to be motivated to destroy, not save, the USA. The entire tone of my
New Constitution—over 50% of which has been posted—is pro power to the
individual citizens, and con power to those biased groups that so
regularly bypass the democratic ideal of one-person-one-vote, fairly
counted. You are spinning your wheels. I won't be answering any
questions from those with a clearly negative bent. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 31, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.
>
> That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is
> says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for
> the CIA.
>
> On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan: From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
> > were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
> > people document ever written. There isn't a single person in the USA
> > with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
> > of my New Constitution. I've written such to be understandable by
> > ordinary Americans. Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
> > in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
> > know what laws say. My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
> > without any other law being required to be written. When the majority
> > of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
> > violate their rights with impunity. Knowledge is POWER! That's what
> > my New Constitution gives to the People! � J. A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> 1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
> >> that word.
>
> >> 2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
> >> merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
> >> quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
>
> >> 3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
> >> since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
> >> existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
> >> take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
> >> convoluted than your vain attempt.
>
> >> I would start with a Preamble such as this:
>
> >> With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
> >> another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
> >> Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
> >> herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
> >> of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
> >> within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
> >> infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
>
> >> I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
> >> because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
> >> remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
> >> population equates "bad" with "good."
>
> >> 4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
>
> >> On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan: Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
> >>> the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
> >>> Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution. My bet is that
> >>> you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
> >>> my already-in-place New Constitution. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
> >>>> It is both wordy and convoluted.
> >>>> Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
> >>>> * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
> >>>> interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
> >>>> influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
> >>>> accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
> >>>> It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26
> >>>> words.
> >>>> * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
> >>>> prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
> >>>> Judicial system.
> >>>> In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
> >>>> remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
> >>>> * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
> >>>> Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
> >>>> Years and/or deported.
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
> >>>> saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk
> >>>> or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Folks: Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he
> >>>>> utters. There are no moderators on this group. So, he, MJ and Mark
> >>>>> hang-out here because my readership is high. Those who love America
> >>>>> are invited to attack these socialist-communists. I have better
> >>>>> things to be doing. Thanks! � J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding
> >>>>>> the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling
> >>>>>> forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept
> >>>>>> the bull crap you have written.
> >>>>>> It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up
> >>>>>> or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I
> >>>>>> visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses
> >>>>>> necessary for its passage surely don't.
> >>>>>> In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous
> >>>>>> provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall
> >>>>>> apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated
> >>>>>> judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule
> >>>>>> with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article
> >>>>>> III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our
> >>>>>> dumbed-down society.
> >>>>>> On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jonathan: The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up
> >>>>>>> or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution. I don't have
> >>>>>>> time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the
> >>>>>>> psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the
> >>>>>>> other. I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you.
> >>>>>>> "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical." � J. A. A.
> >>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite
> >>>>>>>> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New
> >>>>>>>> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?
> >>>>>>>> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein 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
>
> ...
>
> 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