undeserving of a reply! — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 11:10 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> *John,
>
> 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 � Patriot
> > On 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.htm
> >>>> On 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
>
> ...
>
> 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