a party-line issue. People on both sides seem to be extremely confused on this.

So far I only see two people who are having trouble grasping the concept. I wonder why you both insist that every scholar on the planet is wrong, can either of you provide a link that shows us to be wrong, so you can at least claim there is debate about this among the people who study, and are knowledgeable, about the matter? Or are you just going to stubbornly insist you are right despite the evidence to the contrary?

 

[mattskramer]

Getting back to the OP, I think that it is a big to do about nothing. Though I’m not a mind-reader, I think that Obama omitted mentioning “creator” because he did not want to offend atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe that a “creator” exists. I don’t understand why people are making a big deal out of it. If you think that things were given to us by a “creator” you are free to think that. There is no undeniable proof that one exists or that one does not exist. Therefore, I think that it was fair for Obama to avoid mentioning what bestows such right. At least he did not say that government gives rights to people. He left out a contentious word. He didn’t say “creator” but he didn’t say “government” either. Fair enough? No. Not for the religious right.

 

[Jack Fate]

 

[Jack Fate]

Getting back to the OP, I think that it is a big to do about nothing. Though I’m not a mind-reader, I think that Obama omitted mentioning “creator” because he did not want to offend atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe that a “creator” exists. I don’t understand why people are making a big deal out of it. If you think that things were given to us by a “creator” you are free to think that. There is no undeniable proof that one exists or that one does not exist. Therefore, I think that it was fair for Obama to avoid mentioning what bestows such right. At least he did not say that government gives rights to people. He left out a contentious word. He didn’t say “creator” but he didn’t say “government” either. Fair enough? No. Not for the religious right.

I disagree. He is the President of the United States of America and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. He didn't take an oath to make sure he didn't offend anyone. And your last sentence doesn't make sense unless you're a moonbat. "Creator" is what he left out of his quote. "Government" isn't in the quote at all. I think that's called a "straw man". Obama is a master at straw men. Did you vote for this imposter?

 

[mattskramer]

Getting back to the OP, I think that it is a big to do about nothing. Though I’m not a mind-reader, I think that Obama omitted mentioning “creator” because he did not want to offend atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe that a “creator” exists. I don’t understand why people are making a big deal out of it. If you think that things were given to us by a “creator” you are free to think that. There is no undeniable proof that one exists or that one does not exist. Therefore, I think that it was fair for Obama to avoid mentioning what bestows such right. At least he did not say that government gives rights to people. He left out a contentious word. He didn’t say “creator” but he didn’t say “government” either. Fair enough? No. Not for the religious right.

I disagree. He is the President of the United States of America and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Uh. Agreed.

He didn't take an oath to make sure he didn't offend anyone.

So? He probably didn't take an oath to eat breakfast either. I guess that he skips meals.

And your last sentence doesn't make sense unless you're a moonbat. "Creator" is what he left out of his quote. "Government" isn't in the quote at all. I think that's called a "straw man". Obama is a master at straw men. Did you vote for this imposter?

Obama spoke. The DOI was not speaking through him. He spoke some sentences.
That is all that there is to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL It could be Obama thought for a second, and realized that when this was written there were many women, men and children, who had none of these Creator based rights, but that too is reading too much into it. He was giving a speech, no need to read into it the wingnut interpretation of the universe.

Yep it is perfectly acceptable to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you believe.

And now you know the Declaration of Independence is not in the Constitution. Consider this your remedial education.

 

[Jack Fate]

Getting back to the OP, I think that it is a big to do about nothing. Though I’m not a mind-reader, I think that Obama omitted mentioning “creator” because he did not want to offend atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe that a “creator” exists. I don’t understand why people are making a big deal out of it. If you think that things were given to us by a “creator” you are free to think that. There is no undeniable proof that one exists or that one does not exist. Therefore, I think that it was fair for Obama to avoid mentioning what bestows such right. At least he did not say that government gives rights to people. He left out a contentious word. He didn’t say “creator” but he didn’t say “government” either. Fair enough? No. Not for the religious right.

I disagree. He is the President of the United States of America and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Uh. Agreed.

He didn't take an oath to make sure he didn't offend anyone.

So? He probably didn't take an oath to eat breakfast either. I guess that he skips meals.

And your last sentence doesn't make sense unless you're a moonbat. "Creator" is what he left out of his quote. "Government" isn't in the quote at all. I think that's called a "straw man". Obama is a master at straw men. Did you vote for this imposter?

Obama spoke. The DOI was not speaking through him. He spoke some sentences.
That is all that there is to it.

He spoke incorrectly, either on purpose or stupidly. So he's either stupid or a fraud. We report, you decide.

 

[bodecea]

I disagree. He is the President of the United States of America and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Uh. Agreed.



So? He probably didn't take an oath to eat breakfast either. I guess that he skips meals.

And your last sentence doesn't make sense unless you're a moonbat. "Creator" is what he left out of his quote. "Government" isn't in the quote at all. I think that's called a "straw man". Obama is a master at straw men. Did you vote for this imposter?

Obama spoke. The DOI was not speaking through him. He spoke some sentences.
That is all that there is to it.

He spoke incorrectly, either on purpose or stupidly. So he's either stupid or a fraud. We report, you decide.

Not as stupid as those who can't tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Not by a long shot

 

[mattskramer]

I disagree. He is the President of the United States of America and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Uh. Agreed.



So? He probably didn't take an oath to eat breakfast either. I guess that he skips meals.

And your last sentence doesn't make sense unless you're a moonbat. "Creator" is what he left out of his quote. "Government" isn't in the quote at all. I think that's called a "straw man". Obama is a master at straw men. Did you vote for this imposter?

Obama spoke. The DOI was not speaking through him. He spoke some sentences.
That is all that there is to it.

He spoke incorrectly, either on purpose or stupidly. So he's either stupid or a fraud. We report, you decide.

He did not speak incorrectly. If Obama had said that he was going to quote the DOI, then he would be in error for leaving out “creator”. According to what he said in his speech, there was nothing fraudulent or stupid about it.

 

[code1211]

Getting back to the OP, I think that it is a big to do about nothing. Though I’m not a mind-reader, I think that Obama omitted mentioning “creator” because he did not want to offend atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe that a “creator” exists. I don’t understand why people are making a big deal out of it. If you think that things were given to us by a “creator” you are free to think that. There is no undeniable proof that one exists or that one does not exist. Therefore, I think that it was fair for Obama to avoid mentioning what bestows such right. At least he did not say that government gives rights to people. He left out a contentious word. He didn’t say “creator” but he didn’t say “government” either. Fair enough? No. Not for the religious right.

It would be quite fair for him to state the thought in his own words without atribution, but he quoted the parts he used directly except for modernizing the word unalienable then edited and thereby changed the meaning of the thought that he plageurized from Jefferson.

Endowed does not exactly mean given. Endowed does represent that something was given, but also that it is now a part of the recipient. Jefferson was not a man who chose his words willy nilly. This document is pretty brief in length, but it took about 6000 years for our civilization to write it.

If the Big 0 did not want to use Jefferson's thought, then he should have used one of his own. If he wanted to use it, he should have used all of it and attributed it. Using it as he did is not good form. A little classless and not of the level one would expect of a college proffessor. He should know better and should have greater regard for one of the great principles of mankind, history and this country.

One would not expect this of an ethical college professor but might look for it from a Chicago politician grasping at straws to prop up a failing administration.