Here is your apparent rubric:
Armistead: shovel some shit claiming that A is the goal and B will achieve it
Others: pointing to the reality that B will not provide for A
Armistead: [possibly repeating the same claim that B will achieve A
Others: pointing again that your claims are errant
Armistead: some variation of "your ego won't let anyone have a good idea" OR "my 5000 years of research" OR "my intentions" OR similar
It remains -- all your efforts notwithstanding -- that Political Parties ARE and REMAIN completely 'constitutional'. There is NOTHING barring nor mandating their creation or use. Individuals are certainly FREE and within their (natural) rights to assemble and freely associate.
Regard$,
--MJ
The art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art of ringing it. Two branches reveal themselves. There is the art of the demagogue, and there is the art of what may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of Latin and Greek, the demaslave. They are complementary, and both of them are degrading to their practitioners. The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he believes it himself. -- H.L. Mencken
At 03:53 PM 6/2/2011, you wrote:
MJ: "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth." People with a conscience--
(not you) have an innate sense of right and wrong. Words that I say
that aren't hurtful to ordinary people will ring true. But your big
ego won't let anyone (other than you) have a good idea. If YOUR
motives were pure, you wouldn't care who comes up with things. You'd
only care that great solutions to problems have been found! — J. A.
A. —
>
On Jun 2, 10:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> You do grasp that MOTIVES are quite different from RESULTS?
> If you can find one million people to agree with
> you that 2+2=5 ... will it make it so?
>
> You are continuing to 'bird walk' away from your
> errant claims. As already concluded, you simply
> cannot support your deficient efforts.
>
> Regard$,
> --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 see http://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.
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.
