since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that
identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! — J. A. A.
—
>
On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> the latter.>>>
>
> Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there.
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing my
> > New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I
> > have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of
> > having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > zero interaction with individual citizens. 'My' government will no
> > longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of
> > corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police
> > state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And
> > the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I've put
> > them in their place, big time!
>
> > You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate in
> > the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get
> > back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: "I pro-capitalist
> > and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > the latter. — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > Pity.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > > >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! —
> > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is
> > ever
> > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > anyone
> > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about
> > this
> > > > > > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins
> > with
> > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > > > > > President
> > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request
> > of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To
> > wit:
>
> > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > > > > > throats.
>
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New
> > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts of
> > it
> > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies,
> > but to
> > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would,
> > maliciously,
> > > > > >> make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to
> > side-track
> > > > > >> my efforts.
>
> > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for
> > fourteen
> > > > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises
> > highlighted
> > > > > >> in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts.
> > What
> > > > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the
> > original
> > > > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with
> > our
> > > > > >> Constitution.
>
> > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > anyone
> > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see
> > the
> > > > > >> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about
> > this
> > > > > >> or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins
> > with
> > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > >> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > have
> > > > > >> had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or
> > kick
> > > > > >> out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > > > > >> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request
> > of a
> > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To
> > wit:
>
> > > > > >> "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment
> > of
> > > > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > >> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements
> > shall
> > > > > >> be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > > > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press
> > or
> > > > > >> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and
> > the
> > > > > >> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > > > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so
> > > > > >> petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant,
> > timely,
> > > > > >> comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities
> > who
> > > > > >> have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient
> > aspect of
> > > > > >> the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.
> > Failure
> > > > > >> to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance
> > shall,
> > > > > >> on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s
> > employment,
> > > > > >> especially those in management or public office�including judges
> > and
> > > > > >> justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any
> > competent
> > > > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > > > >> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No
> > > > > >> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above
> > required
> > > > > >> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their
> > objectivity
> > > > > >> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well
> > informed.
> > > > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be
> > reasonable
> > > > > >> truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > > > >> deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious
> > fiction or
> > > > > >> satire�is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular
> > news
> > > > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > > > >> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by,
> > or
> > > > > >> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named
> > as
> > > > > >> being authored by management; editorial comments by others that
> > are in
> > > > > >> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by
> > comments
> > > > > >> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most
> > would
> > > > > >> come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such
> > are
> > > > > >> innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology
> > of
> > > > > >> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses
> > such
> > > > > >> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss
> > of
> > > > > >> license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > > > >> promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > > > > >> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > > > >> pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others
> > outside
> > > > > >> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > > > >> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is
> > allowed,
> > > > > >> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and
> > provided
> > > > > >> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to
> > all
> > > > > >> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > > > >> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action.
> > No
> > > > > >> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
>
> ...
>
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment