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!KeithInSeoulOn 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$" for anyone but yourself. *** Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist. If it offends you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards" elsewhere. You are not wanted here! — J. A. A. — PatriotOn Feb 25, 10:45 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:And yet ANOTHER fallacy spew. Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly -- are you afraid of? That it is shit?Regard$, --MJ"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa RosenbaumAt 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 'seeit'.Pity.Regard$, --MJ"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa RosenbaumAt 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 — PatriotOn Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:How does John expect to implement his NewConstitution if no one is everallowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in themaking.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 noranyoneelse's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to seetheentire document so that they can make grandiose.. read more »itution, to fire any public employee who violates their civil rights or the New Constitution. And no one so fired can contest such without being 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 — Patriot
No comments:
Post a Comment