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? FIRE their asses and put in place a founding-
> > > > > > > > father-approved government that will benefit the VAST majority of
> > > > > > > > Americans, not just the 'criminal' simple majority that has divided
> > > > > > > > this country down-the-aisle for over two centuries! Disallow ALL
> > > > > > > > group influences, so that government can finally be reined-in to the
> > > > > > > > benefit of us all! The solution is to FREE capitalism and to get
> > > > > > > > government off of our backs. Do that, and there will be enough
> > > > > > > > charitable people willing to assure that no truly needy person will
> > > > > > > > lack having their survival necessities met. In other words: Improve
> > > > > > > > the dog-eat-dog world out there, and nice people will, once again,
> > > > > > > > start caring to help their neighbors, rather than saying... "Let
> > > > > > > > government do it." Folks, government is KILLING this country! ***
> > > > > > > > Tell your friends and relatives what I say. That New Constitution of
> > > > > > > > mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on! — John A. Armistead —
> > > > > > > > Author and Patriot
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Dear MJ: Sorry for the delay in replying; I've gotten out of the
> > > > > > > > > habit of looking toward this group. As you know, Amendment 10
> > > > > > > > > empowers the States, or the Citizens, to handle public issues not
> > > > > > > > > spelled out in the Constitution as being specifically delegated to the
> > > > > > > > > Federal Government, nor prohibited being handled by the States.
> > > > > > > > > Nothing in my New Constitution changes that Amendment.
>
> > > > > > > > > Since the present Constitution requires that the States uphold and
> > > > > > > > > sware alligance to the Constitution, the ratification of "a" (or my)
> > > > > > > > > New Constitution will require that the States continue to do so. The
> > > > > > > > > only amendment that I even slightly diminished is Amendment 1.
> > > > > > > > > Therein, I deny freedom of speech to those in the professional media
> > > > > > > > > who had gotten to use (abuse) their power by talking about their
> > > > > > > > > personal political ideals, while the non-professional man-on-the-
> > > > > > > > > street doesn't get a similar voice. When Rush Limbaugh, David
> > > > > > > > > Letterman, or Oprah can use their celebrity to sway voters, that
> > > > > > > > > corrupts our Representative Republic.
>
> > > > > > > > > Don't worry that I have stopped fair news coverage. In the early days
> > > > > > > > > of television, events were covered LIVE, as these happened. But now,
> > > > > > > > > the 24-7, 365 day a year programs have biased reporters telling you
> > > > > > > > > what has happened and saying such things as such-and-such candidate
> > > > > > > > > has no chance of getting the nomination. Such statements, whether
> > > > > > > > > 'fair and balanced' or not, are effectively wagging the dog. Even
> > > > > > > > > reading news with a raised eyebrow is getting to have an influence
> > > > > > > > > that no free society can allow! If the people are allowed to see the
> > > > > > > > > daily events as they happen, they are perfectly capable of making up
> > > > > > > > > their own minds how to vote on election day. The entire new Amendment
> > > > > > > > > 1 follows. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
>
> > > > > > > > > "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > > > > > > > > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > > > > > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > > > > > > > > be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: *** the
> > > > > > > > > freedom of speech of those Citizens who don't work for the media; the
> > > > > > > > > freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium; the right
> > > > > > > > > of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group
> > > > > > > > > to petition government or any of its branches or departments for
> > > > > > > > > redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning government shall
> > > > > > > > > receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just
> > > > > > > > > responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read,
> > > > > > > > > understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or
> > > > > > > > > requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond to a
> > > > > > > > > rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single
> > > > > > > > > provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment, especially
> > > > > > > > > those in management or public office—including
>
> ...
>
> 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