MJ: "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth." People with a conscience (not you) have an innate sense of right and wrong. Words that I say that aren't hurtful to ordinary people will ring true. But your big ego won't let anyone (other than you) have a good idea. If YOUR motives were pure, you wouldn't care who comes up with things. You'd only care that great solutions to problems have been found! — J. A. A. — > On Jun 2, 10:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > You do grasp that MOTIVES are quite different from RESULTS? > If you can find one million people to agree with > you that 2+2=5 ... will it make it so? > > You are continuing to 'bird walk' away from your > errant claims. As already concluded, you simply > cannot support your deficient efforts. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > At 04:39 PM 6/1/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >Tell me, MJ, if there are deficiencies in MY New Constitution, then, > >why are you the only one trying to point those out? This Memorial > >Week vacation has the readership down. But I'll bet you a Big Mac > >that you can't find a named soul who will agree with you that my > >motives aren't pure. — John A. Armistead — Patriot > > >http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/browse_thread/thread/eb... > > >On May 27, 11:34 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > IOW, you cannot support your claims which > > have been demonstrated to be deficient. > > > Regard$, > > > --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 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.
