American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Yet every time you resort to name calling to dodge questions regarding
> YOUR New Constitution you are being dishonest.
>
> On 03/04/2011 10:24 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sage 2: Honesty is my watchword. � J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 3, 7:43 pm, Sage2<wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Opine as you wish, but the next time you take a moon shot
> >> make sure the trajectory is accurate. Or not!
>
> >> *************************************************************************** *****************************************************
>
> >> On Mar 3, 9:44 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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 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"
> >> ...
>
> >> read more �
>
> --
>
> "Learn How To Protect Your ...
>
> 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