myself look like an educated fool. The words I use to explain things
are the same ones I use in daily conversation. My verbal vocabulary
is very high, but not "showoff" high, like Bill O'Reilly. — J. A. A.
—
>
On May 26, 12:22 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Obfuscation! Look it up!
>
> On 05/26/2011 08:58 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley: "One-person-one-vote" negates about 90% of what has been
> > done by government. We are presently living under a non-viable and
> > corrupt government! --- J. A. A. ---
>
> > On May 25, 12:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I am not a union member. Nor do I find their extortion tactics to be
> >> acceptable. But I must ask, what article and section number of the
> >> Constitution makes unions unconstitutional?
>
> >> On 05/24/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> J. Ashley: Firing bad people from their jobs is preferable to throwing
> >>> them in prison, don't you think? One of the reason's the USA is going
> >>> busted is because those employed were being given... "benefits" in
> >>> excess of the private sector. And those same government employees are
> >>> allowed to vote and to have enough control over government that they
> >>> can't be fired. For starters, ban all unconstitutional labor unions
> >>> of those working for government! If teachers strike for higher pay,
> >>> fire the entire batch! No one working for government should be
> >>> allowed to vote on the processes of government. Employees are the
> >>> laborers, NOT the management! � J. A. Armistead �
> >>> On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker"
> >>>> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show
> >>>> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate.
> >>>> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick
> >>>> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says
> >>>> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof).
> >>>> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the
> >>>>> receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
> >>>>> same communiqu� differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a
> >>>>> "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was
> >>>>> hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great
> >>>>> lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in
> >>>>> a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point?
> >>>>> Ha, ha, HA! � J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable
> >>>>>> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of
> >>>>>> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no
> >>>>>> intention of entering the race.
> >>>>>> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> *John, INLINE:*
> >>>>>>>> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan:
> >>>>>>>>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for
> >>>>>>>>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the
> >>>>>>>>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played
> >>>>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>>> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump
> >>>>>>>> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe?
> >>>>>>>> The media? Or, Donald Trump?*
> >>>>>>>>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below:
> >>>>>>>>> "Preface:
> >>>>>>>>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The
> >>>>>>>>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that
> >>>>>>>>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the
> >>>>>>>>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that
> >>>>>>>>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall
> >>>>>>>>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of
> >>>>>>>>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal
> >>>>>>>>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet
> >>>>>>>>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and
> >>>>>>>>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from
> >>>>>>>>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be
> >>>>>>>>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor
> >>>>>>>>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall
> >>>>>>>>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens
> >>>>>>>>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and
> >>>>>>>>> our posterity."
> >>>>>>>> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New
> >>>>>>>> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not
> >>>>>>>> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not
> >>>>>>>> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian
> >>>>>>>>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to
> >>>>>>>>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This
> >>>>>>>>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy:
> >>>>>>>>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly
> >>>>>>>>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a
> >>>>>>>>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in
> >>>>>>>>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing
> >>>>>>>>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power'
> >>>>>>>>> than the members have.
> >>>>>>>> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier
> >>>>>>>>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for
> >>>>>>>>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years
> >>>>>>>>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath
> >>>>>>>>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly
> >>>>>>>>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all
> >>>>>>>>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are
> >>>>>>>>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and
> >>>>>>>>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating
> >>>>>>>>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and
> >>>>>>>>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest
> >>>>>>>>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!
> >>>>>>>> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
> >>>>>>>> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
> >>>>>>>> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
> >>>>>>>> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
> >>>>>>>> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
> >>>>>>>> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution
> >>>>>>>> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how
> >>>>>>>> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not
> >>>>>>>> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence
> >>>>>>>> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility
> >>>>>>>> of the POTUS. *
> >>>>>>>>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt
> >>>>>>>>>> avoid answering, as usual):
> >>>>>>>>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race."
> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> >>>>>>>>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such,
> >>>>>>>>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people
> >>>>>>>>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local
> >>>>>>>>>> PTA "Madam President."
> >>>>>>>>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret
> >>>>>>>>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission
> >>>>>>>>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's
> >>>>>>>>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity
> >>>>>>>>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state
> >>>>>>>>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
> >>>>>>>>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our
> >>>>>>>>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to
> >>>>>>>>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles in�
> >>>>>>>>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough
> >>>>>>>>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states
> >>>>>>>>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> President.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock
> >>>>>>>>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise
> >>>>>>>>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If,
> >>>>>>>>>>> as I�ve
>
> ...
>
> 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