And once again we are blessed with more name calling. Who could have foreseen that?

On 2/28/2011 6:52 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
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 »

--
*"Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft" <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>*

--
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