American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Again, more cut and paste name calling.
>
> When will you start defending YOUR New Constitution?
>
> On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks: Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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