Every once in a while, I run across something on the web that stops me in my tracks. Jon McNaughton's painting of The Forgotten Man could be the most powerful commentary on the state of our country that I have ever seen. Take your time and examine it closely. See if it moves you as well.
It sucks big time...hits too close to home...hurts too much...and having that jerk stand there with our Founders obviously pleading with him is is is is ... well really bad...the artist is obviously quite good and hit a brainstorm with this one...will no doubt hit a history book somewhere unless they completely take over...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
Nice video with dramatic music. McNaughton gets an A+ for creativity and a D for knowledge of history! Once again someone hides behind the Founding Fathers, the elite of their day, to push their own opinion. That's why someone said: "History is not about the past, it's not even about the present, it's about the future. He who writes the history controls the future." That's the object of McNaughton's piece, and it's nothing new. The fact is the Founding Fathers are all dead and wouldn't have a clue about what we face today, the same is true of us if by chance we were transported to an America some 400 years hence. Finally which Founding Father does MacNaughton purport to follow, since they rarely unanimously agreed on any issue, and often when they did, some said one thing and did another. Not to mention over time their views changed, at least according to what some wrote. So what do you follow what one said originally or did or said later? Which was the original moment?
It seems that the louder one screams about following the Constitution, the more we can conclude that actually they don't believe in the Constitution. If put to a vote as is, the "follow the Constitution" crowd would be the first ones to vote no on ratification.
To be fair, the Constitution as it is with all its amendments would not stand one scintilla of a chance of ratification today! Have you ever noticed how people say well I agree with this or that, BUT! The BUTs would carry the day, since everyone seems to have a BUT!
Gat6
Quote of the day: "Always wrap your opinion with the cloak of the mythical Founding Fathers"
gatlingun6 wrote:It seems that the louder one screams about following the Constitution, the more we can conclude that actually they don't believe in the Constitution. If put to a vote as is, the "follow the Constitution" crowd would be the first ones to vote no on ratification.
This sounds like a job for...
"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."
It sucks big time...hits too close to home...hurts too much...and having that jerk stand there with our Founders obviously pleading with him is is is is ... well really bad...the artist is obviously quite good and hit a brainstorm with this one...will no doubt hit a history book somewhere unless they completely take over...
Our Founders? Would you care to name them? Funny how today people speak of the so-called Founders, I say so-called because I'm still waiting for someone to unequivocally state that "Founders" is inclusive of ... ? It's a good thing that early Americans did not elevate the so-called Founders to deity status as some do today. George Washington was of course the only exception since he was truly revered by most. If they had not seen the Founders for what they were, the American Republic would have become what most of the Founders wanted, instead of the different Republic it became only a few short years after ratification. The fact is most Americans didn't buy everything the Founders were selling, and it was their opposition, the people and other forces, that modified those ideas.
In early education a certain amount of national mythology is necessary to the socialization process of good citizens, but gee by the time we are all adults we are supposed to separate myth from reality!
Gat6
When and in what context did Edmund Burke say or write the line about good men doing nothing. This leads to my own quote: "Context is not everything, it's the only thing"
It sucks big time...hits too close to home...hurts too much...and having that jerk stand there with our Founders obviously pleading with him is is is is ... well really bad...the artist is obviously quite good and hit a brainstorm with this one...will no doubt hit a history book somewhere unless they completely take over...
Our Founders? Would you care to name them? Funny how today people speak of the so-called Founders, I say so-called because I'm still waiting for someone to unequivocally state that "Founders" is inclusive of ... ? It's a good thing that early Americans did not elevate the so-called Founders to deity status as some do today. George Washington was of course the only exception since he was truly revered by most. If they had not seen the Founders for what they were, the American Republic would have become what most of the Founders wanted, instead of the different Republic it became only a few short years after ratification. The fact is most Americans didn't buy everything the Founders were selling, and it was their opposition, the people and other forces, that modified those ideas.
In early education a certain amount of national mythology is necessary to the socialization process of good citizens, but gee by the time we are all adults we are supposed to separate myth from reality!
Gat6
When and in what context did Edmund Burke say or write the line about good men doing nothing. This leads to my own quote: "Context is not everything, it's the only thing"
Looks like someone attended early education in Kalifornia and never broke out of their mythology as an adult...
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gatlingun6 wrote:Nice video with dramatic music. McNaughton gets an A+ for creativity and a D for knowledge of history! Once again someone hides behind the Founding Fathers, the elite of their day, to push their own opinion. That's why someone said: "History is not about the past, it's not even about the present, it's about the future. He who writes the history controls the future." That's the object of McNaughton's piece, and it's nothing new. The fact is the Founding Fathers are all dead and wouldn't have a clue about what we face today, the same is true of us if by chance we were transported to an America some 400 years hence. Finally which Founding Father does MacNaughton purport to follow, since they rarely unanimously agreed on any issue, and often when they did, some said one thing and did another. Not to mention over time their views changed, at least according to what some wrote. So what do you follow what one said originally or did or said later? Which was the original moment?
It seems that the louder one screams about following the Constitution, the more we can conclude that actually they don't believe in the Constitution. If put to a vote as is, the "follow the Constitution" crowd would be the first ones to vote no on ratification.
To be fair, the Constitution as it is with all its amendments would not stand one scintilla of a chance of ratification today! Have you ever noticed how people say well I agree with this or that, BUT! The BUTs would carry the day, since everyone seems to have a BUT!
Gat6
Quote of the day: "Always wrap your opinion with the cloak of the mythical Founding Fathers"
Yes, the Constitution would not pass today because some American's (like Jim) think it is way to restrictive on the benevolent government and others understand that perhaps we gave the federal government too much power as it was. After all, it was the Constitution that gave us the structure we have today. That structure, plus evil men and lazy citizens, and today's outcome was guaranteed.
A lot of people seem to be questioning if the Federal Government is doing more harm than good and if that is the case, do we really need them?
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gatlingun6 wrote:Nice video with dramatic music. McNaughton gets an A+ for creativity and a D for knowledge of history! Once again someone hides behind the Founding Fathers, the elite of their day, to push their own opinion. That's why someone said: "History is not about the past, it's not even about the present, it's about the future. He who writes the history controls the future." That's the object of McNaughton's piece, and it's nothing new. The fact is the Founding Fathers are all dead and wouldn't have a clue about what we face today, the same is true of us if by chance we were transported to an America some 400 years hence. Finally which Founding Father does MacNaughton purport to follow, since they rarely unanimously agreed on any issue, and often when they did, some said one thing and did another. Not to mention over time their views changed, at least according to what some wrote. So what do you follow what one said originally or did or said later? Which was the original moment?
It seems that the louder one screams about following the Constitution, the more we can conclude that actually they don't believe in the Constitution. If put to a vote as is, the "follow the Constitution" crowd would be the first ones to vote no on ratification.
To be fair, the Constitution as it is with all its amendments would not stand one scintilla of a chance of ratification today! Have you ever noticed how people say well I agree with this or that, BUT! The BUTs would carry the day, since everyone seems to have a BUT!
Gat6
Quote of the day: "Always wrap your opinion with the cloak of the mythical Founding Fathers"
Yes, the Constitution would not pass today because some American's (like Jim) think it is way to restrictive on the benevolent government and others understand that perhaps we gave the federal government too much power as it was. After all, it was the Constitution that gave us the structure we have today. That structure, plus evil men and lazy citizens, and today's outcome was guaranteed.
A lot of people seem to be questioning if the Federal Government is doing more harm than good and if that is the case, do we really need them?
Sorry there Gunderwood, I don't have a "BUT" when it comes to the Constitution. I would be more than willing to vote yes just as it is, despite the undemocratic nature of several provisions. I'm not willing to sacrifice the good in favor of the perfect. Funny how you think the government is something other than you, me and every other American. I take it from your piece, which is right out of the Anti-Federalist papers, that not only would you vote no today, but if you had been present then you would have also voted no. Are you saying you would have preferred the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution? Concluding that you are an Anti-Federalist is in no way derogatory since a sizable number of voting eligible citizens were also Anti-Federalists. It only points out that you can't logically be for and against the Constitution in the same breathe.
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence: "Today's outcome was guaranteed?" Did you mean today in the sense of this year, this decade, this century or what? Who are these evil men, and lazy citizens, and how do you define evil, and what is a lazy citizen. The Constitution was last amended in 1997, so "today's outcome" is a confusing term in that context, unless you are questioning some recent SCOTUS opinions. In answer to your last question: Of course we need the Federal government. Does anyone have another viable idea?
It sucks big time...hits too close to home...hurts too much...and having that jerk stand there with our Founders obviously pleading with him is is is is ... well really bad...the artist is obviously quite good and hit a brainstorm with this one...will no doubt hit a history book somewhere unless they completely take over...
Our Founders? Would you care to name them? Funny how today people speak of the so-called Founders, I say so-called because I'm still waiting for someone to unequivocally state that "Founders" is inclusive of ... ? It's a good thing that early Americans did not elevate the so-called Founders to deity status as some do today. George Washington was of course the only exception since he was truly revered by most. If they had not seen the Founders for what they were, the American Republic would have become what most of the Founders wanted, instead of the different Republic it became only a few short years after ratification. The fact is most Americans didn't buy everything the Founders were selling, and it was their opposition, the people and other forces, that modified those ideas.
In early education a certain amount of national mythology is necessary to the socialization process of good citizens, but gee by the time we are all adults we are supposed to separate myth from reality!
Gat6
When and in what context did Edmund Burke say or write the line about good men doing nothing. This leads to my own quote: "Context is not everything, it's the only thing"
Dear Jim, not all us are uneducated trailer trash as many of those like you believe. I'll stack my CV against yours any day...including American History...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
gunderwood wrote:That structure, plus evil men and lazy citizens, and today's outcome was guaranteed.
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence: "Today's outcome was guaranteed?" Did you mean today in the sense of this year, this decade, this century or what? Who are these evil men, and lazy citizens, and how do you define evil, and what is a lazy citizen. The Constitution was last amended in 1997, so "today's outcome" is a confusing term in that context, unless you are questioning some recent SCOTUS opinions. In answer to your last question: Of course we need the Federal government. Does anyone have another viable idea?
Gat6
Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Evil men - Those who wish to grab power within our government and wield that power in a way that will gain them more power, thus creating a never-ending cycle of power hungry politicians who will never be happy with the status quo and will use the citizenry against itself to gain more power and influence.
Lazy Citizens - There are two types of lazy citizens: 1) Those who wish to be coddled and taken care of by the government. Standing in the bread line to receive their daily ration, although meager, it's enough to sustain them and they don't have to work for it, so that makes the decision easy for them.
2) Those who sit back and watch the country fall into the depths of lost morality and dignity while not doing anything about it. Refusing to vote in an election because their vote doesn't count or because they're just too lazy, indignant, or flat out don't care enough to do so.
Outcome - A nation that is ruled by those who want the government hand-outs that serve to make the government more powerful. So long as the government gives to the lazy(1), the lazy(1) will continue to vote for them. How does that saying go? ... “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Please visit our 100,000th Post Giveaway Sponsors!
My Arsenal: Armalite M15A2 Ruger 10/22 S&W 4043 .40 Daly 1911 .45 Mossberg 500 12Ga Rem 870 Super Mag Ranger Youth 20Ga Browning Buck Mark .22 Chinese SKS (Circa mid-70's)
VGOF RSS Feed![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss.png "Valid RSS feed")