write us a better constitution. After several years of effort, you'll
realize that it would have been better to let the smartest man around
(me) do the writing. That benefits everyone except those who wish to
have their fingers in every pie. But be it known: "Those without
ability should never be allowed in the kitchen!" — J. A. A. —
>
On Feb 26, 2:01 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> committee."
>
> Yes indeed it is (in your mind). A camel is so well suited for its use
> where it exists that only fools own horses there. A horse is not
> capable of doing a camels work... and with the exception of speed
> (both in km/h and to the grave)... the inverse is not true.... try
> again.
>
> On Feb 26, 5:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mark, one of the airheads: "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> > committee." I happen to be among the most intelligent people ever
> > born on this Earth. I could have gone into... politics (God forbid!)
> > and had my talents negated in committees and in the daily empty
> > RITUAL. I had seen how departed from the Constitution our government
> > had become, and decided that the only solution would be to make our
> > constitution STRONGER. Along the way, I realized that too many really
> > important things were being left for being defined in subsequent
> > laws. So, I gradually added-in items that most Americans will
> > recognize as affecting their daily lives. Having those things be
> > visible in the New Constitution, itself, will have government working
> > quite well without "trusting" that the House (There will be no
> > senate.) can write some good laws. The best way to assure that only
> > good laws, acceptable to the majority of Americans, will be passed, is
> > my having raised the minimum vote for passage to 60%. (Note: 55% is
> > probationary, only.) I've also denied the media access to the
> > capital. That will remove most of the ego component from those
> > wishing to be "important", because they are in the public eye all the
> > time. I require that House members never have held public office nor
> > been employed by government (other than for possible military
> > service). So, there will be no more... "career" politicians! And I
> > limit the total number of... lawyers in public office to 20%,
> > maximum. Restrictions on lawyers in businesses, also, is crucial to
> > improving the working climate in this country, so no business will
> > ever try to take unfair advantage of their employees nor their
> > customers. Read back into my thread. I really don't have time to
> > keep "capsuling" my document—which has been developed over a 14-year
> > period to benefit the majority of Americans. — John A. Armistead —
> > Patriot
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:24 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My dearest Einstein.... it is misspelt on purpose... I am certainly NOT
> > > Anointed...
>
> > > Since you would like to be correct in all things... THIS IS AN INTERNET
> > > FORUM
>
> > > Definition is: An *Internet forum*, or *message board*, is an online
> > > discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted
> > > messages.
>
> > > What you are looking for is a self-serving BLOG as all members on a forum do
> > > have the right to respond to ANYTHING as they see fit in civil tone.
>
> > > As to what you have done.... about twenty years to write a set of (your
> > > description) unfinished rules in the form of a constitution that you do want
> > > everyone to praise but don't want anyone to read or comment on... how Pelosi
> > > of you.
>
> > > There are reasons that documents such as you are trying to produce are done
> > > by committee,at least with intelligent and educated people involved they
> > > are. There are reasons that every draft is sent to several people for input
> > > and polishing...
>
> > > If those reasons escape you or you are not willing for whatever reason then
> > > it will die with you.
>
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Anointed One: You can't even spell your own handle. I'm posting
> > > > NOT to get anyone's feed-back, but simply to inform people what I've
> > > > done. Frankly, I have better things to do than to banter with
> > > > shallows like you. — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Your response to people is: <<<< 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>>>
>
> > > > > How VERY Nancy Pelosi of you.
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Anointed One: If you agree with the mega pages I've written
> > > > > > explaining my New Constitution, I welcome you support. But when you
> > > > > > simply copy what I wrote, and substitute your own pet ideas, I'm not
> > > > > > sure if you are for a better and tougher constitution or not.
> > > > > > Concisely stated replies will be appreciated. — John A. Armistead —
> > > > > > Patriot
>
> > > > > > On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> 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."
>
> > > > > > > (The Anointed One wrote:) 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment