Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.  — J. A.
A. —
>
On Feb 28, 11:49 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again, "Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk" will never be
> hanged for treason. Why? Because YOUR New Constitution will never be
> read let alone enacted by the 50 States.
>
> On 2/28/2011 7:09 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Anointed One:  You aren't very well informed.  Nancy Pelosi,
> > Harry Reid and their ilk will all be hanged for TREASON for trying to
> > turn the USA into a socialist Nation.  Read the 40% of my New
> > Constitution in the thread, and you will see that I empower the
> > PEOPLE, not me.  Everyone in the USA will benefit, whether they
> > realize it or not.  Having a small, efficient, and deferential
> > government, and a prosperous free enterprise system is the "Shortest
> > Distance;  Harmony Through Prosperity." (That�s the name of my book at
> > Amazon and B.&  N.)  Check it out!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > On Feb 26, 2:03 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >> since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people",
>
> >> I did not do that.... your own words and attitudes reflected in them
> >> mirror Pelosi to a "T".
>
> >> On Feb 26, 5:57 am, NoEinstein<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
> >>> Mark, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts; and
> >>> since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that
> >>> identifies you as a socialist-communist.  Bug-off, loser!  ï¿½ J. A. A.
> >>> �
> >>> On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>> <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> >>>> the latter.>>>
> >>>> Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there.
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, 
> >>>> NoEinstein<[email protected]>wrote:
> >>>>> Dear MJ:  You sir, are a total BUM!  What I have written describing my
> >>>>> New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> >>>>> fill several "War and Peace"-size novels.  Not a single WORD of what I
> >>>>> have written supports socialism nor communism!  I am in favor of
> >>>>> having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> >>>>> zero interaction with individual citizens.  ï¿½My� government will no
> >>>>> longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> >>>>> value-added, only.  And I have nixed having the government maintain
> >>>>> records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> >>>>> Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> >>>>> the person they failed to convict the last time.  My corrections of
> >>>>> corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> >>>>> enough to ratify my New Constitution!  Presently, the USA is a police
> >>>>> state�with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures.  And
> >>>>> the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate.  I�ve put
> >>>>> them in their place, big time!
> >>>>> You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher.  I do not appreciate in
> >>>>> the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> >>>>> of some kind.  Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> >>>>> not mine.  I am not playing games, here.  If you would like to get
> >>>>> back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> >>>>> two paragraphs or less.  Unless I see the words:  ï¿½I pro-capitalist
> >>>>> and anti-socialist�� included, then I will know for sure that you 
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> >>>>> Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> >>>>> the latter.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>>>> In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> >>>>>> see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> >>>>>> My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> >>>>>> endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> >>>>>> true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> >>>>>> Pity.
> >>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>> "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> >>>>>> consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
> >>>>>> At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you 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
>
> ...
>
> 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