The voters can say "THIS SUCKS" if they so choose. But no person who
is a celebrity or anyone employed by any medium can say a single
"assessing" word about anything to do with government. Being in a
medium gives such individuals a thousand times more influence than the
man-on-the-street, and is thus unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers
could not possibly have foreseen the democracy-bypassing influence of
those like Alan Colmes and Rush Limbaugh. When my new constitution is
ratified, commentators, regardless of their ideology, can find other
employment, or do exactly like Monopoly says and "Go to jail; go only
to jail." Does anyone not understand what 'make no assessing
comments' means?
On Jun 8, 10:37 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any law that would stop someone from saying "THIS SUCKS!!" will never
> last... it it pure boot heel obedience being demanded...
>
> Your inability and or unwillingness to post your supposed "New
> Constitution" after having been asked to do so on this (and others)
> Forum is telling me that it is an absolute joke as is the purported
> author.
>
> Now go away little fly.
>
> On Jun 8, 6:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nice try, looser! Your stratagy is to make unsupported, blanket
> > statements about my New Constitution. The closing statements of my
> > document injoin anyone from making statement in any medium regarding
> > the document. And that requirement is made retroactive with severe
> > punishments, including death for treason! The rationale is that the
> > original Constitution allows having the People modify their government
> > at their will. In the horse-and-buggy era, the cumbersome amendment
> > process was the only way the founding fathers could come up with.
> > Note: The Founding Fathers could not immaginer how technology can
> > allow the taking of direct votes of all the states in a single day.
> > The SPIRIT of the Constitution surely favors having the Will of the
> > People prevail. Now, if anyone ventures to judge my document BEFORE
> > the votes get to decide, THAT is circumvinting democracy and is
> > tantamount to treason! I would highly recommend that no person in
> > government or in any medium (Google staff, included) say a single pro
> > or con word about my document! Here is that excerpt:
>
> > Notes: (1.) *Italicized text represents portions of the New
> > Constitution which shall be omitted unless separately and specifically
> > approved by 60% of the voters. Voting to approve the New Constitution
> > shall not be a vote on italicized portions. (2.) Any person, group or
> > business which polls the People on their support or non support of
> > this New Constitution or its parts prior to the national referendum,
> > shall, retroactively, be guilty of a felony(s). (3.) The news media
> > standards required, herein, as relates to coverage concerning this
> > document, shall, following ratification of the New Constitution by the
> > People, be retroactively applied to any news medium or person therein—
> > including the full punishments relating thereto—for non compliance
> > with the standards. Likewise, any judge or justice acting counter to
> > this New Constitution regarding news coverage issues or any part of
> > the ratification process shall be held fully accountable. The macro-
> > will of the Citizens shall be Supreme!
>
> > _______
>
> > Footnote: The "full punishments", above, include death for treason!
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:04 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear John... Why yes I can,,, simply post the entire document so
> > > everyone can see that my remarks are in context.
>
> > > On Jun 7, 5:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Tico: In spite of your limited experience writing important
> > > > documents, why not choose a few sentences, in context, from my New
> > > > Constitution, and explain—as best you can—WHY such in any way might
> > > > fail to improve the USA and the People in it. Can you do that? — J.
> > > > A. Armistead — Author and Patriot
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 9:10 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I would have no idea what "documents" you are talking about...all I
> > > > > see are poorly written snippets that require more explanation than
> > > > > they have in substance.
>
> > > > > Again, Why is it that no one can see the entire supposed "document" ?
> > > > > Your lack of forthrightness in this matter would indicate that nothing
> > > > > exists but these three or four poorly written "clauses" or "articles"
> > > > > you bandy about. Your "word" about any more existing isn't worth a
> > > > > spit as we have been hearing that bullshit for years.
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Tico: Comment on the parts of my New Constitution. Otherwise,
> > > > > > you can't see the trees for the forests. Don't you like the trees?
> > > > > > Or do you only like getting to make grandiose errant statements about
> > > > > > documents which are fundamentally against your socialist agendas? —
> > > > > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > > > > On May 28, 5:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Then as any reasonable citizen that has asked for and never received a
> > > > > > > full copy of your "new constitution" (so I can "easily understand" it)
> > > > > > > and as a citizen of reasonable temperament speaking to the creator of
> > > > > > > a "government document" I would like to ask why you are so "
> > > > > > > adversarial" every time someone asks for a copy....
>
> > > > > > > You sir are in violation of your own document.... get a rope!!!!
>
> > > > > > > On May 28, 1:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Dear plainolamerican: Well said! "What do you call a heavy chain on
> > > > > > > > the bottom of the ocean with a thousand lawyers attached? Answer: A
> > > > > > > > GOOD START!" My new constitution will castrate the entire profession
> > > > > > > > known as lawyers! That screwed-up profession dominates the House,
> > > > > > > > Senate, the Executive Office and the Justice Department. But no
> > > > > > > > more! My New Constitution will limit the number of lawyers (or any
> > > > > > > > other profession for that matter) working in government to be no more
> > > > > > > > than 20%. And my New Constitution will mandate that no lawyer, ever
> > > > > > > > again, can be employed by any business (such as banks and big
> > > > > > > > corporations) where they try to force relationships to be
> > > > > > > > adversarial. And my N. Const. will strike down any supposed contract
> > > > > > > > that isn't easily understood by people of average background. And it
> > > > > > > > will mandate that those harmed by any business get quick and
> > > > > > > > reasonable amends without requiring that anyone get a lawyer and sue
> > > > > > > > anyone. In short. I eliminate 75% of the reasons lawyers find work!
> > > > > > > > Lastly, if even one lawyer seeks to go into public office when there
> > > > > > > > are already 20% of those in that same branch who are lawyers, never
> > > > > > > > again will any public-connected funding be available for sending any
> > > > > > > > person to any God Damned law school! Are you listening, Tico? Ha,
> > > > > > > > ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > > On May 24, 2:02 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
> > > > > > > > > petition
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > oh, like soldiers are people who protect our freedom?
>
> > > > > > > > > no offense, but we don't need lawyers or soldiers to protect our
> > > > > > > > > freedom
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 24, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > First, Thank you for the compliment!!
>
> > > > > > > > > > Basically what I can take from your non-answer is a quote from Pelosi,
> > > > > > > > > > "you must pass the ..... to find out what is in it."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
> > > > > > > > > > petition ...regardless of how ridiculous the petition...
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 8:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Tico: Every sentence is a "book" in and of itself. Realize that
> > > > > > > > > > > lawyers, like you claim to be, will be excluded from screwing-up the
> > > > > > > > > > > USA like they have done for too long. A judge or justice violating
> > > > > > > > > > > even a sentence of my Constitution can be fired on-the-spot by any
> > > > > > > > > > > prudent citizen. Working for government means being a SERVANT of the
> > > > > > > > > > > people. Servants who screw up can be fired; and it doesn't take a
> > > > > > > > > > > court decision or the next election to make that firing final. Come
> > > > > > > > > > > back to the USA and get a government job, and I will take great pride
> > > > > > > > > > > in firing you as soon as you fail to respect the civil rights of me or
> > > > > > > > > > > anyone. You terse comments on this group show you have little respect
> > > > > > > > > > > for others. How did you turn out so badly? — John A. Armistead —
> > > > > > > > > > > Author and Patriot
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:56 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <<<That New Constitution of
> > > > > > > > > > > > mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on!>>>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since you have never seen fit to post your "New Constitution" and all
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyone can do is see bits and pieces out of context I'll reserve my
> > > > > > > > > > > > "hope" for more tangible things... like three wish genies and such.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 5:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks: Many of you may not realize that the present "thread", in reply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to MJ's Limbaugh post, summarizes how—in just a single day—the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hopefully-awake voters can forever correct our BROKEN government;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > broken media; and too-often two-faced businesses (Which are only doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the same 'wrongs' that their competitors do.) that cause 80% of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > American's to feel our government is headed in the wrong direction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If 80% of us don't like government, then why do we keep "doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > business" with them?
>
> ...
>
> read 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment