pro-democracy New Constitution, is undeserving of a reply. — John A.
Armistead — AKA NoEinstein
>
On Mar 25, 2:55 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are a leader and have no followers or adherents .... you are not a
> leader
>
> if you are a writer and have no readers.... you are not a writer
>
> Do you get the point there Einstein ??
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>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.
>
> ...
>
> 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