Dear plainol...: I know from your past support that you don't
disagree with the totality of my New Constitution. What I suspect you
think "SUCKS" is the fact that you now get recreational enjoyment
hearing the 24/7 back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives,
and you don't want your recreation to go away. But you should realize
this: By allowing the God Damned media, and their 'influential' guest
celebrities to express their opinions in any PAID public forum has the
effect of preempting allowing the voters to make up their own minds
without UNDUE influence by anyone. Over the last half century, the
media has turned the voters' minds to mush.
The unfortunate reason that the viewers are so caught-up in the
media's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, instantaneous and ongoing assessments of
everything is because of this: The vast majority of Americans see
their disparate group associations as the main source of their
'influence' in Washington. In effect, everyone must "choose sides" so
that the political processes have indeed become like a God Damned
sporting event. The UNCONSTITUTIONAL daily polls are the "scores" of
the moment. And the in-house media celebrities are the GAME CALLERS.
When someone like Charles Krauthammer is allowed to say on the air,
with impunity, that "Ron Paul" can't win, a very high percentage of
viewers will rule out anyone but the MEDIA-perceived top two
candidates. That's because those shallow-minded Americans want to
be... "in the game" into the FINALS.. Even knowing that a person is
supporting one of the top two candidates is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because
no person is entitled to know who is "ahead" until AFTER THE VOTES
HAVE BEEN CAST ON ELECTION DAY!!!!! With our modern vote-counting
technology, the Founding Fathers would not THINK of having any
election be other than a one-day event. Nor think of having campaigns
be waged from state to state over YEARS when TV (not 'the media')
gives voters all the information needed to make voting decisions in
ANY election within less than six months, and with no candidate
needing to spend more than five to ten million dollars in the
process. Our everything-is-just-"sports" mentality is DESTROYING
America!
To digress: I should point out that my statement that government
should be REDUCED to 20% of the present size and cost, is NOT part of
my New Constitution. The only place where I even hint of that being a
goal is in this *** excerpt:
"Laws in effect at the time of the adoption of this New Constitution
shall remain in effect while such are systematically reviewed, debated
and revoted in the House. Whether for the revoting of existing laws
and regulations or for new bills, early and conspicuous public notice
in the media shall invite Public input. Bills passing without broad
and substantiated Public input, especially by those law-abiding
Citizens most affected by the legislation, shall not become laws. The
House shall make new laws and define procedures for implementing this
New Constitution. Federal functions to be returned to local or state
governments shall be phased out gradually and considerately for those
to be displaced or relocated. Under this New Constitution the future
state taxes of Citizens or businesses, typically, shall not exceed
their combined former total of state and federal taxes. *** At any
level of services provided, streamlining government and minimizing
bureaucracy via wise laws shall always be primary goals."
Once we have our capitalist system running efficiently, like it did in
the late 1940s and 1950s, there will be less and less need for the
government to do 80% of what it now does. By my requiring that no
media person be allowed to set foot inside of the US Capital, and my
making it a CRIME for any person in Congress to cultivate a national
media persona, the media will only have the VOTERS to talk to, not any
Lindsey Graham, Johnny-come-lately who likes to get his ugly mug in
front of the cameras as often as possible. By following (tongue-in-
cheek) the 'Democrats' behind-closed-doors policies relative to Obama
Care, the media won't have anyone to talk to nor to come on their
UNCONSTITUTIONAL politics shows to be cross-examined. If the USA is
to survive, we must get the media OUT OF OUR FACES! News events, as
they are happening, that day, should be all that the media shows. And
they don't get to pick and choose which news events will draw the most
viewers and show just that. We would be far better off to have just
two hours of news coverage per day, like in Walter Cronkite's era.
That man did an amazing job of disguising his personal political
feelings. No Katie Couric types shall ever 'grace' the airways,
again!
If I haven't answered your "this SUCKS" objection, please explain what
your beef is. OK? — John A. Armistead —
On Jun 18, 10:18 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> your plan sucks
>
> On Jun 17, 12:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The voters can say "THIS SUCKS" if they so choose. But no person who
> > is a celebrity or anyone employed by any medium can say a single
> > "assessing" word about anything to do with government. Being in a
> > medium gives such individuals a thousand times more influence than the
> > man-on-the-street, and is thus unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers
> > could not possibly have foreseen the democracy-bypassing influence of
> > those like Alan Colmes and Rush Limbaugh. When my new constitution is
> > ratified, commentators, regardless of their ideology, can find other
> > employment, or do exactly like Monopoly says and "Go to jail; go only
> > to jail." Does anyone not understand what 'make no assessing
> > comments' means?
>
> > On Jun 8, 10:37 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Any law that would stop someone from saying "THIS SUCKS!!" will never
> > > last... it it pure boot heel obedience being demanded...
>
> > > Your inability and or unwillingness to post your supposed "New
> > > Constitution" after having been asked to do so on this (and others)
> > > Forum is telling me that it is an absolute joke as is the purported
> > > author.
>
> > > Now go away little fly.
>
> > > On Jun 8, 6:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Nice try, looser! Your stratagy is to make unsupported, blanket
> > > > statements about my New Constitution. The closing statements of my
> > > > document injoin anyone from making statement in any medium regarding
> > > > the document. And that requirement is made retroactive with severe
> > > > punishments, including death for treason! The rationale is that the
> > > > original Constitution allows having the People modify their government
> > > > at their will. In the horse-and-buggy era, the cumbersome amendment
> > > > process was the only way the founding fathers could come up with.
> > > > Note: The Founding Fathers could not immaginer how technology can
> > > > allow the taking of direct votes of all the states in a single day.
> > > > The SPIRIT of the Constitution surely favors having the Will of the
> > > > People prevail. Now, if anyone ventures to judge my document BEFORE
> > > > the votes get to decide, THAT is circumvinting democracy and is
> > > > tantamount to treason! I would highly recommend that no person in
> > > > government or in any medium (Google staff, included) say a single pro
> > > > or con word about my document! Here is that excerpt:
>
> > > > Notes: (1.) *Italicized text represents portions of the New
> > > > Constitution which shall be omitted unless separately and specifically
> > > > approved by 60% of the voters. Voting to approve the New Constitution
> > > > shall not be a vote on italicized portions. (2.) Any person, group or
> > > > business which polls the People on their support or non support of
> > > > this New Constitution or its parts prior to the national referendum,
> > > > shall, retroactively, be guilty of a felony(s). (3.) The news media
> > > > standards required, herein, as relates to coverage concerning this
> > > > document, shall, following ratification of the New Constitution by the
> > > > People, be retroactively applied to any news medium or person therein—
> > > > including the full punishments relating thereto—for non compliance
> > > > with the standards. Likewise, any judge or justice acting counter to
> > > > this New Constitution regarding news coverage issues or any part of
> > > > the ratification process shall be held fully accountable. The macro-
> > > > will of the Citizens shall be Supreme!
>
> > > > _______
>
> > > > Footnote: The "full punishments", above, include death for treason!
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 8:04 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Dear John... Why yes I can,,, simply post the entire document so
> > > > > everyone can see that my remarks are in context.
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 5:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Tico: In spite of your limited experience writing important
> > > > > > documents, why not choose a few sentences, in context, from my New
> > > > > > Constitution, and explain—as best you can—WHY such in any way might
> > > > > > fail to improve the USA and the People in it. Can you do that? — J.
> > > > > > A. Armistead — Author and Patriot
>
> > > > > > On Jun 5, 9:10 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I would have no idea what "documents" you are talking about...all I
> > > > > > > see are poorly written snippets that require more explanation than
> > > > > > > they have in substance.
>
> > > > > > > Again, Why is it that no one can see the entire supposed "document" ?
> > > > > > > Your lack of forthrightness in this matter would indicate that nothing
> > > > > > > exists but these three or four poorly written "clauses" or "articles"
> > > > > > > you bandy about. Your "word" about any more existing isn't worth a
> > > > > > > spit as we have been hearing that bullshit for years.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 5, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Dear Tico: Comment on the parts of my New Constitution. Otherwise,
> > > > > > > > you can't see the trees for the forests. Don't you like the trees?
> > > > > > > > Or do you only like getting to make grandiose errant statements about
> > > > > > > > documents which are fundamentally against your socialist agendas? —
> > > > > > > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > > > > > > On May 28, 5:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Then as any reasonable citizen that has asked for and never received a
> > > > > > > > > full copy of your "new constitution" (so I can "easily understand" it)
> > > > > > > > > and as a citizen of reasonable temperament speaking to the creator of
> > > > > > > > > a "government document" I would like to ask why you are so "
> > > > > > > > > adversarial" every time someone asks for a copy....
>
> > > > > > > > > You sir are in violation of your own document.... get a rope!!!!
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 28, 1:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Dear plainolamerican: Well said! "What do you call a heavy chain on
> > > > > > > > > > the bottom of the ocean with a thousand lawyers attached? Answer: A
> > > > > > > > > > GOOD START!" My new constitution will castrate the entire profession
> > > > > > > > > > known as lawyers! That screwed-up profession dominates the House,
> > > > > > > > > > Senate, the Executive Office and the Justice Department. But no
> > > > > > > > > > more! My New Constitution will limit the number of lawyers (or any
> > > > > > > > > > other profession for that matter) working in government to be no more
> > > > > > > > > > than 20%. And my New Constitution will mandate that no lawyer, ever
> > > > > > > > > > again, can be employed by any business (such as banks and big
> > > > > > > > > > corporations) where they try to force relationships to be
> > > > > > > > > > adversarial. And my N. Const. will strike down any supposed contract
> > > > > > > > > > that isn't easily understood by people of average background. And it
> > > > > > > > > > will mandate that those harmed by any business get quick and
> > > > > > > > > > reasonable amends without requiring that anyone get a lawyer and sue
> > > > > > > > > > anyone. In short. I eliminate 75% of the reasons lawyers find work!
> > > > > > > > > > Lastly, if even one lawyer seeks to go into public office when there
> > > > > > > > > > are already 20% of those in that same branch who are lawyers, never
> > > > > > > > > > again will any public-connected funding be available for sending any
> > > > > > > > > > person to any God Damned law school! Are you listening, Tico? Ha,
> > > > > > > > > > ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 2:02 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
> > > > > > > > > > > petition
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > oh, like soldiers are people who protect our freedom?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > no offense, but we don't need lawyers or soldiers to protect our
> > > > > > > > > > > freedom
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > First, Thank you for the compliment!!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Basically what I can take from your non-answer is a quote from Pelosi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > "you must pass the ..... to find out what is in it."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > petition ...regardless of how ridiculous the petition...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 8:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Tico: Every sentence is a "book" in and of itself. Realize that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lawyers, like you claim to be, will be excluded from screwing-up the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > USA like they have done for too long. A judge or justice violating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > even a sentence of my Constitution can be fired on-the-spot by any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prudent citizen. Working for government means being a SERVANT of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people. Servants who screw up can be fired; and it doesn't take a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > court decision or the next election to make that firing final. Come
> > > > > > > > > > > > > back to the USA and get a government job, and I will take great pride
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in firing you as soon as you fail to respect the civil rights of me or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone. You terse comments on this group show you have little respect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for others.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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