jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (42 posts)

Is it smart to follow the advice of 250 year old men?

  1. profile image0
    Mtbailzposted 5 years ago

    I mean the founding fathers of course. Granted they were smart. Granted they created a political document that has lasted some time now. Granted many understood philosophy and human nature. But, times have changed, and just as I don't take advice from my grandfather about my computer, we should be careful in how we approach the advice of these old white men. Or should we?

    1. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that survival is based on how well any entity can adapt to change.  I don't care if it is animal, vegetable, or mineral.  If you are making reference to the constitution, I believe it should be modified to be appropriate and adapted for modern times. It should include something about the internet and modifications to the 2nd Amendment.  The founding fathers were great visonaries, but I don't believe that they could envison the world we live in today or the near future.

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well it's good to know someone out there realizes just how wrongheaded those old white men were. After all old white men are what is wrong with society on a global scale. The data bears that out does it not?

      What is the consensus of the non-white old men about what path we should now take?
      A non-white one obviously.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If you think their created "political document" has "lasted some time now", then you must not realize what the Civil War was fought over.

      1. profile image0
        Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I know what it was fought over. It was fought over two differing ideas about where the country should be going. The north and strong national government won out.

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What do you mean? The cause was the national divide over the slavery issue, not the Constitution. What do you think it was fought over? And how does that relate to the Constitution? Are you a civil war scholar?

        And since it is still our, (American), founding document - it has endured. Did you think it had been re-released, like, Constitution 2.0?

        GA

    4. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, there are people who adhere to the advice of 2,000 to 4,000 year old men i.e. Jesus and biblical prophets of the Old and New Testaments.

    5. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think we should toss that tired old document out and let you write a new one. I mean wow you write on hubpages you must be up to the task.

      1. profile image0
        Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Lovely insult, although it's ironic that I technically know more than the founding fathers. We all do actually, considering the education we receive by Middle School (especially science) would have blown the doors off their ancient belief systems.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You write goodly.

    6. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is hard to say if we should change anything in the Constitution only to have to revisit it when the opinion of the country changes. Look at the 18th amendment to the constitution that enforced prohibition of alchohol. This by many religious groups starting in the nineteenth century up till 1920. The law was a horrible failure and was repealed in 1933 by the twenty first amendment.

      With this current group of rascals and bought politicians in charge now, I can only shudder to think what a big money donator could achieve if he were able to unify all the whores on the hill to vote one way using the thing they all crave like lifesblood itself. Money!

      On the other hand in a perfect world I think that if you had true representatives of the electorate the changing or amending things in the constitution would be perfectly fine. I even think that if Franklin and Jefferson time traveled into the future till now they would be dissapointed no progress or changes were made to better suit the citizenry.

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    They were genius... they set up a system, not to address every possible potential issue, but to address the common problems that happen in government. They gave us a system that could keep us from tyranny, and allow the people to carve out their own future. They gave us a system that can adapt, we're not stuck with what they thought was best to do, we're just using the principles of a free society they laid out for us.

  3. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    I'm sorry folks but that was just about the most racist thing I have heard from someone who obviously is concerned about racism.

    1. KBEvolve profile image78
      KBEvolveposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What is this in response to?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The OP, I assume, and if so I completely agree.

        I would also add there is little reason to reply to such obvious racism, or consider what was said as having much value.  The first because if my reply isn't just as racist it will be ignored or attacked, the second because anything said will be heavily laced with racism, in which I'm not interested.

    2. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Racist, how so?

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    What is really crazy, is we still use a system of thinking that was developed, what, nearly 2,000 years ago?

    We should stop using logic, because it's old.

    1. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      logic and the founding fathers are like comparing apples and oranges. I hope by using your own logic, you can figure this out.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Your argument is that a framework that was established a long time ago probably isn't relevant anymore.

        Logic is a framework for thinking developed thousands of years ago.

        The Constitutino is a framework for government...

        Can you see the relation?

        Just because something is old doesn't make it bad or wrong.

        1. profile image0
          Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Sort of, but logic has many elements that have been added throughout the years. So the 2000 year old logic is actually much different than the one we use today. It's more complicated than Socrates and the other original western philosophers could imagine. Unlike logic, the constitution (which in itself is more complicated than simple logic) has not changed all that much.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Not really. Logic is just a framework for deducing truth through inference.

            As time goes on, people apply inference to new situations, and our understanding grows. The framework itself hasn't changed much.

            The Constitution is a framework for the operation of government. The rules and laws change, but the constitution hasn't changed much. It's a framework for dealing with the interface of government and society.

          2. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            huh? Logic has changed? Care to expound on that?
            GA

  5. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Luckily, we have a body of nine Supreme Court justices, which includes not only white men, but a black dude and some chicks (even a latina chica) whose job it is to keep the Constitution real and relevant for today.
    smile

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You are clearly racist against whites, blacks, latinos(as), and women.

      That's right, you are racist against women. What now MM?

      big_smile

      1. Mighty Mom profile image88
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You know it, Jaxson!
        It matters not the color of their skin or the shape of their private parts.
        If they are in a position of authority, I am ragingly RACIST against them!

        That includes the Pope, POTUS, Congress, IRS, all branches of the military, police, state agencies (especially DMV), local government, crossing guards, librarians, and last but not least, the president of my HOA.
        smile

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You left me off the list.

          I'm secretly the head of the NWO, and the Illuminati(you might think they are the same, they aren't).

          I'm also the head of the ASPCA, which is a front for nefarious schemes.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image88
            Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Right. I am racist against you. How clever to make me "think" my racist reaction was because your name includes both an "x" and an "s" when really, that's just a minor surface issue!

            Would you like me to include those job titles in my petition defending you against charges of socialism?

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Lol, I wouldn't do that. Jokes are bad business to some people.

              I had someone tell me that if I said, on debate.org "Changing my ideology to Socialist ranks me in the top 10 socialist on the site" qualifies as a lie, by claiming to be a socialist when I'm not.

              I would hate to include any more 'lies' in the petition.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image88
                Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                If the site is debate.org, I would assume the ability to argue a point or point of view while not necessarily believing personally in the point or espousing the point of view would be perceived as a plus.
                In other words, you don't have to be a socialist to argue like one and score like one on the site.

                I can comfortably include 6 lies in the petition. Anything more than that and the lies begin to cancel each other out and you end up with the truth.
                And we certainly wouldn't want THAT!
                lol

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  What about 6 lies and a half-truth or misquote?

                2. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
                  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Shock! Horror Mighty Mom!!! I am also appalled at your racist comments against commas. Witnessed right here in this forum!!!! shame on you!!!!

        2. American View profile image55
          American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I love it when MM gets raging smile

    2. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The problem Mighty Mom is the founding fathers would have never voted a woman, black man, and especially a Latino woman to the Supreme Court.

  6. Bob Zermop profile image86
    Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago

    Interesting question. At least personally, I try not to follow anything on blind faith - and that includes our Constitution. Certainly the Constitutution wasn't and isn't "perfect". However, if you have some understanding of political science and human nature, you can build up to the many of the conclusions the Founding Fathers made, most of which have proved astounding spot-on over the course of the past 250 years. I'm no blind patriot when I say the Constitution is an incredible document, and the thinking behind it, 2 and a half centuries ago, is mind-blowingly clear.

    But clearly several of it's ideals have turned out to be wrong-headed. Examples obviously include civil rights for people of color and women. However, the Founding Fathers acknowledged their limits by making the Constitution a living document, flexible enough to adapt with the world while resistant enough to change to make us double-check we know what we're doing. So far I'd say it's done a damn good job.

    So should we respect the advice of the men who've given us a foundation that's proven almost rock-solid for over 2 centuries? Hell yes. But should we worship them as gods and pretend they were omniscient? Hell no.

    1. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the response. I'd agree the founders were "spot-on" with some of there ideas. For instance, separation of power....genius! However, with a more nationalized society and economy and might be smart to do the same thing with the government. Keep states, but redefine their power. Constrain to crime and punishment and let the national government regulate large scale corporations.

      1. Bob Zermop profile image86
        Bob Zermopposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm no economist, but from my understanding the national gov already controls the regulation of large corporations. In any case, though, I would say that states' rights are an important part of the separation of powers, and I'd also say that erring on the side of a bit too diffuse is better than having the government be too centralized.

        1. profile image0
          Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          That is part of what they do but many States have their own regulations. I can see it as a seperated powers issue though.

  7. aware profile image67
    awareposted 5 years ago

    Constitutional  Amendment .
    You ever ruin a question with two words?
    Like "white men"?

    1. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well they were white. When's the last time you read about the nation's black founding father? Constitutional amendments are great, but they are only band-aid fixes.

  8. aware profile image67
    awareposted 5 years ago

    white and black are not skin tones!

  9. aware profile image67
    awareposted 5 years ago

    and all nations fall.

  10. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 5 years ago

    Many in current government leadership positions are causing grave damage to the nation’s citizens by generating a large tyrannical conglomerate that diminishes the ability for hard-working citizens to seek the American Dream.  Every aspect of the American lifestyle is being threatened as big-government establishes big-brother policy that dictates the substance of thought and deed. 
    This is true in the educational system, economic arena, healthcare decrees, selective bailouts, crushing debt, and corrupt political machine.  The vision of the American landscape is being plowed as if all personal desires are to be directed by the federal government.  While security and stability support by government is a desire for all citizens; personal choice of career, healthcare, substance, housing, enterprise, and economic condition are still considered as a person’s private choice.   
    Recently the U.S. Army has generated and distributed an operational vision that suggests a need to prepare to confront persistent global conflict that will lead to armed engagement with citizens of the USA conducting terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.  This operational scenario is obviously a result of radical thought leading to an evaluation concerning the recent escalation of terrorist activity being confronted at many military installations and federal sites. 
    The conclusion of this vision is that there are many factions within the USA that present a grave potential threat to the security of the nation.  This assessment by the Army evaluators provides a single-sided biased perception that leads the reader to believe that Conservative focused individuals will enrage a race-war within the nation much like the Confederate States did prior to the Civil War.  However, this misguided attempt to define the chaos currently witnessed within the nation is just another example of the partisan thinking that is plaguing the nation. 
    The largest important factor that this distorted vision overlooks is the radical political disrespect that is currently plaguing the USA.  Political marauding bandits in the USA have escalated anti-establishment rage, race-war, class-war, and immoral campaigning to derailing levels within the society creating crackpot operatives who independently summon terror-tactics for battle. 
    These prowling crackpots have observed that recently elected politicians and judicial officials within the three pillars have made a mockery of the establishment because the plundering politicians disregard the Constitution and all that it stands for.  This grave pandemic decline in moral leadership has produced a “civil-war” vengeance within some citizens that has led to ultimate self-destruction sickness and a national immoral paradox.  The infectious moral decline has resulted in a dire infestation of inflamed-madness leading to perpetual degradation of the freedom foundation purposefully provided by the U.S. Constitution.       
    While it is easy to see that these internal clandestine operations are being thrust upon the USA citizenry, it is difficult to abate their actions due to the abnormal immoral attitudes of some of the citizens.  The crackpot decadent agendas also produce a stealthy wall-of-deceit that is not easily penetrated due to the level of socialist propaganda being deployed.  Therefore, it is imperative that this detrimental political madness must end, or it will surely be the end of the USA.
    The American Dream will soon become a Nightmare if we disregard the structured balance of the Constitution.

 
working