Wish this story could get out to the major media - reminds me of how the MSM handle Abu Ghraib

In Abu Ghraib the military was handling the situation long before
the story got into the MSM and all involved had be removed from duty and
their charges were being drawn up. Then that reporter blew the whole
story out of proportion and disregarded what the military had already
done months before and we ended up with a disaster of a story. Now it
looks like the MSM is trying to do the same thing all over again. It
would be good if the story as Michael Yon tells it here were the one
that gets out into the media rather than the one that the MSM is already
trying to put over.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/calling-bullshit-on-rolling-stone.htm

--
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.

Pakistan, India agree to make joint efforts against terrorism

http://www.thenewstribe.co.uk/2011/03/pak-india-agree-to-make-joint-efforts-against-terrorism/

If this holds true it is a big advance on what was going on between
the two countries.

--
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.

Study says China to overtake US on science by 2013

http://www.thenewstribe.co.uk/2011/03/study-says-china-to-overtake-us-on-science-by-2013/

--
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.

Not exactly what you would think would be the background of a great college coach - and Kenyon ain't exactly an easy school

   

• Today's News / Sports / 11 / 03 / 29 /

VCU coach remembered fondly at Kenyon College

• Discuss   Comments   Images   E-mail   Print  Twitter    Facebook  +  -

• By Bill Davis,  Mount Vernon News
• March 29, 2011 11:05 am EDT

GAMBIER — Two weeks ago, Shaka Smart was known locally only as a great player on Kenyon College’s basketball team.

Now, he’s known as the coach of an NCAA Final Four team.

Smart’s Virginia Commonwealth University earned an unlikely Final Four bid this past weekend, defeating top-seeded Kansas, 71-61. It’s the first Final Four bid for VCU, a team which many critics thought didn’t even belong in the tournament.

Instead, the Rams rattled off five straight wins to earn a spot in college basketball’s biggest dance.

Smart’s success comes as no surprise to those who knew him from his Kenyon days.

“I knew from day one that he was going to be special,” said Bill Brown, Smart’s former coach at Kenyon, now head coach at California University (Pa.). “He has a tremendous basketball I.Q.”

Brown coached Smart through his sophomore campaign. Smart’s freshman season was 1996-97, the year after Brown guided the Lords to the NCAA Division III Elite Eight.

“I put him on the court and handed him the ball,” Brown recalled. “He absolutely took over the leadership on the court. He is very, very competitive.”

Brown said his coaching skills were evident even as a freshman.

“He was able to convince the entire team that he was their leader,” Brown said, “and that they were going to follow him. He sacrificed himself offensively to be a leader and a catalyst on the floor.”

Smart’s 542 career assists at Kenyon is a school record, leading the closest competitor by over 200. In his senior season, Smart averaged 7.4 assists per game, a record that hasn’t even been approached — except by Smart himself, who had averaged 5.4 assists two years before. The four-year starting point guard is also third in career steals at Kenyon with 133.

“Having a point guard like (Smart) is invaluable,” Brown said. “Coaches always talk about the ‘bigs,’ those guys who are 6-foot-8 or taller. You can have all the ‘bigs’ you want, but if you don’t have a good point guard, it’s like having a Lexus without a steering wheel. Smart was that steering wheel.”

It wasn’t just on the court where Smart was successful. He entered Kenyon having totaled a near-perfect SAT score. At the college, he earned the Outstanding History Student award.

bdavis@mountvernonnews.com

Good - looks like the Ohio legislators have a pretty good hold on what should be in the kind of bill Wisconsin is dealing with

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OHIO_UNION_FIGHT_OHOL-?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

   

Ohio House panel makes changes to bill to curtail public unions; committee vote expected

By ANN SANNER
Associated Press

Advertisement

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- State lawmakers in Ohio made changes Tuesday to a collective bargaining bill that would deal a blow to public worker unions.

The legislation now would prevent nonunion employees affected by contracts from paying fees to union organizations and would ban automatic deductions from employee paychecks that would go the unions' political arm.

A House committee adopted more than a dozen changes to the bill before it briefly recessed. The panel was expected to vote on the measure Tuesday afternoon.

Similar limits to collective bargaining have cropped up in statehouses across the country, most notably in Wisconsin, where the governor earlier this month signed a measure into law eliminating most of state workers' collective bargaining rights.

The Ohio measure would restrict the bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees. They could negotiate wages and certain work conditions but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. The measure would also do away with automatic pay raises and base future wage increases on merit.

The bill narrowly passed the Senate and is now before a House committee. If the House passes the now-altered bill, it would go back to the Senate. The governor supports the legislation.

Several hundred protesters listened to the committee's amendments over the loudspeakers positioned around the Statehouse, before they headed outside to chants of "Kill the bill!"

The crowds inside and outside were estimated at 450, according to the advisory board that manages the Statehouse property.

Other changes the committee made include removing jail time as a possible penalty for public workers who unlawfully participate in strikes and making clear that public safety workers could negotiate over equipment.

So far, Democrats have offered no amendments. Instead, they delivered boxes containing more than 65,000 opponent signatures to the committee's chairman.

"These people have expressed their concern and their frustration with what the bill is going to do to their future," said state Rep. Kenny Yuko, a Democrat from Richmond Heights.

A full House vote could come Wednesday.

The Senate passed the bill earlier this month on a 17-16 vote and would have to agree to the House changes before sending it to Gov. John Kasich. The spokesman for the new Republican governor has said Kasich was pleased with the version passed by the Senate but also was comfortable with the House changes.

Republicans hold a 9-6 majority on the House labor committee and a 59-40 edge in the House. All GOP members on the House panel voted in favor of the changes, while Democrats voted against them.

State Rep. Dennis Murray, a Democrat from Sandusky, told the committee he didn't know enough about the amendments to cast a vote because his party was just seeing them for the first time.

"This is a 435-page bill," Murray said. "I don't know how one can intelligently form an opinion."

Lawmakers also revised the bill to include more details on who defines merit. For instance, merit pay for teachers would be based on a combination of guidelines set up by school districts and the State of Department of Education.

Jennifer Blair, 33, a music teacher from Westerville, said she is protesting a bill she believes will "destroy public education as we know it."

"It's setting out to take away services our children have, take away services our teachers have, supplies in our classroom, teachers' rights, class size, safety issues in the classroom for our special needs teachers," she said. "And it focuses on performance-based pay. As a music teacher, I can't be judged that way. I don't give a test to my students. I have no way to be based on performance-based pay in my classroom."

The collective bargaining legislation was met with demonstrations and packed hearing rooms in the weeks before the Senate passed the measure.

Its reception in the House has been quieter, though opponents and supporters still lined up to speak their mind to the committee. Members heard from more than 100 witnesses and received written comments from others in their two weeks of hearings.

Opponents of the measure have vowed a ballot repeal if it passes. State deadlines would require that Kasich sign the bill by April 6 in order for a referendum to be on the ballot this fall.

---

Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth contributed to this report.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Levin takes on Ron Paul supporters

The Daily Caller runs a story on crybaby Mark Levin, advocate of endless war, the police state, and presidential dictatorship. Unmentioned is the dreaded name of Tom Woods. Like Levin himself, the DC links to none of Tom's takedowns. Instead, we are told that bigoted Ron Paulians -- "the biggest a-holes of them all" in Levin lingo --are mean to him, and so all their dissenting responses to his Facebook attack on Tom Woods had to be erased. In fact, the civil comments showed up Levin by quoting Woods, who actually knows American history.  -- LHR Jr.

Levin takes on Ron Paul supporters: 'I promise you his followers are the biggest a-holes of them all'
By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller | Published: 11:31 AM 03/29/2011 | Updated: 12:59 PM 03/29/2011

There's no doubt that 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has some dedicated followers, and they're especially ambitious in using the Internet to spread their message.

But that isn't necessarily appealing according to conservative talk host Mark Levin. On his Monday program, Levin said his staff has had some run-ins on his Facebook page and other social networking sites.

"Truth be told, I'm not the administrator of my social sites, but I back the administrator," Levin said. "See, what happens folks is sometimes we get into these little discussions and the word goes out – flood the Facebook site or whatever – through bloggers, through people who think by this kind of mob mentality, they're going to persuade people. They don't persuade anybody of anything. They annoy people and so the administrator has to clean out a bunch of them, particularly when they get into their hate modes. They keep linking back to other sites, which are intending to increase the hits on those other sites."

Those engaging in this "obnoxious" behavior tend to be the followers of Paul, according to Levin.

"And so we get into these debates on constitutional issues, on economics, on history," he continued. "And that's a good thing. But the Ron Paul people are the biggest a-holes of them all. Now some of you may be thinking about Ron Paul – I promise you his followers are the biggest a-holes of them all. Not necessarily because of what they believe, but the way they express themselves. They're obnoxious. They're like Marxists, really. The mob mentality, the language, true believers, and yet there is a lot that is sensible, particularly on the Rand Paul side of the family when it comes to the Constitution, and economics and so forth."

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeR8K5Y0tUg&feature=player_embedded

Levin said it wasn't all of his followers, but the ones that tend to be aggressive with their web behavior also dabble in other conspiratorial beliefs.

"When it comes to actually defending this nation, the effort to twist the Constitution so the Congress is some kind of parliamentary body and to pull a quote from this founder, that one -- try and make your case, it's almost childish, goofy," he continued. "And then you get into the weeds and you got to pull back, look at the big picture. These are outliers. A lot of the people who follow him are truthers, conspiracy theorists behind 9/11. A lot of them are Israel and Jew haters, not all of them obviously. I'm not saying that, but you should see the stuff we had to pull off our sites, so I'm told. Again, I don't want to accuse everyone of that. That would be ridiculous."

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/levin-takes-on-ron-paul-supporters-i-promise-you-his-followers-are-the-biggest-a-holes-of-them-all/#ixzz1I0m1tRP9

Fwd: 28 raids in 24 hours busy Obama

Tell Attorney General Holder: Stop federal raids of medical marijuana dispensaries » Sign the petition Bruce, 28 raids in 24 hours. That's the unfortunate reality for medical marijuana patients in Montana and California. Federal agents shutdown 26 dispensaries across Montana and 2 in the medical marijuana sanctuary city of West Hollywood, California this month in their latest attack on patients and legitimate businesses. The DEA isn't even supposed to be conducting these raids in the first place. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo ordering an end to federal raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. Yet, despite his memo, federal agents have continued these operations sporadically for years, without regard for patients', states' or business' rights. Attorney General Eric Holder clearly doesn't have control of his own cavalry. This assault on patients rights has to stop now. Sign our letter telling Attorney General Holder to enforce his memo and prohibit federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Click here to sign the letter: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/fedraids But is Holder being dishonest and hypocritical? Or does he simply lack strong leadership among US Attorneys General? A memo issued on February 1st by US Attorney Melinda Haag (who, ironically, represents Northern California) directly contradicts Holder's edict. She declares that ANYONE engaging in the buying or selling of marijuana, regardless of their protection under state laws, will be punished by the federal government. That doesn't just mean dispensaries and the patients who rely on them, but goes as far as to include landlords, financiers and property owners as well. It's a full-court press designed to intimidate supporters of reform and ostracize patients seeking their prescribed medications. This attitude puts lives in jeopardy and undermines our democratic institutions by foiling state attempts to provide solutions for their own people. We need to put an end to the federal harassment of medical marijuana patients now. Tell Attorney General Holder to enforce his own memo banning federal raids of medical marijuana dispensaries and take a stand for patients rights. Click here to add your name: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/fedraids This kind of official hypocrisy at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens is a disgrace to the notion of basic human rights everywhere. Thank you for standing up for a patients' basic rights to treatment. Thanks for all you do. Brian Sonenstein Just Say Now.com Contribute to Just Say Now to support marijuana legalization. Click here: This email was sent to: majors.bruce@gmail.com To unsubscribe, go to: http://action.firedoglake.com/unsubscribe

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

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.  ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ 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 become a shortage of hangman's nooses!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have." On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Mark:  Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from one day to the next?  If indeed you can read and comprehend, you wouldn't need to put those words in capitals.  Unlike you and MJ, I don't depend on YELLING to make my points.  If you find what I'm writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and thus opposed.  The "tone" of my document is pro control of government by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have.  If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution. If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>          wrote: 

The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND. The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next what he says. On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net>          wrote: 

Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of getting first rate care.       The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism. There is ALSO this from the same person: Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry regulated. Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism. It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh> Sad. As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you refuse to present and merey proclaim. Regard$, --MJ Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as 

 ..  read more » 

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of that word.

2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.

3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking" since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less convoluted than your vain attempt.

I would start with a Preamble such as this:

With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.

I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the population equates "bad" with "good."

4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."


On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking. Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of my already-in-place New Constitution.  —  J. A. Armistead —  Patriot 

On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday. It is both wordy and convoluted.  Let's examine the first line of Section 8:      * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special       interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for       influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to       accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.  It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26   words.      * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is       prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the       Judicial system.  In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:      * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under       Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10       Years and/or deported.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------  "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton  ------------------------------------------------------------------------  On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        

Folks:  Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he utters.  There are no moderators on this group.  So, he, MJ and Mark hang-out here because my readership is high.  Those who love America are invited to attack these socialist-communists.  I have better things to be doing.  Thanks!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, 

If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept the bull crap you have written. 

It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses necessary for its passage surely don't. 

In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our dumbed-down society. 

On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution.  I don't have time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the other.  I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you. "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical."  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted? On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Jonathan:  If I had wanted to have the opinions of others influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the House and the Senate.  I realized, early on, that the status quo governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the founding fathers.  Not a single person would have risked their lives to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their own weight in society. It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.    From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the US economy.  My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to assess the events of the day.  Once John Q. Public starts watching news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of hardworking Americans!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought, considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to create a one-man nation. On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts', you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas.  I don't have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back into my thread.  Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about my New Constitution.  I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives." Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long as I respect the equal rights of others? Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any government was created? Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that existed naturally before any government was created? Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud? Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.? I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions � preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any different? On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Jonathan:  You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my New Constitution!  The proper function of government is to pass only the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of which has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the people.  There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull any of the strings. Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government interaction with the people.  And that is NOT anarchy.  My New Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives.  I recommend to others (than Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."  from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble.  There is a chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the freedoms of others.  If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving out of the USA.  No "group" nor individuals will have the power to limit your personal liberties�trust me on that!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854. Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market system, all economic decisions are made _without government intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept. Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by necessity prevent government intervention into business. I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that 

 ..  read more » 

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Apparently, Mark and the Anointed one are both the same liberal, anti-
America jerk. Should I sell my Google stock? Ha, ha, HA! — J. A.
A. —
>
On Mar 28, 1:07 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein,
>
> the very next time I see this
>
> MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> undeserving of a reply.
>
> or anything similar you will be placed on moderation so I can delete
> it.
>
> On Mar 28, 8:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> > saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> > undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Mar 26, 1:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity.
> > > Post this Constitution of yours so we can all revel in its splendor -- of course doing so would further expose your failures.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:10 PM 3/25/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party-crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> > > saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> > > undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > On Mar 24, 12:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > And yet ANOTHER response parading as though a response is somehow undeserving -- complete with fallacy spew.
> > > > Is it any wonder he chooses fallacy and name-calling over the 'defense' of his nonsense exposed for what it actually is?
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > -MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:08 PM 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not saving the USA.  So,
> > > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply.  —
> > > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 6:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending it did not occur.ELSEWHERE in THIS thread:Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  J. A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatizedwhile continuing to "cover" only those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of getting first rate care. The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism.There is ALSO this from the same person:Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing jurisdictionbeyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry regulated.Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh> Sad.As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you refuse to present and merey proclaim.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> > > > > the people-oriented content of my New Constitution!  Please reference
> > > > > a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> > > > > property is used.  You can't do that, I'm sure!  Ha, ha, HA!  —  John
> > > > > A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > > > On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You
> > > > > > aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably
> > > > > > doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> > > > > > and I the converse.
> > > > > > It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> > > > > > Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> > > > > > Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.If you agree with me say something like this:  "I
> > > > > > applaud your New Constitution!  We need less, more efficient
> > > > > > government and the return of lost civil liberties.  Outlawing career
> > > > > > politicians from Congress seems like a great place to start.  Good
> > > > > > luck in everything you are seeking to do for the good of the country!
> > > > > > — J. A. Armistead  —
>
> > > > > > On Mar 21, 11:54 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > John,
>
> > > > > > > eBay is a perfect example of capitalism at work. Over 2,000 transactions
> > > > > > > are performed every minute throughout the world with no need for
> > > > > > > government. Both parties involved in those transactions report they are
> > > > > > > happy with the transaction 96% of the time.
>
> > > > > > > There is no need for government involvement in commerce.
>
> > > > > > > On 03/21/2011 07:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative
> > > > > > > > republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties
> > > > > > > > to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who
> > > > > > > > support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution
> > > > > > > > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism
> > > > > > > > and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  �
> > > > > > > > J. A. A. �
> > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 10:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Civil liberties require government permission. As I choose to be a free
> > > > > > > >> sovereign, I do not consent.
>
> > > > > > > >> As for free enterprise, I sell on eBay. No government interference, 96%
> > > > > > > >> successful transactions worldwide. That is as pro free enterprise as it
> > > > > > > >> gets.
>
> > > > > > > >> On 03/19/2011 07:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>> Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise.
> > > > > > > >>> So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on tearing
> > > > > > > >>> down this country rather than saving it.  He should be railroaded out
> > > > > > > >>> of the USA!  � J. A. A. �
> > > > > > > >>> On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again!
> > > > > > > >>>> He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political parties.
> > > > > > > >>>> He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the smarts
> > > > > > > >>>> and the temperament to be President."
> > > > > >...
>
> > > 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Ho, hum... Won't someone put their finger in the dam? The liberal
lake is leaking, rapidly. And with that leak, the pressure is
falling! — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 28, 1:04 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Einstein.... One there is no bridge here that is high enough and
> B. there are no icy waters any time of the year.... Geographically
> challenged as well I see........and 3. you can't tie a concrete block
> to a ball of slime...just won't work.
>
> You metaphors/similes (or whatever they are) are just as poorly
> thought out as your "New Constitution".
>
> With all that you include in your Constitution that is prohibitive and
> answerable to the state.... it is indeed
>
> "STALINESQUE"
>
> On Mar 28, 8:41 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark:  Glenn Beck says he employs eight people to produce his TV
> > show.  But the liberal media which attacks him employs 40 or so.  You
> > are a socialist-communist of the worst order (worthy of being HANGED
> > for treason) for trying to peg my for-the-people New Constitution
> > Stalinesque!  You are attacking me for doing things diametrically
> > opposed to your God-damned liberal ideals.  Do the world a favor,
> > slime-ball, tie a concrete block to your feet and jump off the nearest
> > bridge into icy waters.  People will rejoice at your passing—the only
> > acclaim you'll ever get in your miserable life!  — John A. Armistead
> > —  Patriot
>
> > On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not to defend MJ or anything of the sort but to say this:
>
> > > Those
> > > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> > > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written!
>
> > > Is so Stalinesque that it is hilarious. You write that and call someone else
> > > an idiot ??
>
> > > If by disagreeing with you (or anything else for that matter) is cause in
> > > your little mind to say that someone is un-American then you really need a
> > > little (or a lot) of "rest" (accompanied by some gentle but consuming
> > > drugs).
>
> > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Dear MJ, the socialist-communist, party-crashing jerk:  You have an IQ
> > > > problem, evident in your continued YELLING of the words of others,
> > > > while having nothing worthy to say, yourself.  From day one, you have
> > > > been rude to attack even the fringes of anything I say or do.  Those
> > > > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> > > > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written!  If, like
> > > > you say, you are... "interested" (very weak compared to MOTIVATED)
> > > > toward returning America to liberty and freedom, you would be praising
> > > > everything I am doing for the benefit of hard-working Americans.  Your
> > > > TONE is clearly one of opposition to me.  That fact is proof positive
> > > > that you are a fraud who is undeserving of being called an American!
> > > > — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Mar 24, 12:17 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > And yet you continue to reply -- spewing fallacy -- while pretending NOT
> > > > to reply.
> > > > > In reality, I am interested in returning America to liberty and freedom.
> > > > What is obvious, however, are your Orwellian efforts.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > > > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > > > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > > > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > > > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > > > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > > > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:07 PM
> > > > 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not
> > > > saving the USA.  So,
> > > > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply.  —
> > > > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > > > On Mar 22, 6:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response.
> > > > > > You will be hard-pressed to PROVE your silly assertion that I am
> > > > somehow a "deranged, socialist-communist" ... but I suggest you do so.
> > > > > > There is a pattern here ... you provide absurd claims/assertions ...
> > > > others 'call' you on it -- usually requesting substantiation ... you pitch a
> > > > fit and spew fallacy while calling names.
> > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > > > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > > > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > > > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > > > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > > > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > > > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:38 PM
> > > > 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ, the deranged, socialist-communist, party crasher is
> > > > undeserving of
> > > > > > being replied to.  —  J. A. A. —
>
> > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:57 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >Folks:  Apparently, MJ is incapable of reasoning.  He supposes that
> > > > > > > >since my "ideal" (not mandated in my New Constitution) government
> > > > > > > >would have ZERO outlays to individual citizens, i.e., no SS,
> > > > Medicare,
> > > > > > > >Medicaid, nor Unemployment, that that shows me to be a socialist.
> > > > Can
> > > > > > > >you believe it?!
>
> > > > > > > <sigh>
> > > > > > > How a Government programs the STEALS from person
> > > > > > > A in order to give to person B will be
> > > > > > > 'privatized' not being provided notwithstanding,
> > > > > > > the portion that continues to embrace socialism,
> > > > > > > of course, was "while continuing to "cover" only
> > > > > > > those older or sicker people who have no other
> > > > > > > means of surviving or of getting first rate
> > > > > > > care". Like the woman who finally agrees on her
> > > > > > > price being a 'prostitute', so too is yours an embrace of socialism.
>
> > > > > > > Sad isn't it, that Armistead is reduced to
> > > > > > > projecting his shortcomings onto others.
>
> > > > > > > It is also noted that you AVOIDED the second
> > > > > > > example (like the misdirection you attempt on the
> > > > > > > first) of your socialist tendencies.
>
> > > > > > > >Socialism and communism (the ideal of Barack Obama)
> > > > > > > >have government providing everything and controlling everything.
>
> > > > > > > Government 'providing' everything is not required
> > > > > > > for socialism's myriad of children.
>
> > > > > > > >  I want government to provide next to nothing and to control next
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >nothing.
>
> > > > > > > Except what excerpts of your Constitution you
> > > > > > > have provided does not bolster such a claim.
>
> > > > > > > >  A properly functioning free enterprise system can do those
> > > > > > > >thing, AND allow the maximum FAIR prosperity for the maximum number
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >Americans!
>
> > > > > > > And yet your own brand of utopian socialism raises its head again.
>
> > > > > > > >MJ is revealing himself to be a socialist-communist bent on
> > > > retarding
> > > > > > > >my efforts to promote my New Constitution.  He and Jonathan Ashley
> > > > > > > >aren't wanting to save the USA, but to have the USA fail.  A person
> > > > > > > >can be either FOR me or AGAINST me.  100% of those who are against
> > > > me
> > > > > > > >are criminal, socialist-communists like OUTLAW Barack Obama.  — John
>
> > > > > > > Your fantasies and fallacies may aid you in
> > > > > > > retaining that pleasing vision, but they do little to those who grasp
> > > > reality.
>
> > > > > > > I certainly understand your need to pretend your
> > > > > > > embraces of socialism are really not. I can also
> > > > > > > understand your desire for baseless
> > > > > > > 'name-calling'. I am quite certain that OTHERS do as well.
>
> > > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > > > Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
> > > > > > > sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   -- Martin Luther
> > > > King, Jr
>
> > > > > > > >A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > > > > > >On Mar 21, 10:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ELSEWHERE in THIS thread:Socialism and
> > > > > > > > communism are the anti-thesis of a
> > > > > > > > representative republic or a democracy.  My New
> > > > > > > > Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the
> > > > > > > > People and will fire, jail or hang those in
> > > > > > > > government who support socialism and
> > > > > > > > communism.  When you attack my New Constitution
> > > > > > > > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> > > > > > > > THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties
> > > > > > > > person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  J.
> > > > > > > > A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same
> > > > > > > > person:I am personally recommending that Social
> > > > > > > > Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> > > > > > > > Insurance ALL be privatized—while continuing to
> > > > > > > > "cover" only those older or sicker people who
> > > > > > > > have no other means of surviving or of getting
> > > > > > > > first rate care. The implications are rather
> > > > > > > > OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of
> > > > socialism.
> > > > > > > > > There is ALSO this from the same
> > > > > > > > person:Businesses or professions meeting
> > > > > > > > licensing standards germane to the type and
> > > > > > > > scope of work such perform, and being regularly
> > > > > > > > apprised of substantive new developments, may
> > > > > > > > control their own work without governmental
> > > > > > > > sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to
> > > > > > > > be other than self-trained to maintain
> > > > > > > > continuing competency
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Keith: In the USA we have the right to self defense. If, in
defending myself, I must use the same bullets to dispatch those bent
on doing me, or others in this country harm, no one can declare
otherwise. I know that Mark is a God-damned liberal. And you could
well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. I sincerely doubt that a person
with a Doctor of Law Degree would be content to co-moderate anything
with the likes of Mark. Also, your use of the English language falls
below that of most lawyers. Google is largely controlled by
liberals. When my New Constitution starts being so viciously attacked
by liberals, that is proof that my document is accomplishing its
intended purpose: "Returning control of government to the People; and
removing all controlling influences by biased groups." If my
accomplishing those ends upsets you, that is your problem, not mine.
I wasn't put on this Earth for recreational bantering with mental
lightweights on any subject. Learn or leave, that is the readers'
option on MY original posts! — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 28, 12:02 pm, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guten Abend from Köln,  John,
>
> You are incorrect in your assessment.  Yes, PoliticalForum is moderated.  As
> a matter of fact, you have been warned by Mark "The Annointed One"
> Kahle, who co-moderates PoliticalForum with me,  that your continuous
> "Spam",  (and if you don't know the definition of "Spam";  I suggest that
> you look at PoliticalForum's Rules & Guidelines, which can be found here:http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/web/political-forum-dec...
> )  should cease.   By that, I mean that today,  you have submitted three
> messages within seven minutes,  and countless other messages for the past
> month that are identical....Something to the effect of:  "MJ, The Party
> Crasher",  YadaYadaYada..."
>
> We get it.  We got it three weeks ago.  You don't want to post your "New
> Constitution";  you don't want to address those individuals who have posed
> legitimate questions regarding the content of your New Constitution,  and
> you consider any criticism to your proposed "New Constitution"  spurious.
>
> There is a gamut of issues, events,  scenarios,  assholes,  theologies,
> considerations, and baseball that could be discussed,  and that we would
> love to hear your opinion on.   Shit can the canned responses.
>
> By the same token,  all of ya'll who have these lovely, quippy signatures,
> that are usually longer than whatever it is that you are posting,  are also
> getting a bit stale.   Just as important,  wiping the previous embedded text
> in the message that you are writing,  saves a lot of time when scrolling and
> trying to find the newest post in the thread.
>
> Thanks for all of your consideration!
>
> KeithInKöln

--
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.

Re: Who's afraid of SHARI'A?

I'm just digging this "Far Right Christian" shit. I live in the most
liberal AND catholic state in the country!. Weird dat eh?

Pretty sure all the Kennedy's grew up here, I swear!

Come to the 11 o'clock Mass at my church in Malden. I'll show ya 400
democrats and six conservatives. The latter up front, next to me.

On Mar 29, 10:07 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's two people, who clearly are experts on Sharia and Islam.  The
> conversation goes something like this:
>
> *"Ah.....You know....Ah.......I see Christians and these far right
> conservative groups......Ah.......You know......Ah......They hate
> Islam......Ah......Because.......You know.......Ah..........They wanna try
> and educate Christians.,......Ah.......You know.......Ah......Your (Giggle)
> your piece on these far right groups and how they hate.....Ah......You
> know.......Ah......Was powerful......Ah......" *
>
> I quit watching around .50 into the video.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >     <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/> Who's
> > afraid of SHARI'A?<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/whos-afraid-of-sharia/>
> > *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> > * | March 26, 2011 at 2:38 PM | Categories: Islam in America<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=52721>| URL:
> >http://wp.me/peHnV-rAk
>
> > Certainly nobody on the left. Liberal Wingnut, Sarah Posner, who has spoken
> > to Muslim 'experts' about the Muslim Brotherhood and shari'a law, 'educates'
> > us as to why there is nothing to fear about Islam but right wing fearmongers
> > themselves. Barf bags recommended. H/T BLOGGING HEADS
>
> > Read more of this post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/whos-afraid-of-sharia/>
>
> > Add a comment to this post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/whos-afraid-of-sharia/...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/barenakedislam.wordpress.co...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/barenakedislam.wordpress.c...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/barenakedislam.wordpress.co...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/barenakedislam.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/barenakedislam.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/barenakedislam.wordpress.com/10...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/barenakedislam.wordpress.com/...>
>
> >   [image: WordPress]
>
> > WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> > Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> > Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>| Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> > by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
>
> > *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
> >http://subscribe.wordpress.com
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Re: Hellow, Dolly. Hellow, Dolly. It's so nice to know your ad is filled with crap.

I saw it.

Is xenophobic (your word, not mine) speech now illegal?

No biggie with this, right?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_special_iraq.jpg

On Mar 29, 11:02 am, the daily search <thedailysea...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Banned cagw.org Commercial XenophobicFor the life of me, I can't understand
> why the creators of this commercial (banned on some cable stations but not
> all) don't get why it is offensive. It's like they have no clue what Xenophobia
> is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia>. It's not even on their radar
> screen so there is apparently no hesitation when they decide to portray the
> Chinese as wanting to see America fail. For one to presume that, wouldn't
> one have to already be bought into a competitive outlook of our relationship
> with China in the first place? Basically, CAGW.ORG is worried China has bad
> intentions in their economic relationship with the U.S. and that it can only
> be competitive in nature. Basically, admitting that the open economic ties
> American corporations encouraged and got decades ago, enabling China to
> produce goods for the world, has left us in debt to them. Before, when
> America wasn't threatened by economic eclipse from China,...
>
> Read the rest:http://www.thedailysearch.com/2011/03/banned-cagworg-commercial-xenop...

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

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.  ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ 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 become a shortage of hangman's nooses!  ï¿½ John A.
> >>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the
> >>>>>>>> positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to
> >>>>>>>> accomplish what I have."
> >>>>>>>> On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Mark:  Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from
> >>>>>>>>> one day to the next?  If indeed you can read and comprehend, you
> >>>>>>>>> wouldn't need to put those words in capitals.  Unlike you and MJ, I
> >>>>>>>>> don't depend on YELLING to make my points.  If you find what I'm
> >>>>>>>>> writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are
> >>>>>>>>> either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and
> >>>>>>>>> thus opposed.  The "tone" of my document is pro control of government
> >>>>>>>>> by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use
> >>>>>>>>> of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the
> >>>>>>>>> rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because
> >>>>>>>>> you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I
> >>>>>>>>> have.  If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution.
> >>>>>>>>> If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No
> >>>>>>>>> socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>          wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that
> >>>>>>>>>> we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND.
> >>>>>>>>>> The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next
> >>>>>>>>>> what he says.
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net>          wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending
> >>>>>>>>>>> it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are
> >>>>>>>>>>> the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New
> >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or
> >>>>>>>>>>> hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you
> >>>>>>>>>>> attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> >>>>>>>>>>> THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get
> >>>>>>>>>>> lost, Jonathan!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>>>> And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
> >>>>>>>>>>> Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only
> >>>>>>>>>>> those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>>>>>>>>>> getting first rate care.
> >>>>>>>>>>>       The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see
> >>>>>>>>>>> his EMBRACE of socialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is ALSO this from the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type
> >>>>>>>>>>> and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive
> >>>>>>>>>>> new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction,
> >>>>>>>>>>> nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain
> >>>>>>>>>>> continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe
> >>>>>>>>>>> and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be
> >>>>>>>>>>> sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing
> >>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory
> >>>>>>>>>>> board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry
> >>>>>>>>>>> regulated.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully
> >>>>>>>>>>> presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE
> >>>>>>>>>>> examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you
> >>>>>>>>>>> refuse to present and merey proclaim.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>>>> Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It
> >>>>>>>>>>> has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside
> >>>>>>>>>>> and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or
> >>>>>>>>>>> contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual
> >>>>>>>>>>> process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as
>
> ...
>
> 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.