American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:54 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Name calling doesn't cut it, John.
>
> You have yet to answer a single question I have asked you. Why are you
> so intent on dodging questions? Could it be that YOUR New Constitution
> is all fluff and no substance?
>
> On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks: Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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