Greetings from Seoul Korea John!
Uhm.....This seems to me, to be, "Much Ado, About Nothing".....
We'd all like to read your "New Constitution"; but if ya don't want to share it with the group, that is your perogative.
The purpose of Political Forum is to share political thought, ideas, commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on government, politics, world affairs and current events. (And occasionally, pro football and baseball!) Your posts I find sometimes interesting and usually thought provoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting your, "New Constitution". It was never my intent to get a shit storm started!
If you take the time to read both Jonathan's and Michael's posts, you will find that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the same concerns as you do. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not so much a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free market enterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, "free market" versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I also support and subscribe to. Jonathan and Michael are damn near anarchists, (and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either would agree with me!!) but the point being, is that instead of taking the route of many of the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far left, (e.g.; the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats) who from time to time and on occasion chime in here; I would like to think that the thoughtful, well reasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have discussion, as well as disagreement with a little more civility!
At any rate, have a good Saturday....Mine is almost over!
KeithInSeoul
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
MJ: You are NOT wanted on this post! In the last few weeks you've
managed to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your own
breakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts. But you have not
even gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, which
is detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document.
And you obviously have no "Regard$" for anyone but yourself. ***
Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist
government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing
yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist. If it offends
you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards"
elsewhere. You are not wanted here! — J. A. A. — Patriot
>
On Feb 25, 10:45 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> And yet ANOTHER fallacy spew.
> Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly
> -- are you afraid of? That it is shit?
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> At 10:36 AM 2/25/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing my
> >New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> >fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I
> >have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of
> >having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> >zero interaction with individual citizens. 'My' government will no
> >longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> >value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain
> >records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> >Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> >the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of
> >corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> >enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police
> >state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And
> >the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I've put
> >them in their place, big time!
>
> >You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate in
> >the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> >of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> >not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get
> >back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> >two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: "I pro-capitalist
> >and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> >just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> >Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> >the latter. — J. A. A. —
>
> >On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > Pity.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > > >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! —
> > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > How does John expect to implement his New
> > Constitution if no one is ever
> > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > > > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > > > > > President
> > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
>
> > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > > > > > throats.
>
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New
> > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts of it
> > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money
> > from the sale of copies, but to
> > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> > > > > >> make me look bad�as part of a
> > socialist/communist plot to side-track
> > > > > >> my efforts.
>
> > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize
> > that my document has, for fourteen
> > > > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises highlighted
> > > > > >> in the news, and the regular
> > injustices coming from our courts. What
> > > > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the original
> > > > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with our
> > > > > >> Constitution.
>
> > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT
> > wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > > > > >> entire document so that they can make
> > grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > > >> or that. From my personal life, I
> > have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > >> speak from personal experience that
> > few if any other person could have
> > > > > >> had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > >> out of office any public official or
> > employee, including the President
> > > > > >> himself, who does not respond
> > appropriately for a logical request of a
> > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
>
> > > > > >> "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > > > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > >> government, its campaigns, processes,
> > slogans, and disbursements shall
> > > > > >> be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > > > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > > > > >> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> > > > > >> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > > > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so
> > > > > >> petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > > > > >> comprehensive, helpful and just
> > responses from proper authorities who
> > > > > >> have thoroughly read, understood, and
> > addressed each salient aspect of
> > > > > >> the grievances or requests for
> > directions or clarifications. Failure
> > > > > >> to so respond to a rightful petition
> > for redress of a grievance shall,
> > > > > >> on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment,
> > > > > >> especially those in management or
> > public office�including judges and
> > > > > >> justices�who ignore, frustrate or
> > give the run-around to any competent
> > > > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > > > >> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No
> > > > > >> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required
> > > > > >> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity
> > > > > >> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed.
> > > > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium
> > mandates that there be reasonable
> > > > > >> truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > > > >> deliberate omission of the
> > truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or
> > > > > >> satire�is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news
> > > > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > > > >> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or
> > > > > >> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as
> > > > > >> being authored by management;
> > editorial comments by others that are in
> > > > > >> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> > > > > >> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> > > > > >> come to associate with the management
> > of such medium, even if such are
> > > > > >> innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > > > > >> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > > > > >> job to hawk their personal political
> > preferences�at risk of loss of
> > > > > >> license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > > > >> promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > > > > >> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > > > >> pending election or referendum. Nor
> > shall they invite others outside
> > > > > >> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > > > >> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> > > > > >> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> > > > > >> the same unbiased coverage is given to
> > all of the candidates or to all
> > > > > >> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > > > >> truthful news reporting in any medium
> > by threatening legal action. No
> > > > > >> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > > > > >> others, but if a person
>> ...
>
> read 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment