MJ, the party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Feb 28, 9:57 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > And yet you provide one ... > A pity you cannot put forth this panacea > Constitution of yours. At this point it becomes obvious WHY. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > It is hard to believe that a man is telling the > truth when you know that you would lie if you > were in his place. -- H.L. Mencken > > At 09:52 AM 2/28/2011, you 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 > > ... > > 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.
