Re: Republitards had a bad week this week...

On May 18, 7:12 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And by the way, Trump never bowed in.
>
> Can't believe you fell for that.  Even Letterman got it, and he's a
> butt screaming liberal too

I actually wrote my disbelief that he would run at other web sites.

But it's not really a concern to liberals, so much as the Donald
making conservatives look like the fools they actually are.

--
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.

Re: Republitards want drug testing.... again... surprise!

On May 18, 7:09 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A republican with 9 to 1 support, including Governor Patrick.
>
> Republicans couldn't pass a bill here if they voted alone!
>
> Hello!!!
>
Greg previously scribbled:
> Its a dem bill here!
> PURE dem
>
Hello.
I guess I proved to everyone of reason that Dems aren't even
considering such a bill in Mass at this point.
But in your bizzaro universe that equates to they are.

The bill hasn't passed in Mass., but the only one looking to do it is
a Republitard.
Ok, you can admit Republican'ts are chasing bills that can't
pass...and once again, doing nothing to earn their paychecks because
they're inherently lazy and stupid.

> And whats this national bill thing?

There has been talk by other Republitard congressmen about passing a
national bill regarding drug testing for welfare recipients.
Albeit, they could withhold the bill from being considered, thus
avoiding embarrassment... but I doubt it because they're so stupid.
I'll post it for your further personal embarrassment when it's made
available.

--
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.

Re: Black Athletes Give Up On White Sports

On May 18, 9:11 am, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> are you that thick that you couldn't figure out it is a comedy site?

This is a political forum, not a comedy site.

When Off Topic, it's appropriate to use OT: in the header.

> Why are you lefties such an angry lot?

I don't know, I give up, could it be the same reason righties are?

--
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.

The Brainwashed Refrain: “Ron Paul Is Crazy”

The Brainwashed Refrain: "Ron Paul Is Crazy"
Tom Woods

What they really mean, of course, is that Ron Paul defies political categories and takes positions outside the continuum from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney, and people whose minds have been formed in the ideological prison camps we call public schools cannot abide unapproved opinions.  Tax me 35% or tax me 40%, but don't raise the possibility that taxation itself may be a moral issue rather than just a matter of numbers.  Either bomb or starve that poor country, but don't tell me there might be a third option. The Fed should loosen or the Fed should tighten, but don't tell me our money supply doesn't need to be supervised by a central planner.

Meanwhile, those who accuse Ron Paul of being "crazy" hold a whole slew of positions that I think qualify as crazy, but the word crazy isn't employed to refer to them because those positions happen to be politically mainstream.

Read Glenn Greenwald on the bipartisan, Orwellian phenomenon of calling people "crazy" because they step outside the three-inch area the establishment has set out for us to occupy.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-brainwashed-refrain-ron-paul-is-crazy/

xxx

Friday, May 28, 2010 10:29 ET
Who are the real "crazies" in our political culture?
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II)

One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics.  That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable:  anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers.  Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane, and still is.

Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to) -- while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy.  Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy's wrongness -- how insane and evil he is! 

In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats -- including the current Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressive pundits who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane -- supported the monstrous attack on that country.

In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed the legalization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the Democratic Congress -- led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader -- overwhelmingly voted it into law.  Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America's use of torture from the start, while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use.  Compare Paul's February, 2010 emphatic condemnation of America's denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing.

The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan, while the Democratic Congress continues to fund it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal.  Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" -- that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties -- while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it.  Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it.  He was warning of the collapsing dollar and housing bubble at a time when our Nation's Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious.  In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity:  anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.

There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious.  But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul's anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid's anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader).  My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy."  Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do -- from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world -- love to spit the "crazy" label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.

* * * * *

This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability.  But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.

I've been writing for several years about this destructive dynamic:   whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they're good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not.  For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the "crazy" smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture.  Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies.  That's what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.

Last week in Newsweek, in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon.  While acknowledging that Rand Paul's questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are "wacky" and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes:

Forced to name the "craziest" policy favored by American politicians, I'd say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable.  Asked about the most "extreme," I'd cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The "kookiest" policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco -- products that people ought to consume less, not more. . . .

If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants?

He goes on to note that "these disparaging descriptors are never applied to America's policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don't fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all."  Indeed, this is true of anyone who deviates at all -- even in tone -- from the two-party orthodoxy, as figures as disparate as Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean or even Alan Grayson will be happy to tell you.

* * * * *

The reason this is so significant -- the reason I'm writing about it again -- is because forced adherence to the two parties' orthodoxies, forced allegiance to the two parties' establishments, is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation.  That's how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged.  Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that's the source of their power.  And neither parties' loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies. 

Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power.  As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties' establishments.  The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.

That's why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments.  To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone.  That's because breaking down those divisive barriers can be uniquely effective in enabling ideologically diverse citizens to join together to weaken power factions, as Alan Grayson proved when he teamed up with Ron Paul to force the uber-secret Fed to submit to at least some version of an audit (backed by several leading progressives joining with Grover Norquist and other Crazies to support it), or as Al Gore proved when he brought substantial attention to Bush's war on the Constitution by forming an alliance with Bob Barr and other right-wing libertarians.  Preventing (or at least minimizing) those types of ad hoc alliances through use of the Crazy smear ensures a divided and thus weakened citizenry against entrenched political power in the form of the two parties.  Obviously, the more stigmatized it is to stray from two-party loyalty, the stronger the two parties (and those who most benefit from their dominance) will be.

If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that's certainly reasonable.  But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own.  The reason the U.S. is in the shape it's in isn't because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called "crazies" have been in charge; they haven't been, at all.  The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed.  So where does the real craziness lie?

* * * * *

Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn't a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the "crazy" accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.

 

UPDATE:  I'll try this one more time:  for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:

There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy."

This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing.  Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).

 

UPDATE II:  One other point:  intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power. 



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

Sadly, you have failed in your endeavor ... if the snippets you HAVE provided are an indicator.

Regard$,
--MJ

We do not deal much in fact when we are contemplating ourselves. -- Mark Twain



t 07:40 PM 5/18/2011, you wrote:

Keith:  I'm not in an ego battle with anyone.  For at least ten years
I worked to get the structure of my New Constitution in place.  My
motive was to protect the People from the burgeoning control of
everything by government, that always entails a loss of civil

From a Canadian retired teacher

    Alic Simard <letaillan@gmail.com> May 18 06:53PM -0400 ^
 
A tale! A tale! (based upon Brian's & Jim's comments about being "passed
over" by the clergy)
Sheila: the school's principal, 6'2", 300+ lb., two-bagger ugly
Ron: teacher who was transferred annually to a new school, because NO
principal was going to keep him for more than one year
Alic: you already know
Ron had made so many sexual suggestions to staff members, and had asked so
many impertinent sexual questions (about their love life; their
husbands'/wives' "performances", etc.) that there was a rash of formal
complaints. Sheila collected the data, and approached me for my "complaint".
I told her that, while I found Ron totally disgusting, and was glad NOT to
have to work with him in any forum, he had never made any such comment to
me, or asked me any impertinent questions. Sheila informed me that the only
two people on staff who did NOT have a complaint to lodge were she and I.
Guess how much that did for my ego.
Ron, by the way, eventually went "over the edge" -- although not in relation
to his school life -- and was arrested, cuffed in his classroom in front of
two class groups of students. He never returned. (There were more than a few
pitchers of beer slung back over that announcement.)
You ask, of course, WHY he wasn't fired earlier. Union, union, union.
Alic
 

Re: Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

<sigh>
Let's all stand in a circle and WAIT for some topic to be handed down from upon high. Maybe we should sing kumbaya while we wait.

I will take your response as confirmation.

Regard$,
--MJ

We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending. Furthermore, we believe that the federal government should be limited and restricted to the functions mandated by the United States Constitution. The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs.    -- 2004 Republican Platform



At 02:41 PM 5/18/2011, you wrote:

Uhm......Michael? 
 
You are the one who cut and paste an article, without comment.  I merely followed up as accurately as David Davenport did.
 


 
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:28 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

So you don't want to discuss the words, concepts and ideas presented here (education and federal involvement) ... opting instead to spew your usual meaningless fallacy?

<sigh>

Regard$,

--MJ

"Just in Case You Are Taking the Republicans Seriously . . . like, when they say we need to repeal Obamacare because it is socialism. Remember that Social Security, Medicare, and public education are three of the greatest socialist schemes on the planet. When Republicans say that they too need to be eliminated because they are socialism then we can begin to take them seriously." -- Laurence Vance

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Republicans' primary choice: The Constitution or the money

GOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schools

By David Davenport

The Washington Times

6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011

Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican Party than education policy. It wasn't that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democrats to see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.

How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America's test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush had some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his "value added" approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.

As if this weren't enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. The Department of Education is funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation's diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.

Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.

At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/

--

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.

--

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.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"

X-Attachment-Id: f_gnuj50sc0

--

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.

--
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.

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

Only as seen by those who are deluded, Jonathan. Ha, ha, HA! — J. A.
A. —

On May 13, 7:02 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> For the last time. I want to abolish government. Without government,
> there can be no social engineering - such as YOUR New Constitution is
> intent upon doing.
>
> On 05/13/2011 02:13 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley:  Somehow, in your miniscule mind, you suppose that nothing
> > 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.  ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ 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!  ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

Keith: I'm not in an ego battle with anyone. For at least ten years
I worked to get the structure of my New Constitution in place. My
motive was to protect the People from the burgeoning control of
everything by government, that always entails a loss of civil
liberties and the involuntary takeover of personal assets. If "ego"
had been my motive, how could I have satisfied that ego by working out
of the limelight? The reason I am immune to personal attacks is
because I know for sure that the egos of the attackers is their
motive. When anyone opens their mouth against me, they are confirming
that I have done worthy things that make the attacker feel less than
worthy. I invite you, and others, who value my motive of working for
the good of the People to tell your friends, neighbors and associates
what is transpiring, here. Then, one day the voters will get to
decide which of us are on the side of virtue. — John A. Armistead —
>
On May 18, 3:04 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Sage!
>
> I missed that!  I quit reading Jonathan's,  Michael's;  I think John
> Armistead does it too,  a hand full of folks now here, have decided that
> they can, "Out-Do" each other with cutsey little sayings and thought
> provoking snippets in their "signature".  Jonathan actually is quoting a
> Moonbat in his!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 8:34 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > John,
>
> > > Is that supposed to be some sort of defense for your utter arrogance?
>
> > > On 05/17/2011 04:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > J. Ashley:  By my New Constitution, patriotic Americans will TELL
> > > > government that having maximum civil liberties (freedoms) is a
> > > > requirement.  At no point have I asked anyone for anything!  In the
> > > > most demonstrative ways possible, I tell (define) what government must
> > > > do, or 'how high to jump' when the people speak!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead
> > > > � Patriot
> > > > On May 16, 5:40 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  wrote:
> > > >> John's sheer arrogance rises to the surface once again! It seems no
> > one
> > > >> will ever be as good as John - at least in John's mind.
>
> > > >> On 05/16/2011 01:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
> > > >>> simply don't measure up.
> > > >> --
>
> > > >>        Freedom is always illegal!
>
> > > >> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> > > >> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> > > >> have any possibility of being free.
>
> > > >> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> > > >> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> > > >> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
>
> > > --
>
> > >       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> > > When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> > > declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> > > have any possibility of being free.
>
> > *************************************************************************** ******
> > > "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> > > refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> > > Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University-
>
> >                 Another liberal imbecility!  He should have aptly
> > said..... "Why should we bother with "realities" when we have the
> > ideological refuge of mindless socialism?" To which; all liberal self
> > proclaimed " intelligentsia " have devoted their lives to.
> > > Gary Leupp- Professor of Herstory, Tufts University-
>
> > --
> > 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.

--
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.

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

Dear Sage2: To be "sage" is to show wisdom. Often, replies—read
simply as words in sentences—are vague enough to leave the reader
wondering if the reply was being sarcastic, or if the writer is
actually agreeing with someone. Since I haven't read enough of your
replies to know your stand for sure, I hope we are both on the same
side. — J. A. Armistead —

On May 17, 10:46 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 8:34 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
> > John,
>
> > Is that supposed to be some sort of defense for your utter arrogance?
>
> > On 05/17/2011 04:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > J. Ashley:  By my New Constitution, patriotic Americans will TELL
> > > government that having maximum civil liberties (freedoms) is a
> > > requirement.  At no point have I asked anyone for anything!  In the
> > > most demonstrative ways possible, I tell (define) what government must
> > > do, or 'how high to jump' when the people speak!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead
> > > � Patriot
> > > On May 16, 5:40 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  wrote:
> > >> John's sheer arrogance rises to the surface once again! It seems no one
> > >> will ever be as good as John - at least in John's mind.
>
> > >> On 05/16/2011 01:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > >>> You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
> > >>> simply don't measure up.
> > >> --
>
> > >>        Freedom is always illegal!
>
> > >> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> > >> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> > >> have any possibility of being free.
>
> > >> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> > >> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> > >> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
>
> > --
>
> >       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> > When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> > declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> > have any possibility of being free.
> > *************************************************************************** ******
> > "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> > refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> > Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University-
>
>                 Another liberal imbecility!  He should have aptly
> said..... "Why should we bother with "realities" when we have the
> ideological refuge of mindless socialism?" To which; all liberal self
> proclaimed " intelligentsia " have devoted their lives to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gary Leupp- Professor of Herstory, Tufts University-

--
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.

Re:1

You'll be completely satisfied with the way it works!... http://activaya.com.ar/friends_links.php?zaxPage=04ad9

How many more reasons do we need to ban Muslims from military service?

How many more reasons do we need to ban Muslims from military service? barenakedislam | May 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Categories: Military stories | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-tWG

Two years ago, Khalid Lyaacoubi and Yassine Bahammou, both recent Muslim immigrants from Morocco, enlisted in the Army National Guard. But as they prepared to leave Fort Jackson, S.C., they were instead questioned by military investigators who suspected them and three other Moroccan immigrants of plotting to poison fellow soldiers. NEW YORK TIMES - For the next 45 [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

Mercy on us all: Hillary says Obama told her he only wants to serve 8 years as president...won't seek unconstitutional third term

Let's hope it is only four. Or less.

Mercy on us all: Hillary says Obama told her he only wants to serve 8 years as president...won't seek unconstitutional third term Scotty Starnes | May 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM | Tags: dictatorhip, Hillary Clinton, U.S. Constitution | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5h0

For a constitutional scholar, Obama sure is clueless. A U.S. President can only serve (2) four-year terms. Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution to stop wanna-be dictators.

From TheBlaze.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eight years as president is enough, thank you. At least that's what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says President Barack Obama told her the other day.

Clinton said Tuesday that she and Obama often marvel over foreign despots who want to stay in power for decades.

She told a State Department forum that neither she nor Obama can understand leaders who refuse to transfer power and cling to office for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.

She says she and the president joke: "Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine?"

Clinton says Obama told her, "I'm going to win re-election, and then I'm done," a remark that drew laughter from the audience.

U.S. presidents are constitutionally barred from a third term.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

UNBELIEVABLE! Secret Service grills 7th grader for Facebook post about Obama

UNBELIEVABLE! Secret Service grills 7th grader for Facebook post about Obama barenakedislam | May 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-u6X

LIKE EVERY OTHER newspaper and blogger around the world reported, this 13-year old boy said that Barack Hussein Obama could be in danger of a terrorist attack or suicide bombing after the assassination of Osama bin Laden. But the Obama Regime must have thought this kid was a security threat because they sent out the [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

Martin Short musical 'tribute' to Bin Laden (Video)

Martin Short musical 'tribute' to Bin Laden (Video) Scotty Starnes | May 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM | Tags: David Letterman, Martin Short, Osama Bin Laden | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5hb

watch?v=Y3Ht8zcbHXs&feature=player_embedded

Asshole in the sand...hahaha! I got a bin Laden joke myself.

Go to your local bar/pub and ask for the new Bin Laden drink. It's two shots followed by a splash of water!!!!

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

OBAMA REGIME agrees to investigate Muslim complaints by Terrorist Front Group CAIR about Muslim profiling at borders

Bar all muzzieshits from entering this country.  Let them complain.

OBAMA REGIME agrees to investigate Muslim complaints by Terrorist Front Group CAIR about Muslim profiling at borders barenakedislam | May 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM | Categories: CAIR Nazis | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-u7F

The U.S. government has launched an investigation into allegations that federal agents at several U.S.-Canada border crossings in Michigan repeatedly harassed, jailed and body searched Muslims because of their background or appearance. (Nooooo, not because of their appearance, because of their history) Detroit Free Press - In a letter sent this week to a local Muslim group, Margo [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.