You certainly live in a twisted mind. How did you deduce from reading "a brief post" of mine in which I expressed my "dislike of big government" and my "desire to have power returned to the people and to the States" that I am "ticked-off" that anyone, like YOU, "could single-handedly fix all of the problems"?
Better yet, how could you possibly conclude by reading anything I have posted to this forum that I am a "socialist-communist ... undeserving of a reply" - a statement you made earlier in this very thread?
I asked ten simple questions regarding only a minor portion of your response to Keith and you dodged them all by stating, "None of the ten thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a considerate tone..." If you don't like my tone or the tone of others who challenge you on this forum, how will you deal with the boat-load of crap and sarcasm that will be heaved upon you IF YOUR New Constitution is ever presented to the masses?
Had I spent further time dissecting your short response to Keith, I am sure I would have had at least ten more questions. So one must ask, How can you possibly believe you are capable of "single-handedly" fixing "all of the problems"?
I have reached the opinion that anything having to do with YOUR New Constitution must result in "it's my way or the highway" for you. You obviously have no tolerance for criticism. Therefor, one must conclude you are not open to suggestions. Without being open to criticism and suggestions, YOUR New Constitution will never see the light of day.
On 3/3/2011 6:14 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Folks: My first impressions KILLED any chance Jonathan Ashley might ever have had to have me reply to him. Today, I read a brief post of his in which he expressed his dislike of big government and his desire to have power returned to the people and to the States. Apparently, Ashley was ticked-off that anyone, like me, could single-handedly fix all of the problems. So, that guy is attacking my patriotic efforts by picking at 'the details' of my constitution. *** Note: None of the ten thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a considerate tone which Ashley completely lacks. Most of his pet questions have already been answered, if he, and others, would simply read back into the thread. I don't have time to repeat the same things just so a jerk like Jonathan Ashley can feel important. I suspect he is more motivated to retard my efforts than he is to actually fixing any government problems, anywhere. So, whatever I call Ashley, he is, and will remain, undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. Armistead — PatriotOn Mar 3, 11:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:Once again, John has resorted to name calling instead of answering the 10 specific questions I asked regarding HIS New Constitution. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein On 3/2/2011 7:19 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Folks: Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. � J. A. A. � On Mar 2, 1:29 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John,You wrote:*> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to be!*It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a dictator. As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith.*> 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.*1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution?2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic?3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"?4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from influencing your secular government?4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements" need be secular? * > No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of speech; *You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular."*> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;*1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair and pro-democracy"?2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.*> 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.*It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our current Constitution in tact.*> 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.*1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"?2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority?3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications"?I am having too much fun to continue.Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack constructs such as...*Rule of construction*If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official has a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a power, the presumption shall be that the official does not have the power, or conversely, that the person has the immunity.*Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors*No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an indictment or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction, and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit.The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the Constitution Society.http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htmOn 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit: "Bill of Rights and Amendments: 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 others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium. Each medium shall respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment� being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall display active public records without the free consent of the apt parties." And ... "It shall be a felony.. read more »
No comments:
Post a Comment