Constitution. But I am its author, and I alone determine its
content. There shall never be a "debate phase" that allows an
anarchist like you to have any say-so on anything! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 26, 12:20 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> How do you believe you will ever get anyone to support YOUR New
> Constitution when you will not engage in HONEST debate?
>
> The fact that you choose to ignore almost every question posed to you, I
> can only conclude you are a government shill.
>
> On 05/26/2011 08:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear J. Ashley: There are a zillion positive concepts that are beyond
> > the grasp of an anarchist like you! If you had transcribed the
> > Constitutional word by word the way I did, you would realize that the
> > SPIRIT of that document is intent upon LIMITING the power of
> > Government! The Founding Fathers expected the SPIRIT of the document
> > to dictate what can be done more than an itemized section and sentence
> > for every conceivable issue. You are really shallow, Jonathan. I
> > admire Keith of Tampa for stopping reading your bluster. � J. A.
> > Armistead � Patriot
> > On May 25, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> You are once again guilty of obfuscation. Who among the members of this
> >> group could not have guessed that would happen? It seems to be an
> >> obsession with you.
>
> >> Simple questions require no more than simple answers.
>
> >> Earlier I asked you two simple questions:
>
> >> 1) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
>
> >> A simple reply with article and section number was all that was
> >> necessary. That concept seems to be beyond your grasp.
>
> >> 2) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret
> >> Service to look into the qualifications of the President?
>
> >> If you believe a "yes" answer applies, then why do you not provide
> >> factual information to back up your claim? Instead, you choose to rant
> >> about something entirely unrelated.
>
> >> So, rather than dodging my questions by asking me to "explain why
> >> 'outsiders' other than our seated public officials get to dictate a
> >> single thing that goes on in this country," why don't you answer the two
> >> simple questions I posed?
>
> >> I'll even help you with the first question by providing a link to an
> >> online copy of the Constitution.
>
> >>http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>
> >> Give it your best shot!
>
> >> On 05/24/2011 05:06 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley: I had answered where in my New Constitution, because
> >>> I assumed that was your question. The most important part of the
> >>> present Constitution is where it tells how our representatives are
> >>> selected, and how each of those has a parity of the US population
> >>> served. Governments of that type are representative (parity)
> >>> REPUBLICS, and (supposedly) require the representatives to be doing
> >>> the will of their electorates. That places the POWER in the hands of
> >>> the people, not at the whim of those representatives (who aren't
> >>> royalty).
> >>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> >>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has
> >>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> >>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> >>> is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population
> >>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and
> >>> always has been, unconstitutional.
> >>> Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power
> >>> structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning
> >>> party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue
> >>> voted upon. The straw breaking the camel's back is giving the Speaker
> >>> of the House; the chairmen of committees, and those having seniority
> >>> more power than every other member of Congress has. Political parties
> >>> aren't required to follow the FAIR principles of equal power of
> >>> representation. That's like having visitors from foreign governments
> >>> come in and saying what can be done and when.
> >>> The Constitution doesn't sanction having pseudo-governmental bodies be
> >>> the clearing houses for determining who our public officials can be.
> >>> By the time most public officials move beyond county commissioner,
> >>> they must have already SOLD their souls to the left or right planks of
> >>> the parties. When individuality is destroyed, fair representation is
> >>> destroyed! Requiring term limits or a balanced budget amendment can
> >>> never pass because the opposing political party has close to a 50%
> >>> control on the votes. Without the political party labels, voters
> >>> could make decisions based on REASON, not based mainly on "tradition"
> >>> and what the party line says to do.
> >>> Rather than asking me why political parties are unconstitutional, why
> >>> don't you explain why "outsiders" other than our seated public
> >>> officials get to dictate a single thing that goes on in this country.
> >>> Give it your best shot! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 24, 1:52 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You avoid any and all
> >>>> questions posed to you.
> >>>> Earlier in this thread, based on an assertion you made, I asked you
> >>>> directly: Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> >>>> You have yet to answer (because you can't). Yet you have once again made
> >>>> that assertion.
> >>>> Also based on an assertion you made, I asked you: Does any part of the
> >>>> Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the
> >>>> qualifications of the President? You have yet to answer.
> >>>> Instead you change subjects by opening your post with, "The 'myth' is
> >>>> that with the right President the country will be OK." That is, of
> >>>> course, completely off topic. Who ever made the claim that "with the
> >>>> right President the country will be OK"?
> >>>> On 05/23/2011 08:43 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear J. Ashley: The "myth" is that with the right President the
> >>>>> country will be OK. Well, the USA isn't OK after a lot of
> >>>>> presidents! The only requirement for a candidate with our corrupt and
> >>>>> failing government should be the repudiation of political parties.
> >>>>> Those were never constitutional, but are effectively running things.
> >>>>> Kick all political rituals in the ass! The easiest way to do that
> >>>>> would be for the candidates to start eschewing campaigning (live) in
> >>>>> any of the states. TV debates are an excellent enough way to select
> >>>>> our candidates. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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