Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

<Grin>!!

 

 "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

 

The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan & Co. 1913). 

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,

I know I'm not Sage 2, but you wrote:

> Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.

Since Robert Owen (in 1817) appears to be the first person to publicly entertain the idea of alleviating poverty through the creation of social communities; and since the term "socialism" itself was first used in early 1830s Britain by the followers of Owen and in France by those of Claude- Henri de Rouvroy comte de Saint-Simon; and since the terms "communism" and "communist" appeared first among the Parisian revolutionists of the 1830s, just how exactly were the authors of the Constitution (adopted in 1787) supposed to nix "by any language" such concepts?

I'm sure you on the other hand, as brilliant as you have claimed to be, can look into your crystal ball and see (prior to their first existence) concepts and terminology that may appear 20-30 years from now.

On 2/27/2011 4:14 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Sage 2:  Consider this:  If our original Constitution was so perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers?  It did so because that document is WEAK!  There was an assumption that elected officials would be motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!).  But everyone knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of getting re elected.  Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.  But my New Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—the anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers.  I suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate. Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great.  And about your ideas on the role of government in such an economy.  Thanks.  — John A. Armistead, — Patriot — 

On Feb 26, 11:11 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: 

       Hey Keith, Mark et al,       Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewritten nor changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intent and meaning, less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " and was not intended to be anything more nor anything less than that. The only true recourse the founding fathers wisely gave us was the " amendment " and even they should be rare and few. We should not try to fix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't need fixing !  *************************************************************************** *********************************************************  On Feb 26, 6:31 am, KeithInSeoul <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:        

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 <noeinst...@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 

..  read more » 

--
"Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft"

--
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.