Posted on 05/06/2010 5:51:40 PM PDT by Borges
She mentioned a couple of times that The Constitution talks about 'inalienable rights'. Conflating the Constitution with the DOI has to be one of the most irritable trends in contemporary civic life. Most people quote them interchangeably. Anyone else bothered by how common this is?
But the picture of her crawling on her belly to lick the hand that beat her, it isn’t a pretty one.
Ummm.... I think the "picture" you have in mind is akin to the image that cubist artists have, when they paint their pictures ...
You know.... you can just barely make it out that it's a human being, but that's as far as the "reality" of the image that they're "painting" goes ... LOL ...
And it's in the same part of the Constitution where "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is. Well, that's what I learned in skul. ;-)
Unfortunately, she said “ Unalienable rights”.
Yeah, I know it is her folksy way of speaking.
No, it is just incorrect.
Ummm... what do you mean? ... I thought it was "unalienable" ... hmmmm....
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.[ ... selected portion ... ]
Depends on who it is, what their motive is, and how the mistaken application is handled. It's natural that the DoI and the Constitution would be are used interchangeably. The one applies the ideas expressed in the other.
What does irritate me is when "inalienable" (a perfectly proper word in its own right) is quoted where the historically accurate word is "unalienable."
We should get Palin to say "separation of church and state" is in the constitution. Nah...wouldn't work. The left would never mention that mistake.
“Unfortunately, she said “ Unalienable rights”.
Yeah, I know it is her folksy way of speaking.
No, it is just incorrect.”
Must suck to have made this comment and found out YOU are the one who is incorrect. LOL man that must suck!
Did Thomas Jefferson's use of the word "inalienable" in three separate drafts of the Declaration irritate you?
“Did Thomas Jefferson’s use of the word “inalienable” in three separate drafts of the Declaration irritate you? “
Yes it did. And it still does. LOL
Thank you for not taking issue with “President Palin.” *wink*
I loved that. Many years ago when he was saying this, I went to a fund raiser at the old Shamrock Hotel in Houston where he was main speaker. He autographed my program.
He was good...too bad he was a crook! LOL!
I read it at the time. I agree.
But good phrases stick around forever ... :-)
Our President was a Constitutional Lawyer and supposedly taught the document as a college professor...and he doesn’t have a CLUE what it says.
Sorta like us being a democracy instead of a republic?
It’s very annoying. It’s something she should avoid doing—since all the liberals who don’t know any better themselves will still mock her for it.
Another annoyance: People who quote “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking-Glass” interchangeably. Especially those who quote the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen interchangeably.
yes, and that is why she said it.
Yes. Those of us who can think.
Yes it did. And it still does. LOL.
LOL, sorry!
I can't imagine what would make you think it might.
I've already mentioned that "inalienable" is a perfectly proper word. There was no historical context to the use of the term in the DoI until the document itself did, in fact, become historical, The fact remains that "unalienable" was incorporated into the final version of the DoI, and is the historically accurate term when discussing the ideas found in the DoI.
Now, go pick a fight with your playmates and leave the adults alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.