Obama omits 'under god' in ken burns Gettysburg address

[bodecea]

An anti-American, anti-Christian piece of shit.

Koshergrl....do you believe that people HAVE to be pro-christian to be pro-American?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I do not.

I maintain, however, that obammer is.

Now try to stay on topic.

 

[Pogo]

False equivalence. Tries to compare inspirational 'hooks' with a throwaway line. Now if we were to excise the phrase "whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure" -- IOW a relevant part -- then you'd have apples to apples. Obviously the phrase "under God" was a supplementary afterthought (as were several other minor tweaks); the heart of the speech is in the original draft.



- Why?

Are we a theocracy?

No we are not. Irrelevant.

The discussion isn't about whether or not we are a theocracy. It is about the choice of Obama to choose the one speech draft that doesn't include God in it.

They cannot debate. Hence personal shots.

Who the hell reads a historical speech from a first draft?

Why not? Does it not reflect more faithfully what's in the writer's mind? That is, before handlers and hangers-on and PR suits start tweaking it?

I still would rather have had Eisenhower go with his original phrase "military-industrial-congressional complex" rather than the toned-down version we got. More honest.

 

[tinydancer]

An anti-American, anti-Christian piece of shit.

I just keep cracking up at the thought process.

"Gee I'm down in the polls, shit hitting the fan every where around me, people are really pissed off.

I know. I'll read the Lincoln's draft copy to appeal to my atheist base. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."

 

[koshergrl]

No, it does not "reflect more faithfully" what's in the writer's mind, as ANY writer will tell you.

Edits occur to make it more accurately reflect what "is in the writer's mind", and I highly recommend, urge and plead with you to keep that in mind as you post here in future.

 

[Pogo]

An anti-American, anti-Christian piece of shit.

I just keep cracking up at the thought process.

"Gee I'm down in the polls, shit hitting the fan every where around me, people are really pissed off.

I know. I'll read the Lincoln's draft copy to appeal to my atheist base. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."

It's factual. You still haven't explained why that's a bad idea.
I'm left to assume it's because demagogues like Dimbart will dishonestly try to make an issue out of what isn't an issue.

-- Who's fault is that?

 

[koshergrl]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

 

[Pogo]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

No actually it indicates the opposite. If it was important in the writer's mind it would have been there from the start. On the other hand if it's tweaked in at the suggestion of some handler who had manipulative marketing purposes in mind, that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Francis Bellamy didn't write "under God" into the pledge of allegiance either. That came a lifetime later, long after he was dead.

 

[bodecea]

No, I do not.

I maintain, however, that obammer is.

Now try to stay on topic.

What about President Obama's reading of the Gettysburg Address makes you believe he is anti-American and anti-christian?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hey drama queen, back up your statement that I am lying about Lincoln.



And I've not tossed off "Lincoln's notes" otherwise known as drafts as unimportant.

I actually find it quite fascinating that the first two drafts did not include "under God" but that in his speech when he delivered it that day, Lincoln spoke the words "under God" and that in all the other copies that phrase was included.

I'll be patiently checking in to see where you have proved me to be a liar about Lincoln.



ETA: I never disputed once that Obama was asked to read the Nicolay version. I was just in shock that his Team Obama actually believed it would be a swell idea for him to do so. Foolhardy bunch at the WH.

Someone really should have advised him against it. Bad PR.

Here's where she says PR is more important than historical fact.

First draft is not historical accuracy.

That's not the speech he gave. Deal with it.

Yes, actually it is.

To have only the final version would be inaccurate.

But, that's not really the point. The point is, Lincoln worked on his speech, he wrote and rewrote it and some ignorant little twit has no right to summarily toss his words aside as though they are nothing.

And, the bigger point of this thread is that you rw's LIED and then you lied some more and then you lied even more.

Now, you two lying twits are dancing all around, trying desperately to find some way out of taking responsibility for your lies.

You lied. Admit it and then just shut up and go away because you're doing is embarrassing yourselves.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

And now you're saying Lincoln's words are chaff and garbage.

Keep digging, numbskull. With every word, I understand more and more why you ALWAYS side with other countries against your own.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, I do not.

I maintain, however, that obammer is.

Now try to stay on topic.

What about President Obama's reading of the Gettysburg Address makes you believe he is anti-American and anti-christian?

The real tip off are those daily prayers he has sent to his phone.

 

[Pogo]

An anti-American, anti-Christian piece of shit.

I just keep cracking up at the thought process.

"Gee I'm down in the polls, shit hitting the fan every where around me, people are really pissed off.

I know. I'll read the Lincoln's draft copy to appeal to my atheist base. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."

I'm left with the impression TD finds more importance in PR than in patriotism.

That's completely understandable. TD's a PR person. I get it.

(TD: I don't mean that sarcastically. )

 

[Unkotare]

No, the choice would be Obama's.

Unless you maintain Obama is an idiot who doesn't review and approve the material he mouths.

He'd make a good anchorman.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HNJ93HCxUA]Anchorman: Go Fuck Yourself San Diego - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tinydancer]

Here's where she says PR is more important than historical fact.

First draft is not historical accuracy.

That's not the speech he gave. Deal with it.

Yes, actually it is.

To have only the final version would be inaccurate.

But, that's not really the point. The point is, Lincoln worked on his speech, he wrote and rewrote it and some ignorant little twit has no right to summarily toss his words aside as though they are nothing.

And, the bigger point of this thread is that you rw's LIED and then you lied some more and then you lied even more.

Now, you two lying twits are dancing all around, trying desperately to find some way out of taking responsibility for your lies.

You lied. Admit it and then just shut up and go away because you're doing is embarrassing yourselves.

You keep saying I lied. Show me where I have lied? You can't because I haven't. I've given opinions you don't like. But I've not lied about a damn thing.



Now to the given speech. This issue has been settled among historians. I've put it up before but what the heck I'll do it again.

The Associated Press report of the speech, written by Joseph Gilbert, along with reports from newspapers in Philadelphia and Chicago, all agree that Lincoln said “under God” as his speech concluded.

In that book’s footnotes, it’s explained that the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune had the words in its independent accounts.

“These papers corroborate Gilbert’s version, however, in having the phrase ‘under God,’ which Lincoln must have used for the first time as he spoke,” the book says.

It also appears that Lincoln used the Associated Press version as a reference point when he wrote out the third, fourth, and fifth versions.

A fourth printed version, from the Boston Advertiser, shows that Lincoln used the words “under God” as the address concluded.



Did Abraham Lincoln omit God from the Gettysburg Address?

 

[Pogo]

 

[Unkotare]

And yet here you are, still posting away...

 

[koshergrl]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

No actually it indicates the opposite. If it was important in the writer's mind it would have been there from the start. On the other hand if it's tweaked in at the suggestion of some handler who had manipulative marketing purposes in mind, that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Francis Bellamy didn't write "under God" into the pledge of allegiance either. That came a lifetime later, long after he was dead.

You moron, I'm a writer, I've tutored English comp, and I've worked as a writer, and I've also copy edited the work of others.
NO, the first draft is NOT the most accurate, or people would not edit.

Having done A LOT of editing, trust me, the first draft is most generally a mess that roams and wanders all over the place. Subsequent edits are made to finely hone and make precise the thought that is being presented.

Go back to school, ding dong.

 

[Pogo]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

No actually it indicates the opposite. If it was important in the writer's mind it would have been there from the start. On the other hand if it's tweaked in at the suggestion of some handler who had manipulative marketing purposes in mind, that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Francis Bellamy didn't write "under God" into the pledge of allegiance either. That came a lifetime later, long after he was dead.

You moron, I'm a writer, I've tutored English comp, and I've worked as a writer, and I've also copy edited the work of others.
NO, the first draft is NOT the most accurate, or people would not edit.

Having done A LOT of editing, trust me, the first draft is most generally a mess that roams and wanders all over the place. Subsequent edits are made to finely hone and make precise the thought that is being presented.

Go back to school, ding dong.

Yeah me too, but there's two things I don't do: one, insert words into other people's mouths (I didn't say "accurate" did I?) and two, address people in a civil conversation as "moron".

Now go back and read what I actually wrote. You don't get to rewrite me. Nobody gets that.

I see what your problem is: self-appointed editor. Word fascist. Well, not on my watch. Ever.

Now take the certificate above your post and put your pawprint on it. You're a winner.

 

[Unkotare]

Generally writers spill a whole lot of garbage out...and editing consists of removing chaf and extraneous garbage.

The fact that "under God" was added in early shows that it was simply an oversight, and that indeed, the writer was committed to including it.

No actually it indicates the opposite. If it was important in the writer's mind it would have been there from the start. On the other hand if it's tweaked in at the suggestion of some handler who had manipulative marketing purposes in mind, that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Francis Bellamy didn't write "under God" into the pledge of allegiance either. That came a lifetime later, long after he was dead.

You moron, I'm a writer, I've tutored English comp, and I've worked as a writer, and I've also copy edited the work of others.
NO, the first draft is NOT the most accurate, or people would not edit.

Having done A LOT of editing, trust me, the first draft is most generally a mess that roams and wanders all over the place. Subsequent edits are made to finely hone and make precise the thought that is being presented.

She's right.