John,
1) When did I become an atheist?
2) One does not need to be an expert to know that YOUR New Constitution
is defective.
3) You cannot factually prove that your ideas have more worth than mine.
On 06/02/2011 12:41 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
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.
--
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.
