Folks: Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus undeserving of a reply! — J. A. A. — > On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > You have claimed you don't like my "tone." By that, I assume you mean > you don't like my attitude. Yet here you begin another post by attacking > someone who doesn't agree with your belief that we need YOUR New > Constitution. Does that not imply that "tone" when used by YOU is okay > but "tone" when used by someone else is not okay? > > You stated to Sage that YOUR "New Constitution INCLUDES every single > worthy concept of the original!" How did you determine what concepts are > worthy of keeping? How did you decide which concepts to discard? Why > won't you post YOUR New Constitution somewhere so that we can decide for > ourselves whether that statement is true? > > You went on to state, "Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones. In > dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become > public servants." Should you not have stated YOUR New Constitution will > "control the quality of the people who can become public servants"? Or, > was "I control" a Freudian slip showing your true egotistical nature? > > You went on, "Those will KNOW that they work for the public, because I > empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the New > Constitution..." (Once again, the egotistical dictator in you is oozing > forth. But I digress.) Question: Who will ever be conversant on YOUR New > Constitution? You refuse to let anyone read it. > > You continued with, "...to fire any public employee who violates his or > her civil rights or the New Constitution." I kind of like this concept. > I would end up firing every government employee that aggresses against > my right to life, liberty, and property. Bye-bye Mr. Taxman! Bye-bye TSA > agent! Gee! This is fun. > > This part bothers me a bit: "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." Will those government > employees innocently accused of having aggressed against a citizen not > contest that citizen's decision for fear of going to jail? Who will be > the arbitrator? Will we need to build more prisons? Who will pay for the > housing of all those prisoners? You know government officials are not > likely to go quietly into the night. > > I'll leave the second paragraph for others to dissect. > > On 3/3/2011 6:44 AM, NoEinstein 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 > > ... > > read 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.
