influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo
governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives
to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
own weight in society.
It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
media—which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching
news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
hardworking Americans! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> create a one-man nation.
>
> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> > you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't
> > have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> > that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> > into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about
> > my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions
> > in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. �
> > J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of
> >> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."
>
> >> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long
> >> as I respect the equal rights of others?
>
> >> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and
> >> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any government
> >> was created?
>
> >> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that
> >> existed naturally before any government was created?
>
> >> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the
> >> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery,
> >> kidnapping, and fraud?
>
> >> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special
> >> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?
>
> >> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions �
> >> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any
> >> different?
>
> >> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my
> >>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only
> >>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of which
> >>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the
> >>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull
> >>> any of the strings.
> >>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
> >>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New
> >>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
> >>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than
> >>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony
> >>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a
> >>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms
> >>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the
> >>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell
> >>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving
> >>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to
> >>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that! � John A. Armistead
> >>> � Patriot
> >>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when
> >>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.
> >>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market
> >>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government
> >>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept.
> >>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by
> >>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business.
> >>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil
> >>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that a
> >>>> government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have complete
> >>>> liberty without such need.
> >>>> *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
> >>>> 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the
> >>>> body, or to the will or mind.*
> >>>> CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and
> >>>> government of the citizens and subjects of a state_;
> >>>> On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a socialist-communist�or
> >>>>> else you can't read and comprehend. Attack me in any way, and you
> >>>>> attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil
> >>>>> liberties for the vast majority of Americans. Until you can recognize
> >>>>> those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a
> >>>>> sharply pointed wooden stake. � NE �
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope
> >>>>>> of a REAL Constitution ie.
> >>>>>> *The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character
> >>>>>> of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must
> >>>>>> conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation,
> >>>>>> distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government
> >>>>>> departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its
> >>>>>> sovereign powers.*
> >>>>>> *
> >>>>>> *
> >>>>>> ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most
> >>>>>> importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution"
> >>>>>> posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you
> >>>>>> have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.*
> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>>>> MJ: All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't
> >>>>>>> increasing your status in the groups one bit. And haven't you heard?
> >>>>>>> It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size). You are a pest on my
> >>>>>>> post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me. In
> >>>>>>> the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you
> >>>>>>> haven't gotten many readers, have you. Please make a "quote" of your
> >>>>>>> own worthy of being in Bartlett's. If you can't do that, then you
> >>>>>>> should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby. � J. A. A.
> >>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response.
> >>>>>>>> SADLY, you offer no support to your claims.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> >>>>>>> legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> >>>>>>> many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> >>>>>>> facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> >>>>>>> intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> >>>>>>> enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> >>>>>>> using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM
> >>>>>>> 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being
> >>>>>>> replied to. � J. A.
> >>>>>>>> A. �
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this
> >>>>>>> Group (PoliticalFo...@GoogleGroups.com).
> >>>>>>>>> I never claimed to be a moderator.
> >>>>>>>>> I did not request a 'discussion'.
> >>>>>>>>> I did, however, ask for YOU to support YOUR assertion and explain:
> >>>>>>>>> What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine 'run counter' when you
> >>>>>>> claim, "sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients
> >>>>>>> and their families"
> >>>>>>>>> Apparently you cannot support your claim(s) which is why you resort to
> >>>>>>> spewing fallacy when anyone responds to your posts.
> >>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>> --MJ"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a
> >>>>>>> right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the
> >>>>>>> right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are
> >>>>>>> evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of
> >>>>>>> self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel
> >>>>>>> Adams, November 20, 1772At 05:42 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: You are a
> >>>>>>> rude party crasher, not a moderator. I am not
> >>>>>>>>> interested in having a discussion with anyone regarding the specifics
> >>>>>>>>> of my New Constitution. As for science, I am the King of the Hill of
> >>>>>>>>> patriotic Americans! � J. A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:45 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In medical facilities all across the country, "medical protocol"
> >>>>>>>>>>> sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients
> >>>>>>>>>>> and their families.
> >>>>>>>>>> What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine to have 'run counter'?
> >>>>>>>>>> Please cite some examples.
> >>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>>> Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on
> >>>>>>>>>> the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not
> >>>>>>>>>> prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the
> >>>>>>>>>> government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a
> >>>>>>>>>> charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. --
> >>>>>>>>>> Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> ...
>
> 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