Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual. || World News

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

If you truly believe I have "no virtues worthy of... being allowed to continue to live on this Earth," why don't you stop by sometime and we can discuss this in person.

As for my being "an outlaw to humanity," how do you believe that is possible?

OUTLAW, n. A person excluded from the benefit of the law, or deprived of its protection.

HUMANITY, n. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings.

How did you determine that humanity is law?

On 04/01/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most highly-motivated, for-the-people document ever written.  Jonathan, the socialist- communist, is bent on destroying the USA.  He has no virtues worthy of his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth.  He is an outlaw to humanity, along with Mark and MJ.  I'm amazed that Keith can't see what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate!  — J. A. Armistead —   Patriot

 

On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,  The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to defend it, you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to personal attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every instance thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more than a hypocrite.  On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate your non- existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual and creative superiors.  As required by the original Constitution, I only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the attacks of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark.  My time would be better spent writing more essays.  ï¿½  J. A. A. ï¿½ On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,

Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR New Constitution being criticized.

On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  For your information, no socialist-communist will ever get a chance to serve in, or be employed by government.  The "input" that you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like you.  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling rather than engage in meaningful dialog. On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ 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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ 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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ 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! ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatizedï¿½while 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