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 President of the USA.
> >>>>>>> Napolitano shows his naivet� by recommending we vote for candidates
> >>>>>>> desiring smaller, lower cost Government who will support� the
> >>>>>>> Constitution. Over the decades, the Constitution has been ritually
> >>>>>>> praised. But that document was so WEAK that our government evolved
> >>>>>>> away from being the Representative Republic the Founding Fathers
> >>>>>>> surely wanted to mandate. My New Constitution is strength (control
> >>>>>>> over what goes on in Washington) made manifest!
> >>>>>>> Donald Trump is being �tagged� a �birther� and a �racist� by Mort
> >>>>>>> Zuckerman�s NY news paper. Liberals call it a conspiracy that anyone
> >>>>>>> would wish to apply the same level of technical facility to analyzing
> >>>>>>> two questionable birth certificates, as was used to assess the Shroud
> >>>>>>> of Turin, or the remains of King Tut. The long form birth
> >>>>>>> certificate, which Obama released to the press, was a *.PDF file, not
> >>>>>>> a photocopy of an original. That file was clearly LAYERS of PDF files
> >>>>>>> placed one over the other to form a
>
> ...
>
> 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.
