Hi Keith,Mark and John
The weakness is not in the Constitution but in the fact that
we have moved away from it's original intent. To make a long history
short we have become a two party oligarchy whereby the politicians
represent themselves their "shadows" and their " phantoms"; not the
American public nor The Constitution. This is evident in the fact
that many in both parties try to undermine and discredit the
grassroots movement known as The Tea Party. It is their worse
nightmare. Fortunately it is a nightmare they will have to live with
for a long time. The process then is not to rewrite The U.S.
Constitution but to restore IT and restore power back to the American
people. Only then will the intentions of the " founding fathers " be
realized again !
***********************************************************************************************************************************
On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Sage 2: Consider this: If our original Constitution was so
> perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from
> the ideals of the Founding Fathers? It did so because that document
> is WEAK! There was an assumption that elected officials would be
> motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!). But everyone
> knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of
> getting re elected. Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy
> wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution. But my New
> Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—the
> anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers. I
> suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate.
> Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about
> the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great. And about
> your ideas on the role of government in such an economy. Thanks. —
> John A. Armistead, — Patriot —
>
> On Feb 26, 11:11 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
>
> ...
>
> 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/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
