Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Rhetoric || World News

Monday, March 14, 2011

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Rhetoric

Guaranteed to put you to sleep within half a page.

On 03/13/2011 03:26 PM, Keith In Köln wrote:

Hey Jonathan!

Send the link! I might opt to buy it....I am looking for some reading material, on some upcoming (long assed) flights that I see I will be enduring here soon.....

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:

Has anyone besides Mark and myself noticed that John (a.k.a. NoEinstein) never answers a single question posed to him? When all he can do is cut and paste "the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply," does he actually think anyone will buy HIS New Book?

(HIS New Book is not the title of his new book. That's just me poking fun at John.)

HIS New Book was published by Outskirts Press (a business that helps folks self-publish) in September 2010. It is available through Amazon.com. However, I was not enticed into making a purchase simply because "There are no customer reviews yet." So, I went to the Barnes & Noble website, which allows folks to rate books on a scale of 1 to 5. It has no ratings for the book.

One would think that a book that has been out close to six months would have had at least one person post a review - even if it were a negative review.

I hope John didn't purchase too many copies of HIS New Book!

On 03/13/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —

On Mar 11, 5:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

Re: "Unless one understands the hundreds of problems solved, most don't have the smarts to realize how much more personal liberty and how much less government control there will be that would otherwise have affected most Americans."  John,  Perhaps a definition of liberty is needed for your perusal. From Webster's 1828 dictionary:      *LIB''ERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]      1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the     body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not     confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or     controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to     restrain his actions or volitions.  How does one gain liberty from YOUR New Constitution? From what little you have provided, for every problem YOUR New Constitution claims to solve, YOUR New Constitution creates ten new problems.  On 03/11/2011 12:46 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Mark:  Your pet one-page constitution was unknown to me when I wrote my New Constitutionï¿½which is based on and expanded from, the original.  So, don't fault me for not following your lead.  At no time is the input of any outsider, like you, being sought to... "evaluate" what I have done.  Most of the content was for solving very specific governmental problems highlighted in the news.  Unless one understands the hundreds of problems solved, most don't have the smarts to realize how much more personal liberty and how much less government control there will be that would otherwise have affected most Americans.  Even YOU will be a beneficiary!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½ On Mar 11, 9:34 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:

  >  Section 1, 2&    3:  States shall recognize other statesï¿½ public acts,

records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the states having laws governing such.

THERE GOES MY STATES RIGHT TO THE DEATH PENALTY AND LIFE IN PRISON FOR REPEAT OFFENDER PEDOPHILES...

   English, that is grammatically

written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse.  Laws, documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average people,

JUST WHAT IS "AVERAGE"... DEFINE "LEGALESE".... DOES THAT MEAN (IT CERTAINLY IMPLIES) THAT ANY "OFFICIAL" LANGUAGE MUST BE IN A FORM THAT WOULD ALLOW IDIOTS AND DROPOUTS TO UNDERSTAND..(EBONICS).. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT ANYONE WITH AN EDUCATION COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

  or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed.

Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages in civil court.

EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT A THOUSAND YEAR OLD LANGUAGE??

   No person shall be punished for violations of laws

that: arenï¿½t common knowledge;

SO IF I CLAIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW THAT KILLING UNCLE JOE WAS "ILLEGAL" I CAN'T BE PROSECUTED.

  disagree with the macro moral consensus

of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first year and passed by less than 60% of the House.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:56 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:

Jonathan, a socialist-communist masquerading as a conservative, is undeserving of being replied to.  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ On Mar 10, 9:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist hodge-podge. On 03/10/2011 06:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  About 1/3rd of my New Constitution relates to straightening- out the Judiciary.  Here, in sequence, is... " Article IV: Section 1, 2&    3:  States shall recognize other statesï¿½ public acts, records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the states having laws governing such.  English, that is grammatically written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse.  Laws, documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average people, or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed. Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages in civil court.  No person shall be punished for violations of laws that: arenï¿½t common knowledge; disagree with the macro moral

consensus

of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first year and passed by less than 60% of the House. Citizens in any state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as the Citizens of the several states. Anyone charged with treason or other crime in any state who flees to another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction in such crime. No imprison-ment, slavery, nor involuntary servitudeï¿½ except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convictedï¿½shall exist within the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction. The House may create new states if such arenï¿½t within the jurisdiction of another state that dissents, and arenï¿½t formed by joining two or more dissenting states or parts thereof. The House can make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the United States. The New Constitution shall not prejudice claims of the USA or a particular state, and shall guarantee to each state in the union a government that is a democracy or a republic, and shall protect states against invasion. Upon request by the legislature or the executive of a state (when the legislature cannot be convened), the United States shall protect such state from domestic violence." ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ Patriot On Mar 6, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Dear Keith in Koln: I lived in Charlotte for over two decades. My father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs. One of my most frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge. The "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to experience it to know it.) police state. As happened with O. J., the police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or not. The police are especially unfair to Blacks. I make it a felony for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is latter proved to be innocent. At every turn, justice demands that the presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury has reached a unanimous decision for guilt. Never again will there be the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence... *** Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not guilty. The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended! I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others. Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System: "Article III: Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President, or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect, high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments, yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitutionï¿½never on their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices arenï¿½t royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall

..  read more »

--
Q: What do you call 1,000 Republican politicians chained together with 1,000 Democrat politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

--
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.

World News

Monday, March 14, 2011

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Rhetoric

No comments:

Post a Comment