Replace the Constitution!!!

candycorn

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2009
108,217
39,912
2,250
Deep State Plant.
Took a trip up to the NE over the last two weeks and was able to visit the National Archives to view the founding documents. First, the National Archives, I say, sadly need to be Trumped as is the language these days. The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography), a festival approach to where anyone who is determined enough can literally squat there all day; no time limit or insurance of you getting your 20 minutes to squat there too!!! unless you just want to be as rude as the person in front of you. Moreover, no call from the rent-a-cops there to ensure some decorum.

Once you get to the documents themselves, they are, of course, 200+ years old and look like they have had a very hard life. They need to be re-transcribed and have their more legible replacements put on display while the originals are allowed to be mounted on the wall well out of range of hands or damaging flashbulbs!!!!

And, I don’t know, maybe limit the number of middle schools visiting the NA to something like 50 per day so you can hear yourself think for a few moments.
 
The rules are set in place so that the lowest common denominator of dumb fool can't do damage inadvertently. Thus the no photograph rule. And what's your problem with school kids getting to see these Founding documents? You don't want them to learn anything?
 
Took a trip up to the NE over the last two weeks and was able to visit the National Archives to view the founding documents. First, the National Archives, I say, sadly need to be Trumped as is the language these days. The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography), a festival approach to where anyone who is determined enough can literally squat there all day; no time limit or insurance of you getting your 20 minutes to squat there too!!! unless you just want to be as rude as the person in front of you. Moreover, no call from the rent-a-cops there to ensure some decorum.

Once you get to the documents themselves, they are, of course, 200+ years old and look like they have had a very hard life. They need to be re-transcribed and have their more legible replacements put on display while the originals are allowed to be mounted on the wall well out of range of hands or damaging flashbulbs!!!!

And, I don’t know, maybe limit the number of middle schools visiting the NA to something like 50 per day so you can hear yourself think for a few moments.
Sounds like a pretty frustrating experience. Hope you didn't have to pay $ for it.
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.
 
Took a trip up to the NE over the last two weeks and was able to visit the National Archives to view the founding documents. First, the National Archives, I say, sadly need to be Trumped as is the language these days. The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography), a festival approach to where anyone who is determined enough can literally squat there all day; no time limit or insurance of you getting your 20 minutes to squat there too!!! unless you just want to be as rude as the person in front of you. Moreover, no call from the rent-a-cops there to ensure some decorum.

Once you get to the documents themselves, they are, of course, 200+ years old and look like they have had a very hard life. They need to be re-transcribed and have their more legible replacements put on display while the originals are allowed to be mounted on the wall well out of range of hands or damaging flashbulbs!!!!

And, I don’t know, maybe limit the number of middle schools visiting the NA to something like 50 per day so you can hear yourself think for a few moments.
Sounds like a pretty frustrating experience. Hope you didn't have to pay $ for it.

Its free of charge except for the parking.
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.






Wrong. They are kept in a flat file, in the dark, because that is the best way to protect them. Archival preservation techniques are well known. Just look them up.
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.






Wrong. They are kept in a flat file, in the dark, because that is the best way to protect them. Archival preservation techniques are well known. Just look them up.

Whatever they tried; it failed. They are basically mostly illegible pages at this point. Time to transcribe them into something legible and put the actual documents away—wall, drawer, vaulted drawer, whatever!
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.

hand them on the wall?

How far away from the adoring public should these historical documents be hung?

typewritten copies?

They could, possibly, see those in their history books, no need to make a trip to D.C.

How about artwork?

Should museums replace the Masters with photos?

Replace suits of armor with suits of tin?
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.


I have an idea.

Why don't they just have a sign in the middle of the National Archives with this QR code on it:

4987-1493652967-47d085392a377a83b65902aa0c021fc3.jpg


...so that people like you could use their smartphones to view the US Constitution.
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.

hand them on the wall?

How far away from the adoring public should these historical documents be hung?
10 feet.

typewritten copies?

They could, possibly, see those in their history books, no need to make a trip to D.C.
You could probably come up with a reason or two to visit DC other than the NA

How about artwork?

Should museums replace the Masters with photos?

Replace suits of armor with suits of tin?

If you’re going to display something that is too fragile to be photographed…maybe. Remove the flash photography, have a photographer there to take the picture and sell it to you for $5 at the end of the tour like many other displays are done. Any number of ways you could make it better, more accessible for We The People.
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.


I have an idea.

Why don't they just have a sign in the middle of the National Archives with this QR code on it:

4987-1493652967-47d085392a377a83b65902aa0c021fc3.jpg


...so that people like you could use their smartphones to view the US Constitution.

Had I the foreknowledge of just what a dreadful experience it would have been, I may have stayed in the hotel or spent more time at the Smithsonian.
 
I have another suggestion that candycorn might agree with.

The American flag is such a pain in the ass to manufacture, with all of the damn stars that have to be sewed on. And then the stripes...they are dizzying to look at.

It would be so much more cost effective to just go with a simple blue flag, and nothing else.

And to save money on blue dye, we should go with light blue (either baby or powder).
 
The rules for viewing the documents are stupid (no photography),

In place because the documents are over 200 years old, and extended flashes would have a tendency to harm them.

Yet another reason to put them on a wall, well away from ferocious flashbulbs and have some nice typewritten copies there for all to read and anguish over.


I have an idea.

Why don't they just have a sign in the middle of the National Archives with this QR code on it:

4987-1493652967-47d085392a377a83b65902aa0c021fc3.jpg


...so that people like you could use their smartphones to view the US Constitution.

Had I the foreknowledge of just what a dreadful experience it would have been, I may have stayed in the hotel or spent more time at the Smithsonian.
Or gone down to 14th Street for some "refreshment"...........
 
I have another suggestion that candycorn might agree with.

The American flag is such a pain in the ass to manufacture, with all of the damn stars that have to be sewed on. And then the stripes...they are dizzying to look at.

It would be so much more cost effective to just go with a simple blue flag, and nothing else.

And to save money on blue dye, we should go with light blue (either baby or powder).
Why dye it at all, he could just go with white. :dunno:
 
I have another suggestion that candycorn might agree with.

The American flag is such a pain in the ass to manufacture, with all of the damn stars that have to be sewed on. And then the stripes...they are dizzying to look at.

It would be so much more cost effective to just go with a simple blue flag, and nothing else.

And to save money on blue dye, we should go with light blue (either baby or powder).
Why dye it at all, he could just go with white. :dunno:

That would mean surrender. America never gives up.

(In fact, you need a Master Degress in Latin to understand what "E Pluribus Unum" means. Why don't we change the motto to "America: Never Give Up")
 
e6f8a0d3c90cc0d69105bd2ad040f3e3.jpg


And look at all the money they are wasting on buffing that floor. Should be buffed a MAX of once a month. Anything more is excessive.
 
I have another suggestion that candycorn might agree with.

The American flag is such a pain in the ass to manufacture, with all of the damn stars that have to be sewed on. And then the stripes...they are dizzying to look at.

It would be so much more cost effective to just go with a simple blue flag, and nothing else.

And to save money on blue dye, we should go with light blue (either baby or powder).
Why dye it at all, he could just go with white. :dunno:

That would mean surrender. America never gives up.

(In fact, you need a Master Degress in Latin to understand what "E Pluribus Unum" means. Why don't we change the motto to "America: Never Give Up")
Not a white flag for America but one she can hang personally in her cardboard condo. :dunno:
 
I have another suggestion that candycorn might agree with.

The American flag is such a pain in the ass to manufacture, with all of the damn stars that have to be sewed on. And then the stripes...they are dizzying to look at.

It would be so much more cost effective to just go with a simple blue flag, and nothing else.

And to save money on blue dye, we should go with light blue (either baby or powder).
Why dye it at all, he could just go with white. :dunno:

That would mean surrender. America never gives up.

(In fact, you need a Master Degress in Latin to understand what "E Pluribus Unum" means. Why don't we change the motto to "America: Never Give Up")
Not a white flag for America but one she can hang personally in her cardboard condo. :dunno:

True. Or even a white pillowcase.
 

Forum List

Back
Top