Keith: Thanks! You must realize that I have been repeating,
basically, these same ideas for seven years, and while my "NC" was
being polished. So, I should be pretty good at explaining things. I
was "predicting" these same socialist directions for our government
back in 1996 when I first began writing my "NC". At that time, the up-
front and hidden taxes for the typical taxpayer passed 33%—way too
high for the USA to survive. An efficiently run government, without
'socialist' anything should be able to pay for everything needed with
taxation at only 10% of the GNP. If the taxes are all 'value added',
and with zero taxes on food and drugs, all of the people will be
taxed.
It is absolutely finger-down-the-throat vomit that the God damned
Democrats keep talking about the 'middle class' paying the same tax
RATE as the wealthy. The RATE has nothing to do with fairness! It is
the total dollar amount paid! I have an entire chapter of my book,
the 'Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity' that explains the
rationale. And I wrote those things about 30 years ago! That little
book indicates my evolving mindset that would lead to my writing our
"NC". If some of you would read it, I wouldn't have to keep writing
long replies. No, I'm not hoping to make a fortune on that book.
Money isn't my motive for anything, except as a possible means to my
'end' of saving the USA and saving the world from destruction because
of socialism and religious STUPIDITY that is so rampant. If people
will just start being nice to their neighbors, rather than despising
them for having different beliefs, all of the trillions of dollars
wasted on religions and their pompous edifices can, instead, be used
to help train how to spread success through Capitalism. Capitalism
can save the world if the largely shallow Muslims will only realize
the power such has to help everyone who is willing to work to have a
happy life. Think about that. — John A. Armistead — P. S. There
is a YouTube video of a young man who is pro Jesus but anti-religion.
He may have heard that from me, or perhaps he has read my book. We
must realize the near fatal evil of religions. Hear that Jews and
Catholics? Set your ritualistic memberships FREE!!!!!
On Sep 16, 9:06 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> I agree.....Whole Heartedly. Well said.
>
> Keith
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:18 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello John,
>
> > > Although it was difficult to get through that long winded disortation,
> > > (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!) and I agree that the
> > > Obama Administration has by executive order installed unconstitutional,
> > > communistic mandates upon "We, The People"; I am at a loss as to how
> > you
> > > believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
>
> > > Far from it.
>
> > > There is nothing in the Constitution, (or maybe you can point out the
> > > Article and paragraph for us?) that restricts the association of like
> > > minded politically thinking individuals from forming associations or
> > groups
> > > to further their political cause.
>
> > > I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the strong".
> > > Examples please.
>
> > Keith: The primary standard for strength and weakness is one's
> > economic success. The super rich have dozens of employees to do their
> > every bidding. If they get sick, they can afford the best care in the
> > world. If they get sued, they can afford the very best lawyers. The
> > rich are the leaders, not the followers, and those tend to be
> > powerful. Conversely, those who barely have enough money to survive
> > are weak. When they get sick, they can't pay. When they get in
> > trouble they have only couldn't-care-less lawyers to represent them.
> > The only "strength" that they have is the fact our original
> > Constitution (only) gives those very many weak people the same voting
> > power as the strong. The weak are constantly trying to dominate the
> > strong—not by elevating themselves through fair capitalism—but by
> > banding together in as huge a group as possible (Democrats) so that
> > that unconstitutional group can mandate that the rich pay for their
> > every need, without any of them having to do a thing but to vote for
> > Obama, the anti-Christ, on election day. Is it any wonder the polls
> > are so close? The above is what I meant by the weak dominating the
> > powerful. They are like thieves robbing the stage coaches of old in
> > order to have an easier life. Who in this country is "riding shotgun"
> > to protect the rights of the powerful? Lest any of you think I don't
> > care about the disadvantaged, I do. I just see FAIR capitalism as the
> > quickest route for success for the most people, rather than having
> > people BEGGING government for free handouts. Very importantly: Once
> > government stops being socialistic, there will be more money left in
> > most people's pockets so that those in true need will get necessary
> > charity without government involvement. The rich must not be allowed
> > to be like that sheep with two wolves trying to decide what is for
> > dinner. After the decision, all three should be alive and well! —
> > John A. Armistead —
>
> > With regard to bias within the law.....Yes. It's true,
> > > and has been since the beginning of recorded history. The United States
> > is
> > > no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235 year
> > > history, beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion" of bias contained within
> > > the law. To some degree, it is these "biases" that you refer to, that
> > > shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
>
> > > All unalienable rights are from God, not government and they cannot be
> > > stripped by government, unless one "volunteers" to waive his God given
> > > unalienable right.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! The USA isn't a
> > > > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a Representative
> > > > Republic. The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > > > principle that the PEOPLE control government. Nowhere in the
> > > > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to substitute
> > > > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the voters
> > > > on election day. Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > > > century. But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > > > different from a Representative Republic! Note: That treasonous
> > > > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes that the
> > > > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our communist-socialist
> > > > dictator. As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two ago,
> > > > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of government—will
> > > > allow the weak to control the strong. And that isn't just if it is
> > > > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. Having
> > > > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness will
> > > > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the bounds of
> > > > justice and fairness. No biased group gets to define justice and
> > > > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own selfish
> > > > gain. The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > > > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power over the
> > > > course of government. Once that happens, there won't be any more
> > > > pressure to have governments become all things for all people, which
> > > > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work! — John
> > > > A. Armistead —
>
> > > > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > > > Since both of those are issues of
> > > > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to decide
> > once
> > > > > > and for all in direct referenda.
>
> > > > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic, not a
> > > > > Democracy.
> > > > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to decide by
> > > > > referendum.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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