replied to and undeserving of being called an American. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:33 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." -- House Speaker Nancy PelosiAt 01:24 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:Hey Einstein,
> Manners go both ways. Your constant "talking points" about your proposed constitution coupled with your obstinate refusal to post it in its entirety so people can read "In Context" and form a worthwhile opinion for themselves is rather hypocritical and here is why:
> The very fact that you have undertaken your monumental task says that there are many parts of the present constitution that you find repugnant, worthless, unusable (etc). Yet you do not allow anyone else the opportunity to read what you HAVE written so they can get a full sense of the proposed document... (Old son, that is EXACTLY what Pelosi said about Obamacare.) When sections are posted and then criticized you call everyone who finds ANY fault at all a communist/socialist, when that is EXACTLY what you are doing with the present Constitution.... by your own means test that would make YOU a communist/socialist as well as it is that very present Constitution which you are de-bunking that allows you the possibility of writing yours.
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:Folks: Those without manners (respect for me) like Jonathan, thesocialist-communist, are undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —>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:> >>>...
>
> 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