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. — J. A. A. — > On May 12, 2:04 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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.
