Nor do I find their extortion tactics to be acceptable ---- you can't have rights you can't protect
On May 25, 11:02 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I am not a union member. Nor do I find their extortion tactics to be > acceptable. But I must ask, what article and section number of the > Constitution makes unions unconstitutional? > > On 05/24/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > J. Ashley: Firing bad people from their jobs is preferable to throwing > > them in prison, don't you think? One of the reason's the USA is going > > busted is because those employed were being given... "benefits" in > > excess of the private sector. And those same government employees are > > allowed to vote and to have enough control over government that they > > can't be fired. For starters, ban all unconstitutional labor unions > > of those working for government! If teachers strike for higher pay, > > fire the entire batch! No one working for government should be > > allowed to vote on the processes of government. Employees are the > > laborers, NOT the management! � J. A. Armistead � > > On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker" > >> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show > >> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate. > > >> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick > >> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says > >> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof). > > >> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the > >>> receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the > >>> same communiqu� differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a > >>> "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was > >>> hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great > >>> lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in > >>> a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point? > >>> Ha, ha, HA! � J. A. A. � > >>> On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable > >>>> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of > >>>> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no > >>>> intention of entering the race. > >>>> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. � > >>>>> On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> *John, INLINE:* > >>>>>> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan: > >>>>>>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for > >>>>>>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the > >>>>>>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played > >>>>>>> out. > >>>>>> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump > >>>>>> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe? > >>>>>> The media? Or, Donald Trump?* > >>>>>>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below: > >>>>>>> "Preface: > >>>>>>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The > >>>>>>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that > >>>>>>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the > >>>>>>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that > >>>>>>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall > >>>>>>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of > >>>>>>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal > >>>>>>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet > >>>>>>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and > >>>>>>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from > >>>>>>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be > >>>>>>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor > >>>>>>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall > >>>>>>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens > >>>>>>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and > >>>>>>> our posterity." > >>>>>> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New > >>>>>> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not > >>>>>> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not > >>>>>> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New > >>>>>> Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian > >>>>>>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to > >>>>>>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This > >>>>>>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy: > >>>>>>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly > >>>>>>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a > >>>>>>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in > >>>>>>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing > >>>>>>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power' > >>>>>>> than the members have. > >>>>>> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) > >>>>>> The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier > >>>>>>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for > >>>>>>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years > >>>>>>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath > >>>>>>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly > >>>>>>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all > >>>>>>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are > >>>>>>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and > >>>>>>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the > >>>>>>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating > >>>>>>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and > >>>>>>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest > >>>>>>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste! > >>>>>> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this > >>>>>> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither > >>>>>> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained > >>>>>> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident > >>>>>> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution > >>>>>> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or > >>>>>> how > >>>>>> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not > >>>>>> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be > >>>>>> evidence > >>>>>> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility > >>>>>> of the POTUS. * > >>>>>>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt > >>>>>>>> avoid answering, as usual): > >>>>>>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race." > >>>>>>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > >>>>>>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As > >>>>>>>> such, > >>>>>>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most > >>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a > >>>>>>>> local > >>>>>>>> PTA "Madam President." > >>>>>>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret > >>>>>>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The > >>>>>>>> mission > >>>>>>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's > >>>>>>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the > >>>>>>>> integrity > >>>>>>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of > >>>>>>>> state > >>>>>>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security > >>>>>>>> Events." > >>>>>>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our > >>>>>>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington. > >>>>>>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to > >>>>>>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles > >>>>>>>>> in� > >>>>>>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a > >>>>>>>>> enough > >>>>>>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many > >>>>>>>>> states > >>>>>>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be > >>>>>>>>> President. > >>>>>>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The > >>>>>>>>> rock > >>>>>>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise > >>>>>>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. > >>>>>>>>> If, > >>>>>>>>> as I�ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five > >>>>>>>>> million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be, literally, > >>>>>>>>> billions of dollars that can remain in the pockets of the voters, > >>>>>>>>> rather than going to our close-to-universally-corrupt media. A huge > >>>>>>>>> plus will be the suspension of the unconstitutional, spaced-out > >>>>>>>>> primaries that give the most power to the voters of Iowa and etc. > >>>>>>>>> When the primaries are suspended, there will be no more > >>>>>>>>> unconstitutional party conventions such as gave us our Manchurian > >>>>>>>>> Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama of > > ... > > 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.
