The Founding Fathers' Flaws

[FunnyMoney]

Without MTV and all the modern day distractions, the Founding fathers were able to focus on the prior thousands of years of history and how to avoid the mistakes of the past.

They did it to protect us, we the people.
We the people?
Pretty friggin stupid people more like it. :banghead: :shocked_ma:

And the founding Fathers knew this, they loathed democracy and put the "Bill of Rights" at the center. The core rules and not to be messed with.

But had they known how things in the country would turn out centuries later, with a govt that sees criminals as its customers and its reason for being, well: they would have probably done a lot more with that document.... "Right to Use Drugs", "Right to Refuse Payroll Taxes", "Right to Refrain from Serving in War", "Right to Demand All Income Pay in Gold or Silver bullion",....

[Carl]

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



.

[FunnyMoney]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people..
Sounds good to me, but without RP, I only see things getting worse.

For inside the beltway, it is basically RP vs. everyone else.

[Dave]

Without MTV and all the modern day distractions, the Founding fathers were able to focus on the prior thousands of years of history and how to avoid the mistakes of the past.

They did it to protect us, we the people.
We the people?
Pretty friggin stupid people more like it. :banghead: :shocked_ma:

And the founding Fathers knew this, they loathed democracy and put the "Bill of Rights" at the center. The core rules and not to be messed with.

But had they known how things in the country would turn out centuries later, with a govt that sees criminals as its customers and its reason for being, well: they would have probably done a lot more with that document.... "Right to Use Drugs", "Right to Refuse Payroll Taxes", "Right to Refrain from Serving in War", "Right to Demand All Income Pay in Gold or Silver bullion",....

I often wonder how much this country would change if we didn't have TV and Internet for a month. People would be forced to find other ways to occupy their time like reading, discussions, and actually become aware of their circumstances.

I would be wiling to predict the Revolution would happen sooner then we think.

The way people are distracted today, kind of reminds me of the stories of Rome when the Arena games became very popular and people pretty much spent their lives distracted from reality watching the great gladiators while the once great Republic of Cicero became the dictatorship of Caesar.

Dave

[Floyd]

I often wonder if the flouride (sp?) was NOT in the water, how long until everyone would start getting pissed off about the state of things in general?! NO T.V. !! NO FLORIDATION !! = People waking up ?

[Twisted Avatar]

I often wonder if the flouride (sp?) was NOT in the water, how long until everyone would start getting pissed off about the state of things in general?! NO T.V. !! NO FLORIDATION !! = People waking up ?

I also read some where a while ago that flouride also keeps you docile more malliable. I think it was in russia that they used it to keep the prison populations under better control with less ressistance.

I also read that it suppresses the abilty for a person to open their third eye and become more intuative or pyschic.

One thing I know for certain well water is always better than tap water.

T

[Dave]

I
One thing I know for certain well water is always better than tap water.
T

Interesting... I grew up on well water :)

Dave

[Twisted Avatar]

Interesting... I grew up on well water :)

Dave

The less man touches a thing ..........the better it is for everybody else.

Look at the "water wars" that will be coming to states like Cali, Texas, and Nevada ..... you think the dollar situation is bad? Just wait till those areas are threated with lack of water use .....

The "dry run" in Atlanta they almost declared martial law and nothing bad really happened...

Just wait.....and it wont be pretty.

T

[Dave]

The less man touches a thing ..........the better it is for everybody else.


Look at the "water wars" that will be coming to states like Cali, Texas, and Nevada ..... you think the dollar situation is bad wait to areas are threated with lack of water use .....

The "dry runn" in Atlanta they almost declared martial law and nothing bad really happened...

Just wait.....and it wont be pretty

T

I hear you on that. I live in North Florida and we are already have problems with Central Florida trying to pull water out of the St. Johns River which flows North (one of two in the world).

They are talking about taking a huge amount of water out of the river which could have major consequences on our water levels plus salt water intrusion where the river empties in to the Atlantic since the flow will be reduced.

I know this is going to be a big fight in our state.

It was nice while resources were plentiful but as the populations across the nation increase the resources will become more scarce.

Interesting times are a coming.

Dave

[FunnyMoney]

...And the founding Fathers knew this, they loathed democracy and put the "Bill of Rights" at the center. The core rules and not to be messed with....

The Bill of Rights at the center.

Democracy - 2 coyotes and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Read the Bill of Rights.
Then come back and tell me the gist of that document.
Could it be construed as anything other than a gigantic one-sided attempt to enable the people to protect themselves from their gov't?
Read it and you will see it had that and only that purpose.
It is utterly shocking in that regard.

Now that the USA federal gov't has eroded away at each and every Right in the Bill of Rights, only the 2nd amendment now stands between what we see today (half-slavery throughout the globe) and total slavery.

They would have gotten rid of it, except they could never figure out how to.
The federal agents have family too, and most of their extended families are gun owners. So what were they to do? Pit the agents against their own extended families - the logistics just don't work out, or at least not yet.

Those first two amendments, well the first three,... or well frankly all of them have allowed a semblance of Freedom to remain until today.

But now the time has come, the gig is up.
Dishonest money and illegal taxation have grown from small monsters into gigantic ones.
The middle class is the primary staple and is now getting consumed on all fronts.
Even the growing middle in China, India, and the developing world will be overtaken by these 2 monsters. But they're not likely to care much there, they were used to slavery since long ago.

The ability, the history, the knowledge, and the wealth to do something about it, exists here in middle America.
Dubya was a disaster, and everybody now or will very soon recongnize it.

Victory is the ability to resist the status quo and defeat each monster.

Backing fiat money is not the solution, using honest money is.

[WideOpen]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41hIGy7UBAL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
"Nothing works and nobody cares."
Robert Ruark
1915-65

[FunnyMoney]

... only the 2nd amendment now stands between what we see today (half-slavery throughout the globe) and total slavery.

They would have gotten rid of it, except they could never figure out how to.
...

Victory is the ability to resist the status quo and defeat each monster.

Backing fiat money is not the solution, using honest money is.

Our Tax structure is not the problem, enormous endless theft (taxes) are.



"...let's us see can you get one bird. Don't worry about the second bird. Just concentrate on the first one. It's what we call a rule of thumb."

"But there is is one thing I know that you might as well learn now. Nobody can kill the whole covey - not even if they shoot the birds on the ground running down a row in a cornfield. You got to shoot them one at a time."

from Use Enough Gun by R. Ruark

[gbates31]

Personally, I believe they had the right idea by only allowing wealthier, land owners to vote. That might sound outrageous, but it makes sense looking back on it. People who are wealthier don't usually have to work as long hours as a laborer, giving them much more time to become informed about political happenings. Not only that, but they have a vested interest in policies that may or may not affect their property. I was reading "Just How Stupid Are We?" and in that book it said the election after the ratification of the 15th Amendment (guaranteeing all males the right to vote) was "breathtakingly vacuous". Nothing has changed since then. All too many Americans will believe anything that comes out of a President's or candidate's mouth. It almost makes sense that our election process is actively being subverted through electronic voting machines and the like - in order to counter the ignorance of the masses. Not just ignorance, but willful ignorance.

[FunnyMoney]

Had to think about your post for a really long time, gbates31.
Everything you said made sense, but I knew that something was still amiss there.

You see, the evolution of the vote is not the problem.
If anything, it is the fact that they teach our children that we are a democracy and don't teach them that the founders hated democracy and wanted a republic.

"2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" doesn't work out too good for the sheep, you know.



So back to your post...
The real root problem gets back to the taxes and to the banking establishments once again.

Remove those things and everyone will have plenty of time and won't "have to work as long hours as a laborer," ... and have "more time to become informed about political happenings" as you put it.

[TrueConservative]

#1 - Only white land-owning males were originally allowed to vote. I believe it was Andrew Jackson that extended the vote to all white males regardless of societal standing. This was a huge mistake in my opinion. Only people that have a stake in society should have a say in promoting what is best for society. It also led to an early "American Idolization" of Presidential Elections.

#2 - I believe, unfortunately, that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought to the Constitution, with the rights being adopted in teh first Congress. Hard to say what they were thinking - adopting the Constitution before the Bill of Rights had been passed.

[Usury]

Personally, I believe they had the right idea by only allowing wealthier, land owners to vote. That might sound outrageous, but it makes sense looking back on it. People who are wealthier don't usually have to work as long hours as a laborer, giving them much more time to become informed about political happenings. Not only that, but they have a vested interest in policies that may or may not affect their property. I was reading "Just How Stupid Are We?" and in that book it said the election after the ratification of the 15th Amendment (guaranteeing all males the right to vote) was "breathtakingly vacuous". Nothing has changed since then. All too many Americans will believe anything that comes out of a President's or candidate's mouth. It almost makes sense that our election process is actively being subverted through electronic voting machines and the like - in order to counter the ignorance of the masses. Not just ignorance, but willful ignorance.

I couldn't agree with you more. I mentioned this very thing to someone at work the other day and they got a little hostile think that I meant only white males should be allowed to vote. I quickly corrected them in that I meant only landowners should be allowed to vote for the very reasons you just laid out. :applause_:applause_:applause_:applause_:applause_ :applause_:applause_:applause_:applause_:applause_ :applause_:applause_:applause_

[Hellsbane]

#1 - Only white land-owning males were originally allowed to vote. I believe it was Andrew Jackson that extended the vote to all white males regardless of societal standing. This was a huge mistake in my opinion. Only people that have a stake in society should have a say in promoting what is best for society. It also led to an early "American Idolization" of Presidential Elections.

#2 - I believe, unfortunately, that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought to the Constitution, with the rights being adopted in teh first Congress. Hard to say what they were thinking - adopting the Constitution before the Bill of Rights had been passed.


On #2 you are correct. Its a little scary thinking about it in the light of our era, not that the BOR even slows down that bunch of hyenas in office. But any way, its a main reason i tell folks not to read the Constitution through the lense of " original intent " because the founders original intent was an all powerful federal government with no limits on their powers and no protections to the States or people. Thank God for the States insistance on a BOR.

[jetgraphics]

#1 - Only WHITE land-owning males were originally allowed to vote. .

#2 - I believe, unfortunately, that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought to the Constitution, with the rights being adopted in teh first Congress. Hard to say what they were thinking - adopting the Constitution before the Bill of Rights had been passed.

1. In the original 13 States, before the U S CON several allowed Free Negroes to vote - if they possessed the same minimum estate and paid their taxes. Unfortunately, after the U S Con, they were disenfranchised.
The sound doctrine of the vote tied to the property tax was based on the logic that those who decide how to spend public monies should ante up their share.

2. "Bill of Rights" are actually limitations on the Congress.
The Constitution gives no rights. Inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property ownership existed prior to the ratification of the USCON.

Frankly, one of the greatest ideas of the original USCON was the Electoral college.
As a means to prevent partisan politics from the executive branch, it was effective. In fact, George Washington hated his "vice" president, and actively sought an amendment that would prevent rivals from serving together. Unfortunate side effect was that political parties were given control over the executive branch, and therefore appointments to high office.

If the Electoral College was returned to its original purpose and intent, there would be no campaigning. Technically, each district would vote for an Elector in whom they trust, to go select two candidates for high office. Thus anyone could run for president, and not need a warchest of campaign funds.

If reason and common sense ran politics, the Electoral College could convene after the November Elections, and hold hearings and investigate candidates for office. Perhaps each candidate could be questioned and his choice of cabinet appointees be examined. Better yet, have the hearings televised. Let the press double check credentials and dig out skeletons.

After careful examination, then the College would vote. Most popular becomes president. His rival, becomes vice president - and the "fly on the wall" - a check to partisanship in the Executive branch.

(Imagine Obama and McCain in the White House)

[jetgraphics]

Without MTV and all the modern day distractions, the Founding fathers were able to focus on the prior thousands of years of history and how to avoid the mistakes of the past.

They did it to protect us, we the people.
We the people?


JG: Don't believe the hype about the "Founding Fathers".
It's propaganda.

"We, the People of the United States" did not refer to the people of the United States of America.

Read the Articles of Confederation (1777) and you will learn the true identity of the parties to the compact.

If you're still unsure, consider this: "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it.."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

[PTHOR]

What a great book.

[PTHOR]

Some founders argued, that that these rights were self evident, so writting them down was unnecasary. While others thought they might not be so evident to some, therefore should be written down in an effort to protect our rights (They were called the antifederalists), recognizing them in the supreme law of the land.