Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.  — J. A.
A. —
>
On Feb 28, 11:46 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I'm so glad you told us that you're "the smartest man around." I would
> not have guessed so otherwise.
>
> On 2/28/2011 6:59 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Anointed one:  Do this:  Form the best committee you can and
> > write us a better constitution.  After several years of effort, you'll
> > realize that it would have been better to let the smartest man around
> > (me) do the writing.  That benefits everyone except those who wish to
> > have their fingers in every pie.  But be it known: "Those without
> > ability should never be allowed in the kitchen!"  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > On Feb 26, 2:01 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >> "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> >> committee."
>
> >> Yes indeed it is (in your mind). A camel is so well suited for its use
> >> where it exists that only fools own horses there. A horse is not
> >> capable of doing a camels work... and with the exception of speed
> >> (both in km/h and to the grave)... the inverse is not true.... try
> >> again.
>
> >> On Feb 26, 5:54 am, NoEinstein<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Mark, one of the airheads:  "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> >>> committee."   I happen to be among the most intelligent people ever
> >>> born on this Earth.  I could have gone into... politics (God forbid!)
> >>> and had my talents negated in committees and in the daily empty
> >>> RITUAL.  I had seen how departed from the Constitution our government
> >>> had become, and decided that the only solution would be to make our
> >>> constitution STRONGER.  Along the way, I realized that too many really
> >>> important things were being left for being defined in subsequent
> >>> laws.  So, I gradually added-in items that most Americans will
> >>> recognize as affecting their daily lives.  Having those things be
> >>> visible in the New Constitution, itself, will have government working
> >>> quite well without "trusting" that the House (There will be no
> >>> senate.) can write some good laws.  The best way to assure that only
> >>> good laws, acceptable to the majority of Americans, will be passed, is
> >>> my having raised the minimum vote for passage to 60%.  (Note: 55% is
> >>> probationary, only.)  I've also denied the media access to the
> >>> capital.  That will remove most of the ego component from those
> >>> wishing to be "important", because they are in the public eye all the
> >>> time.  I require that House members never have held public office nor
> >>> been employed by government (other than for possible military
> >>> service).  So, there will be no more... "career" politicians!  And I
> >>> limit the total number of... lawyers in public office to 20%,
> >>> maximum.  Restrictions on lawyers in businesses, also, is crucial to
> >>> improving the working climate in this country, so no business will
> >>> ever try to take unfair advantage of their employees nor their
> >>> customers.  Read back into my thread.  I really don't have time to
> >>> keep "capsuling" my document�which has been developed over a 14-year
> >>> period to benefit the majority of Americans.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>> Patriot
> >>> On Feb 25, 11:24 am, Mark<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>> My dearest Einstein.... it is misspelt on purpose... I am certainly NOT
> >>>> Anointed...
> >>>> Since you would like to be correct in all things... THIS IS AN INTERNET
> >>>> FORUM
> >>>> Definition is: An *Internet forum*, or *message board*, is an online
> >>>> discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted
> >>>> messages.
> >>>> What you are looking for is a self-serving BLOG as all members on a 
> >>>> forum do
> >>>>   have the right to respond to ANYTHING as they see fit in civil tone.
> >>>> As to what you have done.... about twenty years to write a set of (your
> >>>> description) unfinished rules in the form of a constitution that you do 
> >>>> want
> >>>> everyone to praise but don't want anyone to read or comment on... how 
> >>>> Pelosi
> >>>> of you.
> >>>> There are reasons that documents such as you are trying to produce are 
> >>>> done
> >>>> by committee,at least with intelligent and educated people  involved they
> >>>> are. There are reasons that every draft is sent to several people for 
> >>>> input
> >>>> and polishing...
> >>>> If those reasons escape you or you are not willing for whatever reason  
> >>>> then
> >>>> it will die  with you.
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM, 
> >>>> NoEinstein<[email protected]>wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Anointed One:  You can't even spell your own handle.  I'm posting
> >>>>> NOT to get anyone's feed-back, but simply to inform people what I've
> >>>>> done.  Frankly, I have better things to do than to banter with
> >>>>> shallows like you.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>>>> Your response to people is:<<<<  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>>>
> >>>>>> How VERY Nancy Pelosi of you.
> >>>>>> On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Anointed One:  If you agree with the mega pages I've written
> >>>>>>> explaining my New Constitution, I welcome you support.  But when you
> >>>>>>> simply copy what I wrote, and substitute your own pet ideas, I'm not
> >>>>>>> sure if you are for a better and tougher constitution or not.
> >>>>>>> Concisely stated replies will be appreciated.  ï¿½  John A. Armistead 
> >>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<[email protected]>  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."
> >>>>>>>> (The Anointed One wrote:) 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Reply via email to