Only as seen by those who are deluded, Jonathan. Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
On May 13, 7:02 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> 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. � 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 > > ... > > 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.
