or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution. I don't have
time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the
psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the
other. I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you.
"Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical." — J. A. A.
—
>
On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite
> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New
> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?
>
> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Jonathan: If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
> > influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
> > insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
> > House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo
> > governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
> > away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
> > founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives
> > to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
> > make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
> > society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
> > own weight in society.
>
> > It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
> > photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
> > From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
> > norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
> > media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
> > US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
> > US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
> > assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching
> > news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
> > on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
> > hardworking Americans! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> >> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> >> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> >> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> >> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> >> create a one-man nation.
>
> >> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> >>> you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't
> >>> have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> >>> that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> >>> into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about
> >>> my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions
> >>> in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. �
> >>> J. A. A. �
> >>> On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of
> >>>> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."
> >>>> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long
> >>>> as I respect the equal rights of others?
> >>>> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and
> >>>> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any government
> >>>> was created?
> >>>> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that
> >>>> existed naturally before any government was created?
> >>>> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the
> >>>> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery,
> >>>> kidnapping, and fraud?
> >>>> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special
> >>>> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?
> >>>> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions �
> >>>> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any
> >>>> different?
> >>>> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my
> >>>>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only
> >>>>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of which
> >>>>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the
> >>>>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull
> >>>>> any of the strings.
> >>>>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
> >>>>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New
> >>>>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
> >>>>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than
> >>>>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony
> >>>>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a
> >>>>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms
> >>>>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the
> >>>>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell
> >>>>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving
> >>>>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to
> >>>>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that! � John A. Armistead
> >>>>> � Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when
> >>>>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.
> >>>>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market
> >>>>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government
> >>>>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept.
> >>>>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by
> >>>>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business.
> >>>>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil
> >>>>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that a
> >>>>>> government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have complete
> >>>>>> liberty without such need.
> >>>>>> *LIBERTY,* 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.*
> >>>>>> CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and
> >>>>>> government of the citizens and subjects of a state_;
> >>>>>> On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a socialist-communist�or
> >>>>>>> else you can't read and comprehend. Attack me in any way, and you
> >>>>>>> attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil
> >>>>>>> liberties for the vast majority of Americans. Until you can recognize
> >>>>>>> those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a
> >>>>>>> sharply pointed wooden stake. � NE �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope
> >>>>>>>> of a REAL Constitution ie.
> >>>>>>>> *The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character
> >>>>>>>> of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must
> >>>>>>>> conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation,
> >>>>>>>> distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government
> >>>>>>>> departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its
> >>>>>>>> sovereign powers.*
> >>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>> ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most
> >>>>>>>> importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution"
> >>>>>>>> posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you
> >>>>>>>> have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.*
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> MJ: All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't
> >>>>>>>>> increasing your status in the groups one bit. And haven't you heard?
> >>>>>>>>> It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size). You are a pest on my
> >>>>>>>>> post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me. In
> >>>>>>>>> the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you
> >>>>>>>>> haven't gotten many readers, have you. Please make a "quote" of your
> >>>>>>>>> own worthy of being in Bartlett's. If you can't do that, then you
> >>>>>>>>> should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby. � J. A. A.
> >>>>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response.
> >>>>>>>>>> SADLY, you offer no support to your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>>> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> >>>>>>>>> legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> >>>>>>>>> many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> >>>>>>>>> facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> >>>>>>>>> intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> >>>>>>>>> enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> >>>>>>>>> using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM
> >>>>>>>>> 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being
> >>>>>>>>> replied to. � J. A.
> >>>>>>>>>> A. �
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this
> >>>>>>>>> Group (PoliticalFo...@GoogleGroups.com).
> >>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed to be a moderator.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I did not request a 'discussion'.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I did, however,
>
> ...
>
> 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