Hey Sage!! I couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it any better than you!
As a matter of fact, you said much better what I was trying to frame several days ago in the initial thread of which this one has migrated from. Good to see ya! KeithInSeoul On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Sage, I can agree with that !!!! It needs a lot less knee jerk reaction and > a lot more plain english (of the day) reading. > > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey Keith, Mark et al, >> >> Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewritten >> nor changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intent >> and meaning, less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " and >> was not intended to be anything more nor anything less than that. The >> only true recourse the founding fathers wisely gave us was the " >> amendment " and even they should be rare and few. We should not try to >> fix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't need fixing ! >> >> >> ************************************************************************************************************************************ >> >> On Feb 26, 6:31 am, KeithInSeoul <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Greetings from Seoul Korea John! >> > >> > Uhm.....This seems to me, to be, "Much Ado, About Nothing"..... >> > >> > We'd all like to read your "New Constitution"; but if ya don't want to >> > share it with the group, that is your perogative. >> > >> > The purpose of Political Forum is to share political thought, ideas, >> > commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on government, politics, >> world >> > affairs and current events. (And occasionally, pro football and >> > baseball!) Your posts I find sometimes interesting and usually thought >> > provoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting your, "New >> > Constitution". It was never my intent to get a shit storm started! >> > >> > If you take the time to read both Jonathan's and Michael's posts, you >> will >> > find that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the same >> > concerns as you do. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not >> so >> > much a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free market >> > enterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, "free >> > market" versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I also >> > support and subscribe to. Jonathan and Michael are damn near >> anarchists, >> > (and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either would >> agree >> > with me!!) but the point being, is that instead of taking the route of >> many >> > of the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far left, >> (e.g.; >> > the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats) who from time to time and on >> > occasion chime in here; I would like to think that the thoughtful, well >> > reasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have discussion, as >> > well as disagreement with a little more civility! >> > >> > At any rate, have a good Saturday....Mine is almost over! >> > >> > KeithInSeoul >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > MJ: You are NOT wanted on this post! In the last few weeks you've >> > > managed to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your own >> > > breakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts. But you have not >> > > even gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, which >> > > is detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document. >> > > And you obviously have no "Regard$" for anyone but yourself. *** >> > > Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist >> > > government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing >> > > yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist. If it offends >> > > you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards” >> > > elsewhere. You are not wanted here! — J. A. A. — Patriot >> > >> > > On Feb 25, 10:45 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > And yet ANOTHER fallacy spew. >> > > > Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly >> > > > -- are you afraid of? That it is shit? >> > >> > > > Regard$, >> > > > --MJ >> > >> > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the >> > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum >> > >> > > > At 10:36 AM 2/25/2011, you wrote: >> > >> > > > >Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing >> my >> > > > >New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news >> would >> > > > >fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of >> what I >> > > > >have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of >> > > > >having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to >> > > > >zero interaction with individual citizens. ‘My’ government will no >> > > > >longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will >> be >> > > > >value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain >> > > > >records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent. >> > > > >Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to >> "convict" >> > > > >the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of >> > > > >corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification >> > > > >enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a >> police >> > > > >state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And >> > > > >the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I’ve >> put >> > > > >them in their place, big time! >> > >> > > > >You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate >> in >> > > > >the least having you post your elementary version of "A" >> constitution >> > > > >of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your >> name, >> > > > >not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get >> > > > >back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy >> in >> > > > >two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: “I pro-capitalist >> > > > >and anti-socialist”… included, then I will know for sure that you >> are >> > > > >just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist >> ideals. >> > > > >Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only >> be >> > > > >the latter. — J. A. A. — >> > >> > > > >On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to >> > > > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a >> socialist-communist. >> > > > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds, >> > > > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the >> > > > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone >> 'see >> > > it'. >> > > > > > Pity. >> > >> > > > > > Regard$, >> > > > > > --MJ >> > >> > > > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the >> > > > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum >> > >> > > > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" >> attitude on >> > > > > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely >> socialist- >> > > > > > >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the >> USA! >> > > — >> > > > > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot >> > >> > > > > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley < >> [email protected]> >> > > > > > >wrote: >> > > > > > > > How does John expect to implement his New >> > > > > Constitution if no one is ever >> > > > > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in >> the >> > > making. >> > >> > > > > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public >> has >> > > > > > > > > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your >> nor >> > > anyone >> > > > > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love >> to see >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms >> > > about this >> > > > > > > > > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head >> > > run-ins with >> > > > > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that >> allow me >> > > to >> > > > > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other >> person >> > > could >> > > > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately >> fire or >> > > kick >> > > > > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including >> the >> > > > > > > > > President >> > > > > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical >> > > request of >> > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. >> To >> > > wit: >> > >> > > > > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed >> down >> > > your >> > > > > > > > > throats. >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My >> New >> > > > > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those >> parts >> > > of it >> > > > > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain >> > > document. >> > > > > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money >> > > > > from the sale of copies, but to >> > > > > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, >> > > maliciously, >> > > > > > > > >> make me look bad�as part of a >> > > > > socialist/communist plot to side-track >> > > > > > > > >> my efforts. >> > >> > > > > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize >> > > > > that my document has, for fourteen >> > > > > > > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises >> > > highlighted >> > > > > > > > >> in the news, and the regular >> > > > > injustices coming from our courts. What >> > > > > > > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than >> the >> > > original >> > > > > > > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage >> (over the >> > > > > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't >> worked >> > > with our >> > > > > > > > >> Constitution. >> > >> > > > > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made >> public has >> > > > > > > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT >> > > > > wishing to have your nor anyone >> > > > > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love >> to >> > > see the >> > > > > > > > >> entire document so that they can make >> > > > > grandiose criticisms about this >> > > > > > > > >> or that. From my personal life, I >> > > > > have had head-to-head run-ins with >> > > > > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that >> allow >> > > me to >> > > > > > > > >> speak from personal experience that >> > > > > few if any other person could have >> > > > > > > > >> had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately >> fire or >> > > kick >> > > > > > > > >> out of office any public official or >> > > > > employee, including the President >> > > > > > > > >> himself, who does not respond >> > > > > appropriately for a logical request of a >> > > > > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a >> grievance. >> > > To wit: >> > >> > > > > > > > >> "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the >> > > establishment of >> > > > > > > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise >> thereof, >> > > but >> > > > > > > > >> government, its campaigns, processes, >> > > > > slogans, and disbursements shall >> > > > > > > > >> be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall >> abridge: >> > > the >> > > > > > > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and >> pro-democracy >> > > press or >> > > > > > > > >> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; >> *** >> > > and the >> > > > > > > > >> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or >> any of >> > > its >> > > > > > > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances. >> Citizens >> > > so >> > > > > > > > >> petitioning >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more »- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> 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/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > > > -- > *Mark M. Kahle H.* > * > * > *The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.* > > -- > 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/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- 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.
