<sigh>
And yet two (2) times a reply is provided.
HOWEVER, we have YET to see this panacea Constitution.
Pity.
Regard$,
--MJ
The power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people goes to the essence of all political systems. Being defined even by political "scientists" as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and respect are in rapid decline. The people employed to carry out such powers be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various stripes, etc. are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such unrestricted violence against others. The state is the playground bully writ large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status that defines their system. -- Butler Shaffer
At 10:00 AM 2/19/2011, you wrote:
MJ is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Feb 18, 10:00 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> <sigh>
> And yet three (3) times a reply is provided.
> HOWEVER, we have YET to see this panacea Constitution.
> Pity.
> Regard$,
> --MJThe power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people goes to the essence of all political systems. Being defined even by political "scientists" as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and respect are in rapid decline. The people employed to carry out such powers be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various stripes, etc. are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such unrestricted violence against others. The state is the playground bully writ large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status that defines their system. -- Butler ShafferAt 09:51 AM 2/18/2011, you wrote:MJ is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
> >
> On Feb 17, 11:24 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Hoping for a Patriot Act setting?
> > Why are you so FEARFUL of allowing others to see it?
> > HERE is the US Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txtThevarious conventions (at the time of its ratification) reviewed, discussed, etc.
> > Your FEAR of allowing the Members of this Group READ it is quite telling. Your incessant and endless fallacious replies tell an even greater story.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ "...whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you." -- A. J. NockAt 11:00 AM 2/17/2011, you wrote:Dear J. A.: You have a bossy tone. My New Constitution will be voted
> > on, up-or-down, without discussion. "A 'camel' is a HORSE designed in
> > a committee!" The following reply to MJ also applies to you:
> > Folks: This MJ fellow has a friendly salutation, "Regard$". But he
> > is shallow-minded to suppose that my New Constitution is like a book
> > to be reviewed. The functionality of my document has withstood the
> > tests of events in the news that raise one's ire. If there is some
> > apparent injustice, I check to see if that same injustice would
> > prevail under my New Constitution. Over thirteen plus years, changes
> > were required in the wording, until, finally, few if any injustices
> > being told in the news would prevail. The latter thirteen year
> > process was my objective "review". No person on Earth could be more
> > objective than me, in what I've written, and why. — John A. Armistead
> > — Patriot
> > >
> > On Feb 16, 4:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Post your "New Constitution" and engage in meaningful discussion or quit
> > > complaining.
> > >
> > > On 2/16/2011 1:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > No, MJ. Go jump in a lake! No reader of my posts wants to hear the
> > > > dribble of a loser like you. Quotations of others just don't impress
> > > > the reader. So, learn and leave. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > > > On Feb 15, 9:56 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >> It is an endless circle of fallacy spew ... yet
> > > >> NO posting yet of this 'fabulous' Constitution.
> > > >> Go figure.
> > >
> > > >> Regard$,
> > > >> --MJ
> > >
> > > >> It is amazing how many people think that they can
> > > >> answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
> > > >> those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
> > > >> reasoning, you can believe or not believe
> > > >> anything about anything, without having to bother
> > > >> to deal with facts or logic. -- Thomas Sowell
> > >
> > > >> At 12:47 AM 2/15/2011, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par
> > > >>> with
> > > >>> your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > > >>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > >>> when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > > >>> must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > > >>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > >>> ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > > >>> On Feb 14, 1:29 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> So you are going to ENDLESSLY spew fallacy?
> > > >>>> Why not simply posit your Constitution
> > > >>> instead so it can be discussed and we might get somewhere?
> > > >>>> Regard$,
> > > >>>> --MJIt is amazing how many people think that they can
> > > >>>> answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
> > > >>>> those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
> > > >>>> reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything
> > > >>>> about anything, without having to bother to deal
> > > >>>> with facts or logic. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:20
> > > >>> PM 2/14/2011, you wrote:On Feb 14, 10:09 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par with
> > > >>>> your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > > >>>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > >>>> when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > > >>>> must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > > >>>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > >>>> ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > > >>>>> Why you imagine spewing fallacy aids your cause is unknown.
> > > >>>>> I can certainly understand WHY you would
> > > >>> prefer NOT to support (or attempt to) your efforts or claims.
> > > >>>>> Regard$,
> > > >>>>> --MJA state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive
> > > >>>>> minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the
> > > >>>>> multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret
> > > >>>>> the loss of their pleasing vision.
> > > >>>>> -- Edward Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the
> > > >>> Roman Empire_At 11:36 PM 2/13/2011, you
> > > >>> wrote:Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par with
> > > >>>>> your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > > >>>>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > >>>>> when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > > >>>>> must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > > >>>>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > >>>>> ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > > >>>>> On Feb 12, 9:35 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> MJ, you seem to be on-the-fence whether you concur with what I'm
> > > >>>>>> doing. I invite your more specific comments, because time does not
> > > >>>>>> allow me to be as wordy in future replies. Your "$" salutation amuses
> > > >>>>>> I would need to see the TEXT of this Constitution in order to
> > > >>>>>> discuss it. I erroneously believed we were discussing the US
> > > >>>>>> Constitution ... and then you wanted to instead argue about something
> > > >>>>>> I STILL have not seen -- as though I instead had.
> > > >>>>>> Post the text already.
> > > >>>>>> I will provide the text of something that appears quite workable.
> > > >>>>>> Regard$,
> > > >>>>>> --MJThe fact that I have no remedy for
> > > >>> all the sorrows of the world is no reason for
> > >...
>
> 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