Constitution isn't harsh enough on government. Except for my
outlawing political parties; shutting down the US Senate (It's
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!); and excluding all career politicians from the
House, most of government (minus "social" anything!) will be
unchanged. The US Military isn't touched, nor is the "proper"
workings of the Executive Branch (Obama being an improper example.)
If anarchy is the only thing that will make you happy, you should live
through... WW III. Then, there will be... every (alive) man for
himself. Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 13, 7:02 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> For the last time. I want to abolish government. Without government,
> there can be no social engineering - such as YOUR New Constitution is
> intent upon doing.
>
> On 05/13/2011 02:13 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > J. Ashley: Somehow, in your miniscule mind, you suppose that nothing
> > can function without someone in government pulling the strings. Then,
> > tell me, guy: How did the USA become an industrial giant before there
> > were any income taxes, and before any "liberals" started telling
> > others how everything needs to be done? If a business is run,
> > corruptly, don't work there or purchase there. For someone who
> > advocates ANARCHY (no government) you sure do have a lot of
> > "government dependent� ideas, non of which are part of the SPIRIT of
> > my New Constitution. � J. A. A. �
> > On May 12, 2:04 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Your entire New Constitution is unenforcible "social engineering."
> >> Neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to mandate "fair play." If
> >> it were possible, everyone would obey speed limits. No one would cut
> >> someone else off in traffic. I could go on, but even your simple brain
> >> should be able to grasp the concept.
>
> >> Socialism has been equated with democracy for at least 100 years. "The
> >> tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with
> >> the most advanced democracy." [Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 1913]
>
> >> On 05/12/2011 08:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley: Either you can't read (likely) or you have no earthly
> >>> idea what socialism and communism are. When I mandate in my New
> >>> Constitution that "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the
> >>> USA", both socialism and communism are forever outlawed from
> >>> consideration by government! Somehow, you got it in your very small
> >>> head that 'fairness' can only mean that everyone gets identical pieces
> >>> of the pie. *** But THAT would involve STEALING from the rich to give
> >>> to the lazy, good-for-nothing, opportunistic "poor". Thus, your
> >>> notion of "fairness" isn't fair, nor is it a democracy�because the
> >>> power is put into the hands of the "winning" majority, rather than
> >>> being allocated to all the people (on demand) on EACH and EVERY
> >>> issue! My document requires 60% of "the people" to agree before any
> >>> direct vote of the people can have the force of law. And every
> >>> previous law that passed by fewer that 55% (probationary) is struck
> >>> down. That means that Obama Care doesn't meet the vote requirement
> >>> and would be struck down. But Obama Care would have already been
> >>> barred from consideration for being "Social Engineering" and an
> >>> attempt to change the USA into a socialist-communist nation. Nancy
> >>> Pelosi, Harry Reid, and about 75% of the leftist Democrats who
> >>> proposed such things would already have been HANGED for treason!
> >>> Jonathan, trust me that NO GROUP will have the power to sway the House
> >>> (There will be no more unconstitutional "Senate".) on anything. Power
> >>> is vested in the individuals! Group lobbying for anything becomes a
> >>> felony. I realize that this is tough-love for the government. But
> >>> its the only way to FORCE decisions to be for the good of the country,
> >>> rather than� what most increases the chances career politicians can
> >>> keep getting elected. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 11, 10:37 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> How can you not see that what you are proscribing is socialism/communism?
> >>>> On 05/11/2011 05:18 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan: No! Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> >>>>> by government would be socialist. My New Constitution includes these
> >>>>> and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> >>>>> businesses:
> >>>>> "Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> >>>>> their customers. The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> >>>>> charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> >>>>> discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> >>>>> shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> >>>>> perform no actual work on an ongoing basis. Fair and honest business
> >>>>> practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> >>>>> customers without coercion."
> >>>>> And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> >>>>> best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> >>>>> enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> >>>>> to prosper." Note: It is definitely in the best interest of the
> >>>>> people to be treated fairly by employers. If an employee isn't
> >>>>> treated fairly, he or she can sue for damages in civil court. A
> >>>>> business, such as a tobacco company, which sells unfiltered cigarettes
> >>>>> in foreign countries isn't acting in the best interest of the people
> >>>>> (of the world), and thus can be fined until the bad practices stop.
> >>>>> No business can mistreat people badly, anywhere, and have the USA just
> >>>>> look the other way! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On May 11, 1:47 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> By "fair" I assume you mean "equality of terms; equity; as the fairness
> >>>>>> of a contract."
> >>>>>> How do you propose to accomplish such fairness? Any scheme of equalizing
> >>>>>> the social conditions of life is socialism/communism - the very thing
> >>>>>> you "claim" to abhor.
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> On 05/10/2011 10:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.
> >>>>>>> Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> >>>>>>> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> >>>>>>> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Wal-Mart
> >>>>>>> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> >>>>>>> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> >>>>>>> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> >>>>>>> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> >>>>>>> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> >>>>>>> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.
> >>>>>>> I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> >>>>>>> building quality real estate properties�as he knows so well how to do�
> >>>>>>> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> >>>>>>> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> >>>>>>> the bottom or at the top. � John A. Armistead � Patriot.
> >>>>>>> On May 10, 11:59 am, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> Repeat after me: Donald Trump is a socialist. From a 2009 interview
> >>>>>>>> about whether there should be executive pay limits:
> >>>>>>>> Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with
> >>>>>>>> salary caps?
> >>>>>>>> Donald Trump: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars
> >>>>>>>> is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using
> >>>>>>>> taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.
> >>>>>>>> That's socialism Einstein.
> >>>>>>>> On 05/09/2011 11:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Republican presidential contenders are gearing-up to fight-it-out for
> >>>>>>>>> the right to run against� �Obama� in 2012. Every one of those should
> >>>>>>>>> be required to answer this question: �Is it FAIR to have hugely
> >>>>>>>>> expensive primaries spread over months, with the most �power� going to
> >>>>>>>>> the voters in the corn state of� Iowa? Answer: Hell NO! Nor is it
> >>>>>>>>> FAIR to allow political parties to have any say-so, whatsoever,
> >>>>>>>>> regarding who the contenders can be, and how the country will be run
> >>>>>>>>> once the �winning party� has been decided.
> >>>>>>>>> Rep. Ron Paul, that sunken-cheek retread from the 2008 election, has
> >>>>>>>>> already raised a million dollars�probably earmarked for brown-nosing
> >>>>>>>>> the farmers of Iowa for a chance to become President. Paul�s early
> >>>>>>>>> polling lead among the announced candidates has him positioned much as
> >>>>>>>>> he was four years ago. The same anti-war, less-government crowd who
> >>>>>>>>> filled his coffers with hard cash, must still be impressed by his
> >>>>>>>>> unwavering positions on most issues. When Paul withdrew in 2008, he
> >>>>>>>>> said, �Elections are over quickly. Winning a revolution will take a
> >>>>>>>>> bit longer.� But instead of leading a revolution, Paul settled back
> >>>>>>>>> into business as usual in our broken and corrupt, party-dominated
> >>>>>>>>> government. Anyone so corrupted could never lead this country in the
> >>>>>>>>> new direction needed.
> >>>>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano, filling in for a flagging Glenn Beck, asked a
> >>>>>>>>> guest this question: �Who among the possible Republican presidential
> >>>>>>>>> candidates do you think Barack Obama would LEAST like to run
> >>>>>>>>> against?� The answer to that question isn�t as important as the fact
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano is so matter-of-fact that Barack Obama will still be in
> >>>>>>>>> office, let alone be a candidate for President in 2012. My above
> >>>>>>>>> average computer graphics experience leads me to conclude that both of
> >>>>>>>>> Obama�s purported birth certificates are bogus. *** In a very public
> >>>>>>>>> and straightforward way, the US Secret Service should conduct a
> >>>>>>>>> definitive investigation of all �birther� issues, lest they continue
> >>>>>>>>> to �protect� a scoundrel who isn�t a bona fide President of the USA.
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano shows his naivet� by recommending we vote for candidates
> >>>>>>>>> desiring smaller, lower cost Government who will support� the
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution. Over the decades, the Constitution has been ritually
> >>>>>>>>> praised. But that document was so WEAK that our government evolved
> >>>>>>>>> away from being the Representative Republic the Founding Fathers
> >>>>>>>>> surely wanted to mandate. My New Constitution is strength (control
> >>>>>>>>> over what goes on in Washington) made manifest!
> >>>>>>>>> Donald Trump is being �tagged� a �birther� and a �racist� by Mort
> >>>>>>>>> Zuckerman�s NY news paper. Liberals call it a conspiracy that anyone
> >>>>>>>>> would wish to apply the same level of technical facility to analyzing
> >>>>>>>>> two questionable birth certificates, as was used to assess the Shroud
> >>>>>>>>> of Turin, or the remains of King Tut. The long form birth
> >>>>>>>>> certificate, which Obama released to the press, was a *.PDF file, not
> >>>>>>>>> a photocopy of an original. That file was clearly LAYERS of PDF files
> >>>>>>>>> placed one over the other to form a
> >> ...
>
> >> read more �
>
> --
>
> Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.
>
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
--
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