Dear Atheist J. Ashley: Tell me, guy: Why are you an expert at saying there is a "better" constitution, when you want a government- less economy? If someone with "pure motives" devotes 15 years of his life to benefit others, as I have done, don't you think that person's ideas have more worth than, say, yours—which hates government so much, nothing is "right" enough for you? Move left, some, guy, or be happy defending your cave. — J. A. Armistead — Patriot > On Jun 1, 5:25 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.
