— 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$,
> >>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>> Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It
> >>>>>>> has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside
> >>>>>>> and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or
> >>>>>>> contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual
> >>>>>>> process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as
> >>>>>>> a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power
> >>>>>>> in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
> >>>>>>> At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
> >>>>>>> MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> >>>>>>> the people-oriented content of my New Constitution! Please reference
> >>>>>>> a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> >>>>>>> property is used. You can't do that, I'm sure! Ha, ha, HA! � John
> >>>>>>> A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA! You
> >>>>>>>> aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily. You are probably
> >>>>>>>> doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> >>>>>>>> and I the converse.
> >>>>>>>> It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see
> >>>>>>> how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private
> >>>>>>> property without outside interference.
> >>>>>>>> Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy
> >>>>>>> when they are writing and because the
>
> ...
>
> 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