John,
Opine as you wish, but the next time you take a moon shot
make sure the trajectory is accurate. Or not!
********************************************************************************************************************************
On Mar 3, 9:44 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Sage 2: Supposedly, a "Sage" is someone who has wisdom.
> However, you don't seem to realize that the present Constitution is so
> weak, that such didn't prevent the 'progressive' decline of our
> government from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. My New
> Constitution INCLUDES every single worthy concept of the original!
> And it builds upon those. Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones.
> In dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become
> public servants. Those will KNOW that they work for the public,
> because I empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the
> New Constitution, to fire any public employee who violates his or her
> civil rights or the New Constitution. And there will be little second-
> guessing of that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put
> the one fired in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail.
>
> "This New Constitution empowers every Citizen with broad civil rights
> that they may invoke at will without the necessity for the prior
> involvement of counsel or of a judicial authority. Those in or
> working for governments shall be subordinate to any Citizen demanding
> civil rights. The rightfulness of any such demand may be brought into
> question only by just and comprehensive proof—delivered at a later
> date in writing—with the apt named official(s) being in full jeopardy
> of such punishments as are herein defined, if they are in error."
>
> — John A. Armistead — Partiot
>
> On Mar 2, 11:26 pm, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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. —
>
> ...
>
> 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.
