Again, more cut and paste name calling.
When will you start defending YOUR New Constitution?
On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
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 »
--
"Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft"
<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
--
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.
