since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", I did not do that.... your own words and attitudes reflected in them mirror Pelosi to a "T".
On Feb 26, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts; and > since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that > identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! — J. A. A. > — > > On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be > > the latter.>>> > > > Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there. > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing my > > > New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would > > > fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I > > > have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of > > > having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to > > > zero interaction with individual citizens. ‘My’ government will no > > > longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be > > > value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain > > > records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent. > > > Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict" > > > the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of > > > corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification > > > enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police > > > state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And > > > the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I’ve put > > > them in their place, big time! > > > > You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate in > > > the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution > > > of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name, > > > not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get > > > back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in > > > two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: “I pro-capitalist > > > and anti-socialist”… included, then I will know for sure that you are > > > just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals. > > > Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be > > > the latter. — J. A. A. — > > > > On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to > > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist. > > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds, > > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the > > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'. > > > > Pity. > > > > > Regard$, > > > > --MJ > > > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the > > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum > > > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on > > > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist- > > > > >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! — > > > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot > > > > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is > > > ever > > > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the > > > > > > making. > > > > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has > > > > > > > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor > > > anyone > > > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about > > > this > > > > > > > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins > > > with > > > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to > > > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or > > > > > > > kick > > > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the > > > > > > > President > > > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request > > > of > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To > > > wit: > > > > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your > > > > > > > throats. > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New > > > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts of > > > it > > > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document. > > > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, > > > but to > > > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, > > > maliciously, > > > > > > >> make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to > > > side-track > > > > > > >> my efforts. > > > > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for > > > fourteen > > > > > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises > > > highlighted > > > > > > >> in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts. > > > What > > > > > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the > > > original > > > > > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the > > > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with > > > our > > > > > > >> Constitution. > > > > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has > > > > > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor > > > anyone > > > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see > > > the > > > > > > >> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about > > > this > > > > > > >> or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins > > > with > > > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could > > > have > > > > > > >> had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or > > > kick > > > > > > >> out of office any public official or employee, including the > > > President > > > > > > >> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request > > > of a > > > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To > > > wit: > > > > > > > >> "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; 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 > > > > > > >> judges > > > and > > > > > > >> justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any > > > competent > > > > > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly > > > > > > >> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No > > > > > > >> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above > > > required > > > > > > >> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their > > > objectivity > > > > > > >> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well > > > informed. > > > > > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be > > > reasonable > > > > > > >> truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or > > > > > > >> deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious > > > fiction or > > > > > > >> satire�is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular > > > news > > > > > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is > > > > > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly > > > > > > >> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, > > > or > > > > > > >> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named > > > as > > > > > > >> being authored by management; editorial comments by others that > > > are in > > > > > > >> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by > > > comments > > > > > > >> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most > > > would > > > > > > >> come to associate with the management of such medium, even if > > > > > > >> such > > > are > > > > > > >> innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology > > > of > > > > > > >> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses > > > such > > > > > > >> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of > > > > > > >> loss > > > of > > > > > > >> license or closure of the business. > > ... > > 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.
