that made this country great; and by supposing that government should
control everything (with him in charge). The fact that you even ask
that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are. The remaining 5% are
just stupid. You're in both of those groups. — J. A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites based
> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression means.
>
> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the
> USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off this
> tremendous task?
>
> On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mark: I own Google stock. It's an American multinational
> > Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google
> > World shows the new complex quite well. In many ways you are very
> > naive. Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the
> > noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> > TREASON every day of their existence. Would you put on moderation
> > someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed?
> > Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill
> > their citizens? Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> > committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> > resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies. He has caused
> > more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who
> > ever lived, including Hitler.
>
> > Treason is a recognized capital offense. Those in our government and
> > in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested,
> > tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for
> > giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Keith suggested that you,
> > Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive". He's viewed
> > you all in a favorable light, before. As for me, I suspect you are so
> > screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> > better government. That means you have schizophrenia. Get some couch-
> > time, Mark. You need it! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> > On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Einstein,
>
> >> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or
> >> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard
> >> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> >> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law.
> >> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> >> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
>
> >> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Keith: I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in
> >>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews
> >>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such
> >>> nice people. Israel should become a training place for successful
> >>> capitalism. Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims
> >>> feel.
> >>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA
> >>> is skating on?" There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying
> >>> that moderators must approve what I say. Of course that in
> >>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New
> >>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job. If you
> >>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying,
> >>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has
> >>> now been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read. The last
> >>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads
> >>> with, first hand. Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85%
> >>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available.
> >>> But NOT on this forum. The full document will be presented as part of
> >>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why this
> >>> country needs a New Constitution Now. You guys can help speed things
> >>> along by talking-up my document on the NET. � John A. Armistead �
> >>> Patriot
> >>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hey John!
> >>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation! Jonathan, Mark and MJ are
> >>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and one of them
> >>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor! Sugarshack Literal Truth might
> >>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next missive!
> >>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>> Stay tuned, People! Tomorrow I will write you another essay
> >>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our political-governmental
> >>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic resources,
> >>>>> or otherwise stupid. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and fix-up. The
> >>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty
> >>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren. There won't be any more fortunes
> >>>>>> and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes. By adapting
> >>>>>> my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be assured! � John
> >>>>>> A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>> Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest Distance;
> >>>>>> Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B.& N.). I'm thrilled that
> >>>>>> the word 'prosperity' is being mentioned more and more as a cure for
> >>>>>> our ailing economy (Capitalism over socialism). That book explains
> >>>>>> the 'build-up' to my writing the New Constitution. Simple things can
> >>>>>> turn this country around! And none of them involving conducting...
> >>>>>> business-as-usual in Washington! Trust me, Folks! I know what I am
> >>>>>> doing. 99.5% of those in Washington are clueless!
> >>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:36 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mark: If you could, and would, read my document with an open mind,
> >>>>>>> there is nothing injurious to ordinary citizens. Stalin didn't give a
> >>>>>>> damn about ordinary citizens (or soldiers). He killed them by the
> >>>>>>> millions. Are you saying that my New Constitution will harm ordinary
> >>>>>>> citizens? Ha, ha, HA! Then you can't read, for sure! � J. A. A.
> >>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>> On Apr 10, 7:25 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I prefer to call it what it is.... Stalinesque.
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Ashley<
> >>>>>>>> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>> So you are trying to eliminate celebrities who have an opinion that
> >>>>> differs
> >>>>>>>>> from yours. How fascist of you!
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2011 01:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No, Jonathan! Celebrities in the media and in entertainment simply
> >>>>>>>>> can't voice their opinions or political preferences in any MEDIUM.
> >>>>>>>>> The man-on-the-street doesn't get hours a week to talk about how
> >>>>> great
> >>>>>>>>> Barack Obama is, the way Oprah Winfrey did. Barbara Walters, a
> >>>>>>>>> celebrity, made no bones about the fact she supported Barack Obama.
> >>>>>>>>> What in our "Constitution" gives high-paid celebrities the right to
> >>>>>>>>> have more influence on the outcome of elections than the man on the
> >>>>>>>>> street? As soon as Jay Leno or David Letterman make one joke about
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> candidate for public office, they will immediately be fired or
> >>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>> network closed. Politics is NOT about entertainment, nor is it a
> >>>>> game
> >>>>>>>>> with 24-7 play-by-play coverage with commentary and prove-nothing
> >>>>>>>>> polls. Those who would like our government to be run the way the
> >>>>>>>>> People say, rather than the way those who publicly endorse a
> >>>>> candidate
> >>>>>>>>> say, should rally behind my New Constitution�a document for the
> >>>>>>>>> people! � J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 1:01 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>> You have once again shown that you have no interest in freedom, but
> >>>>>>>>> instead want to dictate what others can and cannot do.
> >>>>>>>>> That you believe celebrities should have less right to voice their
> >>>>>>>>> opinions smacks of fascism. Or am I misinterpreting what you mean
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>> you state, "Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> 'following' which would be cesseptable (sic) to vote like the
> >>>>>>>>> celebrities vote. The (sic) means celebrities would have more
> >>>>> influence
> >>>>>>>>> at the poles (sic) than the man-on-the-street (sic). Of course,
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and
> >>>>> democracy."
> >>>>>>>>> Please explain to the world what "principles of fair play" means
> >>>>> and why
> >>>>>>>>> someone who is a celebrity will not be allowed to "play" in your
> >>>>> world.
> >>>>>>>>> And, John, you'd better do it fast. I think your time on this forum
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> about up.
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:07 PM, NoEinstein 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
> >>>>>>>>> didn't FIRE Mark, post haste! � J. A.
>
> ...
>
> 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