Give him the Big Mac !!!!!! MJ, Make arrangements to have that money
or coupon sent to you.

Einstein... I am named, degreed, titled and definitely a soul. I do
not think anything about you is pure... except your bullshit.

On Jun 1, 2:39 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tell me, MJ, if there are deficiencies in MY New Constitution, then,
> why are you the only one trying to point those out?  This Memorial
> Week vacation has the readership down.  But I'll bet you a Big Mac
> that you can't find a named soul who will agree with you that my
> motives aren't pure.  — John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/browse_thread/thread/eb...
>
> On May 27, 11:34 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > IOW, you cannot support your claims which have been demonstrated to be 
> > deficient.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest" -- 
> > Alexander Dumas, author of "The Count of Monte Cristo."At 08:47 PM 
> > 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ:  When a 'child', or someone with less 
> > sophistication, keeps
> > questioning authority by asking, "why?", sometimes the best reply is:
> > "Because I say so!"  You are definitely someone of low
> > sophistication.  So...  "Because I say so, kid!"  — J. A. A. —
>
> > On May 26, 1:35 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You can spew all the fallacious matter you choose, but it remains that 
> > > you are (hopelessly) confused.
> > > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish 
> > > its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two 
> > > thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the 
> > > power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body deems 
> > > Members with certain affiliations to have certain positions/duties, then 
> > > such is within its purview.
> > > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. 
> > > This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the 
> > > advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional 
> > > enumerated powers] ethic.  The first was the passage in 1913 of the 
> > > Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax.  This was the 
> > > first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis.  
> > > Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride:  It could provide 
> > > government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax 
> > > burden on the wealthy.  ...  -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_
> > > At 11:19 AM 5/26/2011, you wrote:Dear Pigeon-Dung-for-a-Brain, MJ:  The 
> > > SPIRIT of the Constitution
> > > champions FAIRNESS and equality of the power of INDIVIDUALS to control
> > > government.  The (they were only human) Founding Fathers knew that
> > > there were rules needing to be made and laws passed to make this
> > > country function.  But those naive Founding Fathers had no idea that
> > > by giving Congress the 'power' to make its own rules, without any
> > > controls over what those rules can be, that Congress would so willing
> > > depart from the sacred SPIRIT of the Constitution that is: "Fair play
> > > and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"  Having... "rules"
> > > that give the power to 'the winning party', and not allocating power
> > > to individuals equally, is a SUBVERSION of our sacred Representative
> > > (parity) Republic!  There is NO ASPECT OF THE MANDATED STRUCTURE OF
> > > OUR GOVERNMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE
> > > CONTROL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!!!
> > > Congress, nor the President have the power to vote to take power away
> > > from the People.  And Congress, nor the President have the authority
> > > to do a God-damned THING that is socialist-communist or unfair!!!  My
> > > New Constitution stipulates that no "rule" of Congress can concentrate
> > > power in the hands of any individual or group beyond one-person-one-
> > > vote.  Political parties, because they are unfair and use leverage NOT
> > > granted by the Constitution are, and always have been
> > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  You would be well advised NOT to question anything
> > > I have done on behalf of the American People, because there is not a
> > > Patriot on Earth with my intellect and my devotion to SAVING this
> > > country!!!  — John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > On May 25, 9:49 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power
> > > > structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning
> > > > party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue
> > > > voted upon. You are (hopelessly) confused.
> > > > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, 
> > > > punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence 
> > > > of two thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the 
> > > > House the power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body 
> > > > deems Members with certain affiliations to have certain 
> > > > positions/duties, then such is within its purview.
> > > > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. 
> > > > This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the 
> > > > advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > > Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional 
> > > > enumerated powers] ethic.  The first was the passage in 1913 of the 
> > > > Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax.  This was 
> > > > the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform 
> > > > basis.  Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride:  It could 
> > > > provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately 
> > > > heavy tax burden on the wealthy.  ...  -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power 
> > > > and Liberty_
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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.

Reply via email to