Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Rhetoric

Jonathan: I've got a lot of irons-in-the-fire. Playing-the-author
would leave time for little else. I've noticed that Ohio Gov. John
Kasich is saying: "Prosperity can cure a lot of ills." I'm more
interested in improving the world than in judging a book by the words
of others. Those who read my many essays know I'm an accomplished
writer without needing any references! — John A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On Mar 13, 3:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@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 Constitution�which 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 �
> >>> On Mar 11, 9:34 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>    >    Section 1, 2&      3:  States shall recognize other states� 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: aren�t 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. �
> >>>>> 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 states� 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: aren�t 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 servitude�
> >>>>>>> except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
> >>>>>>> duly convicted�shall exist within the United States or any place
> >>>>>>> subject to its jurisdiction.
> >>>>>>>         The House may create new states if such aren�t within the
> >>>>>>> jurisdiction of another state that dissents, and aren�t 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."
> >>>>>>> � John A. Armistead �  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
>
> ...
>
> 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