existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual and
creative superiors. As required by the original Constitution, I
only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the attacks
of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark. My time would be better spent
writing more essays. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR New
> Constitution being criticized.
>
> On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan: For your information, no socialist-communist will ever get
> > a chance to serve in, or be employed by government. The "input" that
> > you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like you. � J.
> > A. A. �
> > On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling rather than
> >> engage in meaningful dialog.
>
> >> On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.
> >>> � J. A. A. �
> >>> On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In the case of
> >>>> contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the
> >>>> contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary interaction. That
> >>>> is how things should be.
> >>>> However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have been treated
> >>>> unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and
> >>>> let the jury decide." Would not a better (and less expensive) solution
> >>>> be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm that has no
> >>>> vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would need, as
> >>>> you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the God-damned
> >>>> government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when "treated
> >>>> unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the
> >>>> government that has treated us unfairly.
> >>>> How can government be the problem and the solution at the same time?
> >>>> Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not work. How
> >>>> does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on the
> >>>> bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the collection
> >>>> of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm would have
> >>>> no vested interest either way.
> >>>> Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury decide" is
> >>>> the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of "democracy."
> >>>> Will the population collectively sit on every jury?
> >>>> *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government
> >>>> by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is
> >>>> lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the
> >>>> people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government
> >>>> of Athens.
> >>>> On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Jonathan: You are a hopeless case. No one is needed to explain the
> >>>>> 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> >>>>> And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair. In the case
> >>>>> of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the
> >>>>> contract are happy with the deal. If a person thinks they have been
> >>>>> treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil
> >>>>> court and let the jury decide. Those with a conscience (but not you)
> >>>>> know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others. No one needs
> >>>>> to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say!
> >>>>> Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum. You don't have the
> >>>>> reasoning ability of a (blind) mole. � J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"
> >>>>>> Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule?
> >>>>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch."
> >>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: If you had spent 14 years of your life writing a New
> >>>>>>> Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize that
> >>>>>>> "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive. Apparently, I pegged
> >>>>>>> you right that you are simply jealous that I have already accomplished
> >>>>>>> things you've only talked about. Conservatives such as Glenn Beck and
> >>>>>>> Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but can't be
> >>>>>>> taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be solved.
> >>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of the
> >>>>>>> unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing. But he always grins
> >>>>>>> and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack Obama
> >>>>>>> for TREASON. My New Constitution will hang any public official not
> >>>>>>> upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and democracy shall
> >>>>>>> have supremacy in the USA!" Since socialism and communism are the
> >>>>>>> anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend that no
> >>>>>>> socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office. If they
> >>>>>>> do, there could become a shortage of hangman's nooses! � John A.
> >>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the
> >>>>>>>> positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to
> >>>>>>>> accomplish what I have."
> >>>>>>>> On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Mark: Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from
> >>>>>>>>> one day to the next? If indeed you can read and comprehend, you
> >>>>>>>>> wouldn't need to put those words in capitals. Unlike you and MJ, I
> >>>>>>>>> don't depend on YELLING to make my points. If you find what I'm
> >>>>>>>>> writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are
> >>>>>>>>> either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and
> >>>>>>>>> thus opposed. The "tone" of my document is pro control of government
> >>>>>>>>> by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use
> >>>>>>>>> of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the
> >>>>>>>>> rights of others. I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because
> >>>>>>>>> you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I
> >>>>>>>>> have. If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution.
> >>>>>>>>> If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts. No
> >>>>>>>>> socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA! � John A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that
> >>>>>>>>>> we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND.
> >>>>>>>>>> The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next
> >>>>>>>>>> what he says.
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending
> >>>>>>>>>>> it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are
> >>>>>>>>>>> the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy. My New
> >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or
> >>>>>>>>>>> hang those in government who support socialism and communism. When you
> >>>>>>>>>>> attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> >>>>>>>>>>> THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet! Get
> >>>>>>>>>>> lost, Jonathan! � J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>>>> And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
> >>>>>>>>>>> Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only
> >>>>>>>>>>> those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>>>>>>>>>> getting first rate care.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see
> >>>>>>>>>>> his EMBRACE of socialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is ALSO this from the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type
> >>>>>>>>>>> and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive
> >>>>>>>>>>> new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction,
> >>>>>>>>>>> nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain
> >>>>>>>>>>> continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe
> >>>>>>>>>>> and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be
> >>>>>>>>>>> sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing
> >>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost. No more than 25% of regulatory
> >>>>>>>>>>> board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry
> >>>>>>>>>>> regulated.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully
> >>>>>>>>>>> presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE
> >>>>>>>>>>> examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you
> >>>>>>>>>>> refuse to present and merey proclaim.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>>>> Much 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
>
> ...
>
> 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