— 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. � 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! � 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! � 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! � 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$,
> >>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>> Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It
> >>>>>>> has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside
> >>>>>>> and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or
> >>>>>>> contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual
> >>>>>>> process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as
> >>>>>>> a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power
> >>>>>>> in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
> >>>>>>> At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
> >>>>>>> MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> >>>>>>> the people-oriented content of my New Constitution! Please reference
> >>>>>>> a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> >>>>>>> property is used. You can't do that, I'm sure! Ha, ha, HA! � John
> >>>>>>> A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA! You
> >>>>>>>> aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily. You are probably
> >>>>>>>> doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> >>>>>>>> and I the converse.
> >>>>>>>> It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see
> >>>>>>> how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private
> >>>>>>> property without outside interference.
> >>>>>>>> Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy
> >>>>>>> when they are writing and because the
>
> ...
>
> 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.
advised, "When one of you asks for a woman in marriage, if he is able to look at what will induce him to marry her, he should do so." (Abu Daoud) Prolonging an online relationship can be a problem because the "connection" could be based completely on false information, which will ultimately lead to major disappointment. Therefore, remaining exclusively online to establish and maintain relationships can become a complete waste of time and even a distraction from finding a true match. Seeking to meet in person and develop a relationship that will lead to marriage needs to be the intention.
and relying on Him will help give you clarity and inner peace when making the important life decision to marry or not marry someone.