Could a Group like the Founding Fathers Develop and Stick Around in Our Society?

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

Actually, most Americans still don't know who he is.

 

[Underclocked]

"They would probably find today's social standards/values absolutely shocking."

They would be far from alone in that regard.

 

[Schadenfroh]

No, for they would back my political views, just like any religious, philosophical and/or cultural figure from history.

 

[Craig234]

The founding fathers would be irrelevant today.

If they were guys with opinions about good government, they could join many many others who are heard a little. Maybe write books and columns with their opinions.

If they were the wealthy of society, they'd very likely be forced to support the corporate agenda - the corporations have a blind policy to pursue profit, and anyone who has other concerns about the 'good of society' is out. We have very few very wealthy people who have the independance to be advocates for the 'good of society'; to an extent they are people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros. Gates is mostly apolitical dealing with global health; Buffet and Soros are demonized/ignored for supporting liberal positions.

Our two-party system has had one effect among others: instead of the political leaders just making decisions about what's right or wrong, they have to make decisions concerned with whether it will help or hurt them relative to the other party. This creates a competing interest with the public good, when the public good can be exploited.

In the meantime, the real political discussion in the nation tody is dominated by the PR firms who almost exclusively serve the corporatocracy.

The corporatocracy isn't a Bond villain out to destroy the world, but it is a group who fear the irrational mob of democracy and prefer to have the power to protect itself.

It just so happens that just as a powerful defensive military creates the temptation for use for selfish purposes, the concentrated political power of the corporatocracy is used not to protect itself from the mob but to advance its own interests, sometimes against the public interest, such as the financial industry de-regulation we saw in the last 25 years.

But also in many other areas; the citizens are largely ignorant and manipulated today, mostly unconcerned with politics, and if they are concerned, likely victims of propaganda.

When the foundign fathers made ths nation, the corporatocracy was the English crown (literally - the first global corporation was the East India company created by Queen Elizabeth to serve the wealth interests of English nobility, and given special tax and tariff priviliges against the colonists that were a, perhaps the, main cause of the revolutionary war. In those days, the colonists were far from the nobility and did not benefit from the corruption, yet our country had as many colonists who sided with the crown as with the founding fathers in the war (and another third who didn't care). Today, the corporotocracy is so much more powerfu and ingrained, and dominating the media, that there's no way for that sort of 'revolution' to happen at all.

The founding fathers would be either 'pundits' or members of the corpotocracy. Thomas Jefferson or BVenjamin Franklin might be Al Gore - Noibel Prize winner, author of 'The Assault on Reason', and of little public influence really except perhaps on global warming. George Washington might be Colin Powel - complimented, and sidelined by the modern political interests. Thomas Paine might be one of the authors and jounrnalists, like Glenn Greenwald or Bill Moyers, popular with the few who read them.

As Moyers recently said, one thing can help the nation: for citizens to unite and push for progressive policies.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
The founders would be called xenophobes, mean-spirted ideologues, chauvinists, right wing extremists, militants, homegrown terrorists etc. It was Aristotle who said "Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies that give way to Tyranny". The founders set up a masculine republic and now after 50 years of the expanding, feminized nanny state we are at the tyranny point.

So you are against democracy?

You do realise (probably not) that no one wants to end democracy in the US and that it has nothing to do with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party when he said that?

You also realise that this was not a statement FOR republics but rather a wish to end them?

Christ you are fucking daft.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: sandorski
They wouldn't be the same People at all. In fact, they'd be some of the Poorest Educated in the Country. They were Great back then, but don't really mount to much in todays terms. (assuming you mean Born/Raised in current Time)

What? Most were well educated. In the fields of languages, history, and philosophy probably better educated than most of our politicians today. How many politicians today learn French, Greek, and Latin?

For the time they were, but lots has changed.

One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

 

[shubh09]

Most historians define the "founding fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: shubh09
Most historians define the "founding fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.

On this forum it only means one of the originals that they can use quotes from they agree with though.

Anyone can find one.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

The only Founding Father Ron Paul remotely resembles in practice or spirit is Thomas Jefferson. In fact, he likely would have sided with the South during the Civil War by backing Jefferson Davis. Paul is fringe in any generation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: sandorski
They wouldn't be the same People at all. In fact, they'd be some of the Poorest Educated in the Country. They were Great back then, but don't really mount to much in todays terms. (assuming you mean Born/Raised in current Time)

What? Most were well educated. In the fields of languages, history, and philosophy probably better educated than most of our politicians today. How many politicians today learn French, Greek, and Latin?

For the time they were, but lots has changed.

They'd still be well educated even by today's standards. You have seen the kind of morons the US schools system is pumping out, haven't you?

Many can barely read the Declare of Independence, much less write such a document.

lots has changed

[Typical myopic view].

fixed

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

I seriously hope you're joking. Several of the US' founding fathers were the founders of some of what remain the best institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only could many of them read, write, and speak three or more languages, they were also more articulate in each of those languages than nearly anyone alive today -- you would be very hard-pressed to find their equal with that knowledge today. Their grasps on very deep philosophical concepts, their appreciation for the arts, and their understanding of their history, were beyond that of most post-graduate students today.

The only subjects they would struggle with are those that have been invented or discovered since their time, and I hardly believe they would struggle for long. Of course advanced mathematics, physics, computing, and other modern technological marvels would beyond their immediate comprehension; but, they certainly possessed the ability to reason, and the intellect, to grasp such advanced concepts, and to do so very quickly.

But, most importantly, their deep-rooted commitment to learning, beginning at a very early age, and their lifelong work toward the advancement of all mankind, are nearly unmatched in the modern era. That fact alone would place them head and shoulders above most persons alive today -- and certainly most young students. Most young students today don't go to school because they want to, they do so because they have to.

There are some very good reasons why the 18th century is referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, and the founding fathers were a product of that Age and those reasons.

Perhaps you're just bitter because they also handily wooped your British arses?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

I seriously hope you're joking. Several of the US' founding fathers were the founders of some of what remain the best institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only could many of them read, write, and speak three or more languages, they were also more articulate in each of those languages than nearly anyone alive today -- you would be very hard-pressed to find their equal with that knowledge today. Their grasps on very deep philosophical concepts, their appreciation for the arts, and their understanding of their history, were beyond that of most graduate students today.

The only subjects they would struggle with are those that have been invented or discovered since their time, and I hardly believe they would struggle for long. Of course advanced mathematics, physics, computing, and other modern technological marvels would beyond their immediate comprehension; but, they certainly possessed the ability to reason, and the intellect, to grasp such advanced concepts very quickly.

But, most importantly, their deep-rooted commitment to learning, beginning at a very early age, and their work toward the advancement of mankind, are nearly unmatched in the modern era. That fact alone would place them head and shoulders above most persons alive today -- and certainly most young students. Most young students today don't go to school because they want to, they do so because they have to.

There are some very good reasons why the 18th century is referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, and the founding fathers were a product of that Age.

I am not joking at all, they were uneducated by todays standards and most of them were both unempthic and unintelligent, they couldn't have driven a small farm nor worked in a small factory in this day and age.

By the standards set them they were good, by todays standards, they'd be rubbish.

And no, they were not particularily articulate in ANY language, there have been a LOT of people before and after that have been a lot more articulate in a lot more languages, it's ridiculous to try to hold them up to a level as if they could even compete in a debate with the average college student today in ANY language.

Three languages is standard in third grade in Europe, so ok, maybe third grade then.

And no, i'm not bitter because the FRENCH handed us our arses.

In fact, i really don't even give a fuck about how you abandoned us in WWII until you had to go to war because you were declared war upon and attacked, a pity the russians and us had to fix the most for you so they wouldn't even be able to actually attack you from shore, isn't it?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

I seriously hope you're joking. Several of the US' founding fathers were the founders of some of what remain the best institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only could many of them read, write, and speak three or more languages, they were also more articulate in each of those languages than nearly anyone alive today -- you would be very hard-pressed to find their equal with that knowledge today. Their grasps on very deep philosophical concepts, their appreciation for the arts, and their understanding of their history, were beyond that of most graduate students today.

The only subjects they would struggle with are those that have been invented or discovered since their time, and I hardly believe they would struggle for long. Of course advanced mathematics, physics, computing, and other modern technological marvels would beyond their immediate comprehension; but, they certainly possessed the ability to reason, and the intellect, to grasp such advanced concepts very quickly.

But, most importantly, their deep-rooted commitment to learning, beginning at a very early age, and their work toward the advancement of mankind, are nearly unmatched in the modern era. That fact alone would place them head and shoulders above most persons alive today -- and certainly most young students. Most young students today don't go to school because they want to, they do so because they have to.

There are some very good reasons why the 18th century is referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, and the founding fathers were a product of that Age.

I am not joking at all, they were uneducated by todays standards and most of them were both unempthic and unintelligent, they couldn't have driven a small farm nor worked in a small factory in this day and age.

By the standards set them they were good, by todays standards, they'd be rubbish.

And no, they were not particularily articulate in ANY language, there have been a LOT of people before and after that have been a lot more articulate in a lot more languages, it's ridiculous to try to hold them up to a level as if they could even compete in a debate with the average college student today in ANY language.

Three languages is standard in third grade in Europe, so ok, maybe third grade then.

And no, i'm not bitter because the FRENCH handed us our arses.

In fact, i really don't even give a fuck about how you abandoned us in WWII until you had to go to war because you were declared war upon and attacked, a pity the russians and us had to fix the most for you so they wouldn't even be able to actually attack you from shore, isn't it?

LOL! :laugh: yep, you're definitely still bitter. You're also so full of shit that I can smell you from here -- which is quite impressive considering just how bad Iraq smells these days.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: sandorski
They wouldn't be the same People at all. In fact, they'd be some of the Poorest Educated in the Country. They were Great back then, but don't really mount to much in todays terms. (assuming you mean Born/Raised in current Time)

What? Most were well educated. In the fields of languages, history, and philosophy probably better educated than most of our politicians today. How many politicians today learn French, Greek, and Latin?

For the time they were, but lots has changed.

They'd still be well educated even by today's standards. You have seen the kind of morons the US schools system is pumping out, haven't you?

Many can barely read the Declare of Independence, much less write such a document.

lots has changed

[Typical myopic view].

fixed

Brain freeze has set in already? I didn't realize it was already winter in Canadialand.

 

[spidey07]

It's an interesting question but absolutely they could. Yes the means of communicating are like comparing a moth's butt to a nation on fire. You also have to understand today we aren't fleeing and building a land, we are fleeing from it, from the inside. This is the power given to us from our founding fathers and The Constitution.

So yes, they can, and we are.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

I seriously hope you're joking. Several of the US' founding fathers were the founders of some of what remain the best institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only could many of them read, write, and speak three or more languages, they were also more articulate in each of those languages than nearly anyone alive today -- you would be very hard-pressed to find their equal with that knowledge today. Their grasps on very deep philosophical concepts, their appreciation for the arts, and their understanding of their history, were beyond that of most graduate students today.

The only subjects they would struggle with are those that have been invented or discovered since their time, and I hardly believe they would struggle for long. Of course advanced mathematics, physics, computing, and other modern technological marvels would beyond their immediate comprehension; but, they certainly possessed the ability to reason, and the intellect, to grasp such advanced concepts very quickly.

But, most importantly, their deep-rooted commitment to learning, beginning at a very early age, and their work toward the advancement of mankind, are nearly unmatched in the modern era. That fact alone would place them head and shoulders above most persons alive today -- and certainly most young students. Most young students today don't go to school because they want to, they do so because they have to.

There are some very good reasons why the 18th century is referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, and the founding fathers were a product of that Age.

I am not joking at all, they were uneducated by todays standards and most of them were both unempthic and unintelligent, they couldn't have driven a small farm nor worked in a small factory in this day and age.

By the standards set them they were good, by todays standards, they'd be rubbish.

And no, they were not particularily articulate in ANY language, there have been a LOT of people before and after that have been a lot more articulate in a lot more languages, it's ridiculous to try to hold them up to a level as if they could even compete in a debate with the average college student today in ANY language.

Three languages is standard in third grade in Europe, so ok, maybe third grade then.

And no, i'm not bitter because the FRENCH handed us our arses.

In fact, i really don't even give a fuck about how you abandoned us in WWII until you had to go to war because you were declared war upon and attacked, a pity the russians and us had to fix the most for you so they wouldn't even be able to actually attack you from shore, isn't it?

LOL! :laugh: yep, you're definitely still bitter. You're also so full of shit that I can smell you from here -- which is quite impressive considering just how bad Iraq smells these days.

No, son, i am not bitter about that shit, i really am not, i'm more surprised at how extremely uneducated the average American is about their own history, but i guess it's like China and Japan, they don't teach things for a reason, to raise patriots and out of shame.

You are in Iraq? What unit? I just got back from Afghanistan and i was in the first unit to ever enter Iraq.

And since the area you are in smells like shit (which Iraq didn't when i was there, must have been you stinking up the place) i can only guess that you and the rest of your easy going buddies who get a shower a day and drink beer for a living have tasted the local cuisine and shat your pants?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

The only Founding Father Ron Paul remotely resembles in practice or spirit is Thomas Jefferson. In fact, he likely would have sided with the South during the Civil War by backing Jefferson Davis. Paul is fringe in any generation.

Considering the status-quo, "fringe" doesn't necessarily equate to something negative.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

The only Founding Father Ron Paul remotely resembles in practice or spirit is Thomas Jefferson. In fact, he likely would have sided with the South during the Civil War by backing Jefferson Davis. Paul is fringe in any generation.

Considering the status-quo, "fringe" doesn't necessarily equate to something negative.

In this case it does.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

The only Founding Father Ron Paul remotely resembles in practice or spirit is Thomas Jefferson. In fact, he likely would have sided with the South during the Civil War by backing Jefferson Davis. Paul is fringe in any generation.

Considering the status-quo, "fringe" doesn't necessarily equate to something negative.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't to anybody who appreciates how truly fucked up the status quo is. Apparently, you enjoy the current system.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

The only Founding Father Ron Paul remotely resembles in practice or spirit is Thomas Jefferson. In fact, he likely would have sided with the South during the Civil War by backing Jefferson Davis. Paul is fringe in any generation.

Considering the status-quo, "fringe" doesn't necessarily equate to something negative.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't to anybody who appreciates how truly fucked up the status quo is. Apparently, you enjoy the current system.

No I don't, I just know the difference between status quo, reasonable change from the status quo, and batshit crazy fringe ideologues like Ron Paul.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/

clipped

This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "it looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."

For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is all of that sane, normal, and serious?

And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet still deemed "serious."

That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.

And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.

Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.

This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms.

Under the right circumstances, enforcement of norms might have some utility. Where things are going relatively well, and the country has a healthy political dialogue, perhaps there isn't much of a need to expand the scope of ideas that we consider "normal." Having all the people whose views fit comfortably in the mainstream stigmatize as "fruitcakes" all those whose views are outside of the mainstream might, under those happy circumstances, bear little cost.

But our country isn't doing all that well right now. Our political dialogue isn't really vibrant or healthy. It seems rather self-evident that it is preferable to enlarge the scope of ideas that we consider and to expand the debates that we engage. The "norms" that have prevailed over the last six years have led the country quite astray and are in need of fundamental re-examination, at the very least. That a political figure (or pundit) clings loyally to prevailing norms isn't exactly evidence of their worth, let alone their mental health. The contrary proposition might actually be more plausible.

There is something disorienting about watching the same people who cheered much of this on, or who will enthusiastically support for President a candidate who enabled and cheered much of it on, trying to constrict debate by labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" those who have most aggressively opposed it all. As the debates of 2002 should have proved rather conclusively, the arguments that are deemed to be the province of the weirdos and losers may actually be the ideas that are right. They at least deserve an honest airing, especially in a presidential campaign with as much at stake as this one.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

lol ron paul is nothing like the founding fathers

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
One need only to read what they wrote at the time to realize that they were easily better educated than 99% of today's population; or, more accurately, they better understood what they learned.

If you want to live in that belief then go right ahead, but any sane human being knows that it's not true, according to todays standards they wouldn't pass second grade.

I seriously hope you're joking. Several of the US' founding fathers were the founders of some of what remain the best institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only could many of them read, write, and speak three or more languages, they were also more articulate in each of those languages than nearly anyone alive today -- you would be very hard-pressed to find their equal with that knowledge today. Their grasps on very deep philosophical concepts, their appreciation for the arts, and their understanding of their history, were beyond that of most graduate students today.

The only subjects they would struggle with are those that have been invented or discovered since their time, and I hardly believe they would struggle for long. Of course advanced mathematics, physics, computing, and other modern technological marvels would beyond their immediate comprehension; but, they certainly possessed the ability to reason, and the intellect, to grasp such advanced concepts very quickly.

But, most importantly, their deep-rooted commitment to learning, beginning at a very early age, and their work toward the advancement of mankind, are nearly unmatched in the modern era. That fact alone would place them head and shoulders above most persons alive today -- and certainly most young students. Most young students today don't go to school because they want to, they do so because they have to.

There are some very good reasons why the 18th century is referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, and the founding fathers were a product of that Age.

I am not joking at all, they were uneducated by todays standards and most of them were both unempthic and unintelligent, they couldn't have driven a small farm nor worked in a small factory in this day and age.

By the standards set them they were good, by todays standards, they'd be rubbish.

And no, they were not particularily articulate in ANY language, there have been a LOT of people before and after that have been a lot more articulate in a lot more languages, it's ridiculous to try to hold them up to a level as if they could even compete in a debate with the average college student today in ANY language.

Three languages is standard in third grade in Europe, so ok, maybe third grade then.

And no, i'm not bitter because the FRENCH handed us our arses.

In fact, i really don't even give a fuck about how you abandoned us in WWII until you had to go to war because you were declared war upon and attacked, a pity the russians and us had to fix the most for you so they wouldn't even be able to actually attack you from shore, isn't it?

this post is incredibly stupid, except the bolded

 

[First]

"For the most part, all acts of violence are handled by state law...So therefore I think they [the state] should deal with this issue." - Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8)

Indicate all principles you support concerning abortion.
a) Abortions should always be legally available.
b) Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of pregnancy.
c) Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape or when the life of the woman is endangered.
X d) Abortions should be legal only when the life of the woman is endangered.
X e) Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government.
X f) Abortions should always be illegal.
g) Other
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#408

Illegal Immigration

Paul believes that mandated hospital treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship. He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship," and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.

...

"Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America". - Ron Paul

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#863
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...orders_and_immigration

?We should take our marching orders from our Constitution". - Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQZeK6pKfOo).

Ron Paul: I think there is confusion on interpreting the 14th amendment. It says if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States you have a right to citizenship if you're born here.

Interviewer: OK? but that's in there [holds up Constitution].

Ron Paul: Yes but it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction [of the United States]? There's a question on that and I want to clarify it. - Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM

Key Vote
(How all members voted)

Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan

Bill Number: H J Res 64
Date: 2001-09-14
Sponsor: Rep. Armey, Richard [TX-26]
Roll Call: 0342
Joint Resolution Adopted (House)

State District Name Party Vote
AK At-Large Representative
Donald E. 'Don' Young Republican Y
AL Challenger
Earl F. Hilliard Democrat Y
AL Governor
Robert R. 'Bob' Riley Republican Y
AL 2 Representative
Terry Everett Republican Y
AL 4 Representative

....

Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul Republican Y
http://www.votesmart.org/issue...member.php?cs_id=V3064

Principled? Just another politician.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The politician who'd best fit in among them that is known and comes to my mind would be Ron Paul.

How does society see him?

Actually, most Americans still don't know who he is.

Ron who????