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. — 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 »
--
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
--
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.
