Dear Keith: I, unlike you, must keep my relies within Google's time
limit. You do explain the various 'philosophies of government' quite
well. It is sad that so few see ALL governments, federal (NOT
capitalized on purpose!), state and local as their taxation amount.
When I set 10% as the optimum, that amount was to cover all three
levels of government. But paring things down to 10% will be a gradual
process. Though my "NC" doesn't stipulate amounts other than upper
limits, if I were to be elected President, by executive order, I would
fire 50% of government employees, including school teachers, on day
one. Education can be accomplished perfectly well using DVDS of the
very best teachers working for the average in the population wage. We
must stop thinking of education as a sure route to success. Only
hard, hands-on work will accomplish our objectives! I will read more
of your long reply, later, when I'm off the clock. — J. A. A. —
On Sep 16, 9:42 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Here is where we do disagree. I see a lot of flaws with our current
> political party system, but I also see a lot of positive, productive
> aspects of our system.
>
> In a nutshell, we, as a Nation, have always been divided between the
> "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists". There has continuously been
> this ongoing battle in our Nation for over two
> centuries....."Jeffersonians", as opposed to a "Hamiltonians".
> "Federalists" as opposed to the "Anti-Federalists". "Strict
> Constructionists" versus the "Implied Powers" advocators of the
> Constitution; those who believe in "State's Rights" over a large federal
> bureaucracy. The "Federalist" belief of a National Bank, versus the
> Anti-Federalist opposition to a National Bank, and its trappings. It
> boils down to how much federal government do we want in our lives.
>
> Today, these distinctions are very much embraced in the Democrat Party,
> which I believe has been broken beyond repair by the infiltration of
> socialists/communists; but still cling to a Hamiltonian "Large Central
> Government" proposition; as opposed to the Republicans which still
> embrace a "Jeffersonian/Anti-Federalist/States Rights" agenda.
>
> Although there were many of our Founding Fathers who were opposed to the
> political party system, these opponents, (Jefferson and
> Franklin being two of them) were nevertheless members of political
> parties, and they considered them necessary evils of their day.
>
> Today, in the New Millennium the political party system still remains the
> only viable mechanism to unite various voters who hold specific issues as
> their most important, together. There are at least four or five broad
> classifications of voter types that usually vote Republican; a coalition if
> you will; and some of these group's beliefs obviously overlap. I am
> stereotyping here but briefly, by example:
>
> The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly
> referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family,
> church and community are their most important issues;
>
> The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign,
> encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
>
> The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a
> strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted
> government;
>
> The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and
> I deterst that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former
> Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a
> "Federalist" perspective. They are still motivated to vote Republican,
> because of the Republican platform of a strong national defense.
>
> Again, I don't understand where or how you believe that political
> parties in our Nation are now, somehow unconstitutional. When you get a
> moment, I would like to understand this train of thought.
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:23 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
> > bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
> > acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
> > Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
> > use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
> > by the faction would get elected. At that point, political parties
> > became UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A process too many of us now accept as the
> > norm is to have political primaries decide which of the 'acceptable'
> > candidates gets to vie for office on the first Tuesday in November.
> > At the time, those things must have seemed logical, because of the
> > great difficulty of having runoff elections in the horse-and-buggy
> > era. But there is little such difficulty, today! In fact, my "NC"
> > defines an election process that in just three steps will FAIRLY
> > narrow down from any number of candidates wishing to get elected, and
> > without there being any more UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties. To
> > wit:
>
> > Section 1: Executive power shall be vested in a President of the
> > United States of America. Candidates for President shall be Citizens
> > born in the USA who are at least 35 years of age. With the exception
> > of the incumbent President and/or VP—if eligible and seeking re
> > election—other candidates shall, within ninety days of the date of
> > filing as a candidate for President, have obtained the endorsement of
> > a min. of 25,000 confirmed registered voters knowledgeable of such
> > candidate's qualifications. The 3rd Tuesday in July, voters of all
> > the states and territories shall reduce the field of presidential
> > candidates to 8, with the incumbent Pres. & VP to be included in such
> > number, if applicable. The 3rd Tuesday in October, voters shall
> > reduce the field to four, with the incumbent Pres. and VP not
> > automatically included. The 1st Tuesday in November, each voter
> > selects their 1st & 2nd choices—points 4 and 3 respectively. The
> > President and Vice President Elect receive the highest and the 2nd
> > highest total points.
>
> > Results of the election in November will not be like announcing the
> > winner of a four-year-long "game" being played out on the media. The
> > voters get to fairly decide who they want to elect without all of the
> > group-against-group fisticuffs. The Founding Fathers never intended
> > to allow groups to have any influence above one-person-one-vote of the
> > members. There shall be no "powerful" leaders speaking for any group
> > and no lobbyists for any groups allowed, because lobbying shall be a
> > crime. The result will be that CAPITALISM will be the only game in
> > town, and based on the sports-mentality of the masses, that game
> > should become a hot one, indeed! — John A. Armistead —
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Apart from your thesis on political parties, I agree with most of what
> > you
> > > wrote John.
>
> > > No question the "two party" political system that we have currently has
> > > been corrupted. Nevertheless, it is clear that the victor of the
> > > presidential nomination process has a great deal of influence in writing
> > > the party platform. The National Party Platform differs from the
> > > State(s)' Party Platform, as I can personally attest to. I have been
> > > involved in both North Carolina's and more recently Florida's platform
> > > writing process. This again takes away from your "Weak govern the
> > Strong"
> > > theory, but another conversation for another time.
>
> > > The "Mob Mentality" is a tool currently being used by the Democrats. I
> > > would disagree that Christians in general utilize this mentality or
> > > process; but again, if you can point to examples, I am all ears.
>
> > > Good to hear from you!
>
> > > Keith
>
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > MJ: Please read my reply to Keith on this same question. — J. A. A.
> > > > —
>
> > > > On Sep 10, 12:10 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > At 07:46 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:Yes, Studio, but "the two major
> > > > political parties" are 100%
> > > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! Much of what the
> > > > parties *do* is certainly unconstitutional, but the parties,
> > themselves,
> > > > are certainly not.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
> > > > > As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of
> > demand.
> > > > -- Josh Billings
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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