Regardless, he still owes on the bet. Now lets see if he's honest. On Jun 1, 3:25 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Again with the obfuscation! > > MJ said nothing about your motives being impure. He said your claims are > deficient. > > If you took the time to absorb what you read, perhaps you would have > come up with a better New Constitution. > > On 06/01/2011 01:39 PM, NoEinstein 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. > > -- > > Freedom is always illegal! > > When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we > declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we > have any possibility of being free.
-- 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.
