empty opinions. If I had spent as much time reading the words of
others as you have, I would not have had time to write the New
Constitution. Second to none in the World, I am both smart and
analytical to consider the effects of the things I've included from
many, many angles. Picking and choosing ideas from others could never
have been as efficient as I have been. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Feb 10, 10:00 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Of course the Articles were far superior in most ways -- contrary to
> > the instilled propaganda.
> [B]
> [B] MJ, I sense that you are Monday-morning-quarterbacking the
> complex organization of our country. You have no concept of the
> thousands and thousands of hours of thought and continual revision
> that I ve put into writing my New Constitution. Whether you think
> there might be something better, is probably just an ego ploy of
> yours. Most people know that they could make more logical decisions
> than our elected dictators , like Barack Obama. But few people have
> a large enough ego to love standing in front to groups making speeches
> every day. That s why I ve stipulated that the media not be allowed
> contact with Congress in Washington. And I ve declared that no
> congressman ever make gratuitous public speeches. The reason? I want
> to be sure there is no EGO COMPONENT in those willing to run for
> public office. Once possible office seekers realize they won t
> constantly be in the public eye, we will start getting more salt-of-
> the-earth types who have the knowledge and the character to make sure
> our government is fair and optimal for the vast majority of Americans.
> Do you always create vast (strawman) arguments for other people?
> Whether you spent 5 minutes or 5000 years has no relevance whatsoever
> as to the quality (or lack thereof) of your thus far unseen effort.
> Your projection does little to aid your cause either.
> None of your so-called response has *anything* to do with whether
> the Articles of Confederation are indeed superior or inferior to the
> US Constitution.
> Regard$,
> --MJThe power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people goes to the essence of all political systems. Being defined even by political scientists as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and respect are in rapid decline. The people employed to carry out such powers be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various stripes, etc. are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such unrestricted violence against others. The state is the playground bully writ large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status that defines their system. -- Butler Shaffer
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment