"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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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