Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Feb 28, 11:41 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
