Dear History Buff: I'm a problem solver who's not inclined to give empty opinions. If I had spent as much time reading the words of others as you have, I would not have had time to write the New Constitution. Second to none in the World, I am both smart and analytical to consider the effects of the things I've included from many, many angles. Picking and choosing ideas from others could never have been as efficient as I have been. — John A. Armistead — Patriot > On Feb 10, 10:00 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Of course the Articles were far superior in most ways -- contrary to > > the instilled propaganda. > [B] > [B] MJ, I sense that you are Monday-morning-quarterbacking the > complex organization of our country. You have no concept of the > thousands and thousands of hours of thought and continual revision > that I ve put into writing my New Constitution. Whether you think > there might be something better, is probably just an ego ploy of > yours. Most people know that they could make more logical decisions > than our elected dictators , like Barack Obama. But few people have > a large enough ego to love standing in front to groups making speeches > every day. That s why I ve stipulated that the media not be allowed > contact with Congress in Washington. And I ve declared that no > congressman ever make gratuitous public speeches. The reason? I want > to be sure there is no EGO COMPONENT in those willing to run for > public office. Once possible office seekers realize they won t > constantly be in the public eye, we will start getting more salt-of- > the-earth types who have the knowledge and the character to make sure > our government is fair and optimal for the vast majority of Americans. > Do you always create vast (strawman) arguments for other people? > Whether you spent 5 minutes or 5000 years has no relevance whatsoever > as to the quality (or lack thereof) of your thus far unseen effort. > Your projection does little to aid your cause either. > None of your so-called response has *anything* to do with whether > the Articles of Confederation are indeed superior or inferior to the > US Constitution. > Regard$, > --MJThe power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people > goes to the essence of all political systems. Being defined even by > political scientists as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of > violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise > such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and > respect are in rapid decline. The people employed to carry out such powers > be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various > stripes, etc. are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such > unrestricted violence against others. The state is the playground bully writ > large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable > for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status > that defines their system. -- Butler Shaffer
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
