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
>
> ...
>
> 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