please explain what
your beef is. OK?
---
I don't like the idea of limiting free speech.
Free speech applies to the political arena also.
Trying to silence political endorsements is not possible.
if we want to remove 'unwanted' influence we should eliminate the
lobbyists ability to convince, extort, or bribe a rep to vote against
his constituency AND force reps to report to his constituency about
the request of the lobbyist.
The vast majority of Americans see their disparate group associations
as the main source of their
'influence' in Washington.
---
what are your thoughts about removing all minority statuses? No
favoritism ... no exceptions.
imo - a homogeneous America is much more desirable than a heterogenous
America.
On Jun 20, 4:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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" ?
>
> ...
>
> 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