Jonathan, the socialist-communist, has the respect of no patriotic American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 4, 1:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
