In response to:

The Role of 'Educators'

eddie again Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:41 PM
the u.s.a. was never going to last until the end of mankind. the u.s. constitution has been proven to have too many flaws to be considered a blueprint for future generations. we are where we are in the world today with the u.s. constitution in force. let that record speak for itself.
Roy323 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:12 PM
EDDIE again-SORRY, but I cannot even dignify your 1:41 posting with a response!
eddie again Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:55 PM
sorry roy, did not mean to upset anyone.

but, like they say. the proof is in the pudding.

does the constitution allow the federal government to pick favorites? i would answer that no.

does the federal government pick favorites? i would answer that yes.

any government that sides with one segment of its citizenry over another is a failed government.

the constitution has many great concepts and mechanisms. however, any human created organization is going to have weaknesses and flaws. the unscrupulous will work continuously to identify and exploit those flaws. the unscrupulous have spent over 200 years doing that to the constitution.

i see no reason why, using the lessons learned, we cannot create a better constitution
eddie again Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:58 PM

you say you have attained a senior age, is it your experience that america has become more free and more prosperous throughout your life?

also, is there a good reason to believe that the constitution is an end product?
eddie again Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 4:03 PM
even those who wrote the constitution acknowledged it had significant limitations. the most significant being that it would only work for a moral and virtuous citizenry.

does that not suggest that the unscrupulous have a blueprint for avoiding the controls contained in the constitution? that blueprint being to make the citizenry immoral and unvirtuous.

interestingly, the unscrupulous used the flaws of the constitution to undermine the morality and virtue of the people.

how? by using lawyers and graft to encourage the supreme court to begin re-defining words. once a court takes upon itself the power to change the definition of a word, law has no anchor. examples of this abound.
Rich D. Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:06 PM
One can state that, but can it be supported? The US Constitution has provision for amendments, does it not? Some of them need to go.
Milt37 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:54 PM

Do you realize your posts border on either mental illness or dementia.

And, as a proud American, you'd better start using capital letters when typing USA or US Constitution!
Many years ago, as a young man, I read a very interesting book about the rise of the Communists to power in China. In the last chapter, the author tried to explain why and how this had happened.

Among the factors he cited were the country's educators. That struck me as odd, and not very plausible, at the time. But the passing years have made that seem less and less odd, and more and more plausible. Today, I see our own educators playing a similar role in creating a mindset that undermines American society.

Schools were once thought of as places where a...