Sage 2: Honesty is my watchword. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 3, 7:43 pm, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" > > ... > > 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.
