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

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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

the post or the poster...or both???

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

Typical emotional liberal. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he doesn't have principles.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So, are men like the founding fathers even around today? Could they rise to power? Would they stick around with the media on their backs?

[Edit: How did my OP get an older time-stamp than a reply?]

No, accountability isn't hip these days.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 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

the post or the poster...or both???

Both?

 

[jonks]

They'd probably be hated since they were mostly lawyers.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
They were militants who rebelled against the mother country, almost bound to fail and die.

They were terrorists by today's definition.

They specifically targeted and killed civilians?

I would suggest their methods and intentions were different than terrorism.

No, but they targeted property (like the Boston Tea Party). When environmentalists do that today they are called terrorists.

 

[Vic]

The idol worship of the founding fathers on internet message boards never ceases to amaze me. They were great men for the most part, no doubt of that. Jefferson is IMO one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, they were not visionaries, but pragmatists, most of whom would have likely succeeded in any society they lived in. And they were NEVER of one opinion or even ideal. Hell, most of the letters between them were filled with more animosity and nasty partisanship than is in ATPN (albeit their letters were much more eloquently written). That's the beauty of America. It wasn't born of an idealistic single-minded group, but of bitter disagreement between distrustful rivals who were pragmatic enough to know that they had to work together to free themselves and bet their lives to that cause. That's why America works.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
The idol worship of the founding fathers on internet message boards never ceases to amaze me. They were great men for the most part, no doubt of that. Jefferson is IMO one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, they were not visionaries, but pragmatists, most of whom would have likely succeeded in any society they lived in. And they were NEVER of one opinion or even ideal. Hell, most of the letters between them were filled with more animosity and nasty partisanship than is in ATPN (albeit their letters were much more eloquently written). That's the beauty of America. It wasn't born of an idealistic single-minded group, but of bitter disagreement between distrustful rivals who were pragmatic enough to know that they had to work together to free themselves and bet their lives to that cause. That's why America works.

And that understanding of their differing ideas for rule led them to institute a minimalist federal government with specific limits set forth in one of its founding documents.

So now that the Constitution has been shit on by every politician since it was written, what next?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
They were militants who rebelled against the mother country, almost bound to fail and die.

They were terrorists by today's definition.

They specifically targeted and killed civilians?

I would suggest their methods and intentions were different than terrorism.

No, but they targeted property (like the Boston Tea Party). When environmentalists do that today they are called terrorists.

Yeah, and the people who call them terrorists are absolutely brain-dead, so where was your point?