Folks: Jonathan, the jerk, is undeserving of a reply. —J. A. A. — > On Feb 26, 12:32 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > In almost all of your posts over the past few days, you have resorted to > name calling - "the last resort of the desperate." > > That you cannot tell the difference between an individualist, > anti-conformist, voluntaryist who wants little or no government and a > socialist-communist who relies upon government to suck the lifeblood out > of everyone likely says volumes about YOUR New Constitution. > > On 2/26/2011 3:59 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jonathan, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts, > > that identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! � J. > > A. A. � > > On Feb 25, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> It appears to me you are about self-glorification, not patriotism. > > >> On 2/25/2011 7:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear Socialist-Communist: There is three or four times more MEAT in > >>> the 40% of my New Constitution, regularly printed in the thread, than > >>> in the entire original Constitution! In the RUDEST way, you've > >>> attacked me for not showing you the 60%, when you haven't cared enough > >>> to even look back for the meaty 40%! Make your own post, traitor. > >>> I'm about saving the USA. I have a �pointed wooden stake� for the > >>> heart of anyone who stands in my way! � J. A. A. � Patriot > >>> On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> I was under the impression when I joined this political "discussion" > >>>> group that folks subscribed to the group to discuss political issues. > >>>> Your failure to post YOUR New Constitution when at least four people > >>>> (including myself) have expressed a sincere interest in reading it shows > >>>> you are not interested in having it enacted. Either that or you are > >>>> afraid of the feedback you will receive. > >>>> I seem to recall your concern with publishing it was it isn't > >>>> copyrighted. Would a true "patriot" (as you continually label yourself) > >>>> be more concerned with the direction in which his country is headed or > >>>> HIS copyright protection? As it stands now, YOUR New Constitution will > >>>> likely die when you do because no one else will ever have a chance to > >>>> read it. > >>>> Your claim that I am "likely socialist-communist" shows you have never > >>>> read anything I have posted to this group. If you had you would know > >>>> that I come real close to believing that the government that governs > >>>> best is no government at all. A completely voluntary society could not > >>>> possibly be any worse than the socialist police state we now live in. > >>>> Your comment, "You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!" > >>>> only confirms my suspicion that you are a wanna-be dictator. If you were > >>>> a moderator for this group, I would likely have been banned long ago > >>>> because I dared to comment on YOUR posts. > >>>> On 2/23/2011 6:33 PM, NoEinstein 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. Flagrantly editing news to > >>>>>>>> promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall > >>>>>>>> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any > >>>>>>>> pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside > >>>>>>>> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the > >>>>>>>> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed, > >>>>>>>> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided > >>>>>>>> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to > >>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress > >>>>>>>> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. > >>>>>>>> No > >>>>>>>> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by > > ... > > 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.
