Folks:  MJ is 'crashing' my party for the purpose of hawking his big-
letter quotations and his nothing of a constitution.  Should I call...
the police?  MJ is certainly undeserving of being read, and
undeserving of being replied to regarding anything he writes.  Crazies
like him should be in an institution.  Agreed?   — J. A. A. —

On Feb 19, 10:27 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> <sigh>
> And yet two (2) times a reply is provided.
> HOWEVER, we have YET to see this panacea Constitution.
> Pity.
> Regard$,
> --MJThe power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people 
> goes to the essence of all political systems.  Being defined  even by 
> political “scientists”  as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of 
> violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise 
> such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and 
> respect are in rapid decline.  The people employed to carry out such powers  
> be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various 
> stripes, etc.  are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such 
> unrestricted violence against others.  The state is the playground bully writ 
> large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable 
> for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status 
> that defines their system. -- Butler ShafferAt 10:00 AM 2/19/2011, you 
> wrote:MJ is undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On Feb 18, 10:00 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <sigh>
> > And yet three (3) times a reply is provided.
> > HOWEVER, we have YET to see this panacea Constitution.
> > Pity.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJThe power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people 
> > goes to the essence of all political systems.  Being defined  even by 
> > political “scientists”  as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use 
> > of violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to 
> > exercise such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its 
> > credibility and respect are in rapid decline.  The people employed to carry 
> > out such powers  be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, 
> > bureaucrats of various stripes, etc.  are the kinds of sociopaths who are 
> > eager to exercise such unrestricted violence against others.  The state is 
> > the playground bully writ large, and state officials are unwilling to hold 
> > their bullies accountable for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to 
> > deny the very monopoly status that defines their system. -- Butler 
> > ShafferAt 09:51 AM 2/18/2011, you wrote:MJ is undeserving of a reply.  — J. 
> > A. A. —
> > >
> > On Feb 17, 11:24 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hoping for a Patriot Act setting?
> > > Why are you so FEARFUL of allowing others to see it?
> > > HERE is the US 
> > > Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txtThevariousconventions
> > >  (at the time of its ratification) reviewed, discussed, etc.
> > > Your FEAR of allowing the Members of this Group READ it is quite telling. 
> > > Your incessant and endless fallacious replies tell an even greater story.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ "...whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries 
> > > with it the equivalent power to do things to you." -- A. J. NockAt 11:00 
> > > AM 2/17/2011, you wrote:Dear J. A.:  You have a bossy tone.  My New 
> > > Constitution will be voted
> > > on, up-or-down, without discussion.  "A 'camel' is a HORSE designed in
> > > a committee!"  The following reply to MJ also applies to you:
> > > Folks:  This MJ fellow has a friendly salutation, "Regard$".  But he
> > > is shallow-minded to suppose that my New Constitution is like a book
> > > to be reviewed.  The functionality of my document has withstood the
> > > tests of events in the news that raise one's ire.  If there is some
> > > apparent injustice, I check to see if that same injustice would
> > > prevail under my New Constitution.  Over thirteen plus years, changes
> > > were required in the wording, until, finally, few if any injustices
> > > being told in the news would prevail.  The latter thirteen year
> > > process was my objective "review".  No person on Earth could be more
> > > objective than me, in what I've written, and why.  — John A. Armistead
> > > —  Patriot
> > > >
> > > On Feb 16, 4:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Post your "New Constitution" and engage in meaningful discussion or quit
> > > > complaining.
> > > >
> > > > On 2/16/2011 1:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > No, MJ.  Go jump in a lake!  No reader of my posts wants to hear the
> > > > > dribble of a loser like you.  Quotations of others just don't impress
> > > > > the reader.  So, learn and leave.  � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > > > > On Feb 15, 9:56 am, MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> > > > >> It is an endless circle of fallacy spew ... yet
> > > > >> NO posting yet of this 'fabulous' Constitution.
> > > > >> Go figure.
> > > >
> > > > >> Regard$,
> > > > >> --MJ
> > > >
> > > > >> It is amazing how many people think that they can
> > > > >> answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
> > > > >> those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
> > > > >> reasoning, you can believe or not believe
> > > > >> anything about anything, without having to bother
> > > > >> to deal with facts or logic. -- Thomas Sowell
> > > >
> > > > >> At 12:47 AM 2/15/2011, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> Dear MJ:  Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>> your library of worthy quotes from others.  Albert Einstein covered
> > > > >>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > > >>> when apt.  Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure.  So, I
> > > > >>> must decline to reply to you in the future.  You individual approval
> > > > >>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > > >>> ratification process.  � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > >>> On Feb 14, 1:29 pm, MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> > > > >>>> So you are going to ENDLESSLY spew fallacy?
> > > > >>>> Why not simply posit your Constitution
> > > > >>> instead so it can be discussed and we might get somewhere?
> > > > >>>> Regard$,
> > > > >>>> --MJIt is amazing how many people think that they can
> > > > >>>> answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
> > > > >>>> those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
> > > > >>>> reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything
> > > > >>>> about anything, without having to bother to deal
> > > > >>>> with facts or logic. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:20
> > > > >>> PM 2/14/2011, you wrote:On Feb 14, 10:09 am, 
> > > > >>> MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> > > > >>>> Dear MJ:  Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par 
> > > > >>>> with
> > > > >>>> your library of worthy quotes from others.  Albert Einstein covered
> > > > >>>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > > >>>> when apt.  Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure.  So, 
> > > > >>>> I
> > > > >>>> must decline to reply to you in the future.  You individual 
> > > > >>>> approval
> > > > >>>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > > >>>> ratification process.  � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > >>>>> Why you imagine spewing fallacy aids your cause is unknown.
> > > > >>>>> I can certainly understand WHY you would
> > > > >>> prefer NOT to support (or attempt to) your efforts or claims.
> > > > >>>>> Regard$,
> > > > >>>>> --MJA state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive
> > > > >>>>> minds.  But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the
> > > > >>>>> multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret
> > > > >>>>> the loss of their pleasing vision.
> > > > >>>>> -- Edward Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the
> > > > >>> Roman Empire_At 11:36 PM 2/13/2011, you
> > > > >>> wrote:Dear MJ:  Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a 
> > > > >>> par with
> > > > >>>>> your library of worthy quotes from others.  Albert Einstein 
> > > > >>>>> covered...
>
> 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.

Reply via email to