American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 4, 1:45 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Respect is earned. Your incessant name calling does nothing to enhance
> your chances of earning my respect.
>
> Post YOUR New Constitution and defend it. If it's worthy of respect, I
> will bestow respect upon it.
>
> On 03/04/2011 09:55 AM, NoEinstein 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 the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> >>>>> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> >>>>> pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside
> >>>>> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> >>>>> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> >>>>> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> >>>>> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
> >>>>> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> >>>>> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> >>>>> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> >>>>> others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
> >>>>> be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium. Each medium shall
> >>>>> respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> >>>>> medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> >>>>> not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> >>>>> government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
> >>>>> being neither laudatory nor critical by
>
> ...
>
> 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