replied to and undeserving of being called an American. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:24 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks: Those without manners (respect for me) like Jonathan, the
> > socialist-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:
> > > >>> "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 of a grievance shall, on a single
> > > >>> provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment, especially
> > > >>> those in management or public office�including judges and
> > justices�who
> > > >>> ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who
> > > >>> has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in
> > > >>> having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice
> > > >>> shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they
> > > >>> in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in
> > > >>> court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed. *** Freedom of
> > the
> > > >>> press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness
> > > >>> in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission
> > > >>> of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or satire�is
> > > >>> prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a
> > > >>> collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for
> > > >>> example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying
> > > >>> comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened
> > > >>> by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by
> > > >>> management; editorial comments by others that are in any way
> > > >>> ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring
> > > >>> at specific times or designated locations that most would come to
> > > >>> associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > > >>> innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > > >>> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > > >>> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
> > > >>> license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > >>> promote
>
> ...
>
> 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