First: I did NOT threaten. I DID.
Second: Whether the present or future Constitution is in place I am
not subject to it or US regulation.
Third: you openly threatened a sitting head of state... It is
absolutely against the law to do so in your country. The first
amendment does not give you that prerogative.
The next such offense will be forwarded to the proper authorities.
This is NOT a threat, it is a fact.
On Apr 8, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Jonathan: Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities
> vote. The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles
> than the man-on-the-street. Of course, that shift of power runs
> counter to principles of fair play and democracy. The 1st Amendment
> says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other
> medium". Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is
> allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I
> correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google
> didn't FIRE Mark, post haste! — J. A. A. —
>
> On Apr 5, 2:44 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for
> > any medium to express their personal political biases.
>
> > Does that mean my sister will no longer be allowed to work for Kenny
> > Kingston?
>
> > On 04/05/2011 11:28 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > Folks: Pushing for socialism or communism in a Republic or Democracy
> > > is the same as trying to overthrow the government. There is no higher
> > > crime than that! I've never said that "anyone" who speaks freely is
> > > an outlaw. Only those like Mark, alias "The Annointed (sic) One" who
> > > attack me�the most patriotic and pro civil liberties person in the USA�
> > > is clearly an outlaw. Free speech IS allowed for all of those not
> > > employed by government and not being paid by any medium. Working as a
> > > 'moderator' for Google gives the likes of Mark an advantage of
> > > exposure. My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for
> > > any medium to express their personal political biases. There can be
> > > no exceptions if the USA is to return the control of government to the
> > > People, and away from the elitist media and elitist politicians which
> > > the media made to be elitist in the first place. � John A. Armistead
> > > � Patriot
> > > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an "outlaw" is
> > >> absolutely Stalinesque.
>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>> Jonathan: My rationality for pegging you an outlaw and a traitor
> > >>> should be evident to anyone who has read my pro-people New
> > >>> Constitution that I've regularly detailed in Sections. Anyone, like
> > >>> you, who has a holier-than-thou tone doesn't have the value system to
> > >>> judge anything. Be content with looking things up in your elementary
> > >>> school dictionary, Jonathan. That's all the discourse you'll ever
> > >>> get. � J. A. A. �
> > >>> On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> 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. � J. A. A. �
> > >>>>>>> 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.
> > >>> � J.
> > >>>>>>>>> A. A. �
> > >>>>>>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> � 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:
>
> ...
>
> 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