Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Woodruff]

Everyone can think critically, but it's a lot easier to not do it and just believe what you hear...

In reality, there is no difference at all between not being able to think critically and simply electing not to.

[Phatscotty]

One needs to volitionally choose to think.

[PLAYER57832]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

[PLAYER57832]

Everyone can think critically, but it's a lot easier to not do it and just believe what you hear...

In reality, there is no difference at all between not being able to think critically and simply electing not to.

Yes, there is. The first is excuseable. Not everyone was graced with intelligence, yet those with such deficits can still make valued contributions to our world. Those who refuse... are wastes and impediments to those who are willing to actually think.

That said, when you live in a world where its all you can do to simply get enough to eat, to survive until the next day, then thinking beyond can be rather difficult. Of course, that doesn't apply to many here in the US.

[Woodruff]

Everyone can think critically, but it's a lot easier to not do it and just believe what you hear...

In reality, there is no difference at all between not being able to think critically and simply electing not to.

Yes, there is. The first is excuseable. Not everyone was graced with intelligence, yet those with such deficits can still make valued contributions to our world. Those who refuse... are wastes and impediments to those who are willing to actually think.

I must still disagree...there is no difference in reality between a talent that does not exist and a talent that is not used.

That said, when you live in a world where its all you can do to simply get enough to eat, to survive until the next day, then thinking beyond can be rather difficult. Of course, that doesn't apply to many here in the US.

Very close to none, in fact, outside of emergency situations such as a hurricane or earthquake.

[PLAYER57832]

Everyone can think critically, but it's a lot easier to not do it and just believe what you hear...

In reality, there is no difference at all between not being able to think critically and simply electing not to.

Yes, there is. The first is excuseable. Not everyone was graced with intelligence, yet those with such deficits can still make valued contributions to our world. Those who refuse... are wastes and impediments to those who are willing to actually think.

I must still disagree...there is no difference in reality between a talent that does not exist and a talent that is not used.

Well, let me be more specific. I have a mentally disabled neighbor. I don't discuss politics with her, but she is pleasant, will help with things within her capabilities when asked (and asks for help in return), etc. She is not capable of truly thinking at great lengths, but does what she can with what she has. Above all, she knows her deficits and so does not stretch herself beyond those abilities too much. (we all stretch a bit at times, I suppose )

I have lived next to other people who, as you say, were capable of thinking, but chose not to. Usually this is evidenced by their extremely bad choices. Too often those bad choices impact the rest of us. Nor do I necessarily even mean drugs/alchohol or poor choice in partners. Those are less a matter of not thinking and more a matter of impulses/emotions. No, I mean things like building a house on a hillslope without bothering to get a proper survey done, hunting well outside of regulations (and not because one lost a job, are taking a normal game species, etc.), OR, worse, the impact of failing to truly understand and use science becuase its more difficult than simply listening to the one's preacher or the latest blog. Worse for the individual, but not necessarily the rest of us are those who join cults (and my definition of a cult is a group that requires you to give up your own thoughts in favor of the leader's) and then commit suicide or starve, etc.

That said, when you live in a world where its all you can do to simply get enough to eat, to survive until the next day, then thinking beyond can be rather difficult. Of course, that doesn't apply to many here in the US.

Very close to none, in fact, outside of emergency situations such as a hurricane or earthquake.

Agreed, in the US (and most of the modern world).

[Night Strike]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party, and since Tea Party backed candidates have been winning elections, that leads to an indication of her being representative of at least a plurality of voters.

As far as you claiming she has little capability of deep thought, you have no basis for this opinion. Your only foundation is that she disagrees with your worldview. Anyone who is nearly the Vice President of the United States has to have capability to think deeply. Your claim would be just like me claiming Obama can't think deeply since his actions have been wrong for the country. It's called having different frames of reference, and you just dismissing someone who you disagree with as an idiot just shows how narrow minded you are.

[Woodruff]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

I disagree very strongly. I do not believe she is very representative of the Tea Party at all. She IS VERY representative of the Republican Party, in my opinion.

[PLAYER57832]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

No one really represents the Tea Party, but she would like to be thought that way.

and since Tea Party backed candidates have been winning elections, that leads to an indication of her being representative of at least a plurality of voters.

those "tea party endorsements" are pretty opportunistic. Easy to take credit for backing winners when all you do is back people set to win! AND.. you have no real platform upon which to stand and be refuted.

As far as you claiming she has little capability of deep thought, you have no basis for this opinion. Your only foundation is that she disagrees with your worldview. Anyone who is nearly the Vice President of the United States has to have capability to think deeply. Your claim would be just like me claiming Obama can't think deeply since his actions have been wrong for the country. It's called having different frames of reference, and you just dismissing someone who you disagree with as an idiot just shows how narrow minded you are.

No, my claim that she is an idiot is based on multiple idiotic comments she has made... and her failure to even back off from most of those comments. I don't like Cheney, consider him evil, but definitely not stupid. That said, I am exaggerating a bit, of course If she were a true idiot, she would not have gotten anywhere. She has some talents, apparently she is able to collect good people and attract attention. But she absolutely lacks the mental capacity and critical thinking skills I want to see in any leader.

What does worry me a bit is that she secretly is rather intelligent and works very hard to hide it. That would make here doubly dangerous, and evil rather than just and indiot. Given those choices, I prefer idiot.

[PLAYER57832]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

I disagree very strongly. I do not believe she is very representative of the Tea Party at all. She IS VERY representative of the Republican Party, in my opinion.

How can anyone represent a group that has no platform and allows itself to be associated with whomever chooses to associate with it?

[Woodruff]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

I disagree very strongly. I do not believe she is very representative of the Tea Party at all. She IS VERY representative of the Republican Party, in my opinion.

How can anyone represent a group that has no platform and allows itself to be associated with whomever chooses to associate with it?

The group clearly doesn't "allow itself to be associated with whomever chooses to associate with it" since they have booted individuals from their formal group.

[bradleybadly]

Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.

.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

Don't bother reasoning with her.

No kidding, the ability for the statist wannabes to out of hand dismiss anything counter to their worldview is both annoying and funny at the same time. At least NightStrike got away without having to endure a 30 paragraph sermon.

[PLAYER57832]

No kidding, the ability for the statist wannabes to out of hand dismiss anything counter to their worldview is both annoying and funny at the same time. At least NightStrike got away without having to endure a 30 paragraph sermon.

At least I offer real debate, not simple insults.

[bradleybadly]

No kidding, the ability for the statist wannabes to out of hand dismiss anything counter to their worldview is both annoying and funny at the same time. At least NightStrike got away without having to endure a 30 paragraph sermon.

At least I offer real debate, not simple insults.

No, you don't

[Night Strike]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

No one really represents the Tea Party, but she would like to be thought that way.

Representative, not represents.....please get it correct.

and since Tea Party backed candidates have been winning elections, that leads to an indication of her being representative of at least a plurality of voters.

those "tea party endorsements" are pretty opportunistic. Easy to take credit for backing winners when all you do is back people set to win! AND.. you have no real platform upon which to stand and be refuted.

Shows how little you've been paying attention. Christine McDonald, Joe Miller, and many others (especially in gubernatorial races) were endorsed before they had the lead in the polls.

[Woodruff]

So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?

I don't believe most conservatives would find Pallin to be reprentative. In fact, I am sure of that.

And no.. Pallin has not shown herself capable of much deep thought, though I am sure she can read.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Palin is representative of the Tea Party

No one really represents the Tea Party, but she would like to be thought that way.

Representative, not represents.....please get it correct.

Either, you believe that the terms "representative of" and "represents" are not extremely similar terms in this context or you think she should have worded her statement as "No one really representative the Tea Party"? Uh...no. Please get it correct.

[Night Strike]

Either, you believe that the terms "representative of" and "represents" are not extremely similar terms in this context or you think she should have worded her statement as "No one really representative the Tea Party"? Uh...no. Please get it correct.

Representative of means a typical sample of a population, while represents means stands in place of like a Congressman represents his constituents. I guess represents could be used in this context, so I apologize for that, but it wasn't the definition I was considering.

[PLAYER57832]

Either, you believe that the terms "representative of" and "represents" are not extremely similar terms in this context or you think she should have worded her statement as "No one really representative the Tea Party"? Uh...no. Please get it correct.

Representative of means a typical sample of a population, while represents means stands in place of like a Congressman represents his constituents. I guess represents could be used in this context, so I apologize for that, but it wasn't the definition I was considering.

Pallin would like to represent the Tea Party or at least wants people to think she does. I do not, however believe she either represents OR is representative of the movement.

Clearer?

[Night Strike]

Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-omits-creator-from-inalienable-rights-again/

[PLAYER57832]

Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-omits-creator-from-inalienable-rights-again/

Last time I checked, we were NOT a theocracy. Give it a rest!

[Night Strike]

Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-omits-creator-from-inalienable-rights-again/

Last time I checked, we were NOT a theocracy. Give it a rest!

Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change. And rights are supposed to be true regardless of man, as the writers of the Declaration realized. Believing that rights come from a Creator does not make our nation a theocracy. Theocracy's are when the state takes on the roll of religion and tells people exactly how to worship (Kings and Church of England, modern Iran, etc.). I will never let it rest when people like you have reshaped the founding of our nation to fit your bigger government worldview.

[PLAYER57832]

Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-omits-creator-from-inalienable-rights-again/

Last time I checked, we were NOT a theocracy. Give it a rest!

Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change. And rights are supposed to be true regardless of man, as the writers of the Declaration realized. Believing that rights come from a Creator does not make our nation a theocracy. Theocracy's are when the state takes on the roll of religion and tells people exactly how to worship (Kings and Church of England, modern Iran, etc.). I will never let it rest when people like you have reshaped the founding of our nation to fit your bigger government worldview.

No Nightstrike, those arguments only apply if you are religious, and then only some religions. We are a nation of many people with diverse ideas. I, of course, agree that we have a creator. But my personnal beliefs have no place in government.

YOU wish to replace that with your particular ideas. So have many throughout history. Thankfully, the majority has successfully kept us from becoming a theocracy.

[stahrgazer]

I assume he is going to ask America for their votes in 2012. We should know who we are voting for. Is he the strong Christian he was last week, or just forgetful about the one line in the Declaration that EVERY American knows?

Actually, not saying "creator" could be a sign of his Christianity. I've seldom heard Christians pray to "my creator,".. usually it's "my Lord," or, as Christ would have it, "our Father."

Nope, not a, "my Creator," prayer anywhere that I can find.

Gosh, would that make those who CLAIM to be Christian, NOT Christian, because they're saying "creator" instead of Jesus, Lord, God, or Father?

[Woodruff]

Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

I believe several people in this thread have stated reasons why it might be omitted intentionally that have nothing at all to do with being anti-religious.

[Woodruff]

Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change.

Those Jews in Nazi had a lot of rights, did they? You see, we have natural rights, certainly...but they are granted (and taken away) by governments, not God.