A pity you cannot put forth this panacea
Constitution of yours. At this point it becomes obvious WHY.
Regard$,
--MJ
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the
truth when you know that you would lie if you
were in his place. -- H.L. Mencken
At 09:52 AM 2/28/2011, you wrote:
>Folks: Jonathan, the jerk, is undeserving of a reply. —J. A. A. —
> >
>On Feb 26, 12:32 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
>wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > In almost all of your posts over the past few days, you have resorted to
> > name calling - "the last resort of the desperate."
> >
> > That you cannot tell the difference between an individualist,
> > anti-conformist, voluntaryist who wants little or no government and a
> > socialist-communist who relies upon government to suck the lifeblood out
> > of everyone likely says volumes about YOUR New Constitution.
> >
> > On 2/26/2011 3:59 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jonathan, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts,
> > > that identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! � J.
> > > A. A. �
> > > On Feb 25, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> It appears to me you are about self-glorification, not patriotism.
> >
> > >> On 2/25/2011 7:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >
> > >>> Dear Socialist-Communist: There is three or four times more MEAT in
> > >>> the 40% of my New Constitution, regularly printed in the thread, than
> > >>> in the entire original Constitution! In the RUDEST way, you've
> > >>> attacked me for not showing you the 60%, when you haven't cared enough
> > >>> to even look back for the meaty 40%! Make your own post, traitor.
> > >>> I'm about saving the USA. I have a �pointed wooden stake� for the
> > >>> heart of anyone who stands in my way! � J. A. A. � Patriot
> > >>> On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> John,
> > >>>> I was under the impression when I joined this political "discussion"
> > >>>> group that folks subscribed to the group to discuss political issues.
> > >>>> Your failure to post YOUR New Constitution when at least four people
> > >>>> (including myself) have expressed a
> sincere interest in reading it shows
> > >>>> you are not interested in having it enacted. Either that or you are
> > >>>> afraid of the feedback you will receive.
> > >>>> I seem to recall your concern with publishing it was it isn't
> > >>>> copyrighted. Would a true "patriot" (as
> you continually label yourself)
> > >>>> be more concerned with the direction in which his country is headed or
> > >>>> HIS copyright protection? As it stands now, YOUR New Constitution will
> > >>>> likely die when you do because no one else will ever have a chance to
> > >>>> read it.
> > >>>> Your claim that I am "likely socialist-communist" shows you have never
> > >>>> read anything I have posted to this group. If you had you would know
> > >>>> that I come real close to believing that the government that governs
> > >>>> best is no government at all. A completely voluntary society could not
> > >>>> possibly be any worse than the socialist police state we now live in.
> > >>>> Your comment, "You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!"
> > >>>> only confirms my suspicion that you are
> a wanna-be dictator. If you were
> > >>>> a moderator for this group, I would likely have been banned long ago
> > >>>> because I dared to comment on YOUR posts.
> > >>>> On 2/23/2011 6:33 PM, NoEinstein 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.
--
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