undeserving of a reply! — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You have claimed you don't like my "tone." By that, I assume you mean
> you don't like my attitude. Yet here you begin another post by attacking
> someone who doesn't agree with your belief that we need YOUR New
> Constitution. Does that not imply that "tone" when used by YOU is okay
> but "tone" when used by someone else is not okay?
>
> You stated to Sage that YOUR "New Constitution INCLUDES every single
> worthy concept of the original!" How did you determine what concepts are
> worthy of keeping? How did you decide which concepts to discard? Why
> won't you post YOUR New Constitution somewhere so that we can decide for
> ourselves whether that statement is true?
>
> You went on to state, "Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones. In
> dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become
> public servants." Should you not have stated YOUR New Constitution will
> "control the quality of the people who can become public servants"? Or,
> was "I control" a Freudian slip showing your true egotistical nature?
>
> You went on, "Those will KNOW that they work for the public, because I
> empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the New
> Constitution..." (Once again, the egotistical dictator in you is oozing
> forth. But I digress.) Question: Who will ever be conversant on YOUR New
> Constitution? You refuse to let anyone read it.
>
> You continued with, "...to fire any public employee who violates his or
> her civil rights or the New Constitution." I kind of like this concept.
> I would end up firing every government employee that aggresses against
> my right to life, liberty, and property. Bye-bye Mr. Taxman! Bye-bye TSA
> agent! Gee! This is fun.
>
> This part bothers me a bit: "And there will be little second-guessing of
> that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put the one fired
> in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail." Will those government
> employees innocently accused of having aggressed against a citizen not
> contest that citizen's decision for fear of going to jail? Who will be
> the arbitrator? Will we need to build more prisons? Who will pay for the
> housing of all those prisoners? You know government officials are not
> likely to go quietly into the night.
>
> I'll leave the second paragraph for others to dissect.
>
> On 3/3/2011 6:44 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Sage 2: Supposedly, a "Sage" is someone who has wisdom.
> > However, you don't seem to realize that the present Constitution is so
> > weak, that such didn't prevent the 'progressive' decline of our
> > government from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. My New
> > Constitution INCLUDES every single worthy concept of the original!
> > And it builds upon those. Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones.
> > In dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become
> > public servants. Those will KNOW that they work for the public,
> > because I empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the
> > New Constitution, to fire any public employee who violates his or her
> > civil rights or the New Constitution. And there will be little second-
> > guessing of that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put
> > the one fired in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail.
>
> > "This New Constitution empowers every Citizen with broad civil rights
> > that they may invoke at will without the necessity for the prior
> > involvement of counsel or of a judicial authority. Those in or
> > working for governments shall be subordinate to any Citizen demanding
> > civil rights. The rightfulness of any such demand may be brought into
> > question only by just and comprehensive proof�delivered at a later
> > date in writing�with the apt named official(s) being in full jeopardy
> > of such punishments as are herein defined, if they are in error."
>
> > � John A. Armistead � Partiot
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:26 pm, Sage2<wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Keith,Mark and John
>
> >> The weakness is not in the Constitution but in the fact that
> >> we have moved away from it's original intent. To make a long history
> >> short we have become a two party oligarchy whereby the politicians
> >> represent themselves their "shadows" and their " phantoms"; not the
> >> American public nor The Constitution. This is evident in the fact
> >> that many in both parties try to undermine and discredit the
> >> grassroots movement known as The Tea Party. It is their worse
> >> nightmare. Fortunately it is a nightmare they will have to live with
> >> for a long time. The process then is not to rewrite The U.S.
> >> Constitution but to restore IT and restore power back to the American
> >> people. Only then will the intentions of the " founding fathers " be
> >> realized again !
> >> *************************************************************************** ********************************************************
>
> >> On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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