Mark, the party-crashing, socialist-communist is undeserving of being replied to and undeserving of being called an American. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 4, 1:24 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Einstein, > > Manners go both ways. Your constant "talking points" about your proposed > constitution coupled with your obstinate refusal to post it in its entirety > so people can read "In Context" and form a worthwhile opinion for themselves > is rather hypocritical and here is why: > > The very fact that you have undertaken your monumental task says that there > are many parts of the present constitution that you find repugnant, > worthless, unusable (etc). Yet you do not allow anyone else the opportunity > to read what you HAVE written so they can get a full sense of the proposed > document... (Old son, that is EXACTLY what Pelosi said about Obamacare.) > When sections are posted and then criticized you call everyone who finds ANY > fault at all a communist/socialist, when that is EXACTLY what you are doing > with the present Constitution.... by your own means test that would make YOU > a communist/socialist as well as it is that very present Constitution which > you are de-bunking that allows you the possibility of writing yours. > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks: Those without manners (respect for me) like Jonathan, the > > socialist-communist, are undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > > > On Mar 3, 11:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Once again, John has resorted to name calling instead of answering the > > > 10 specific questions I asked regarding HIS New Constitution. > > > > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm > > > not sure about the former." > > > - Albert Einstein > > > > On 3/2/2011 7:19 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > Folks: Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. > > > > � J. A. A. � > > > > On Mar 2, 1:29 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > >> John, > > > > >> You wrote: > > > > >> *> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has > > to > > > >> be!* > > > > >> It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a > > dictator. > > > >> As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look > > > >> at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith. > > > > >> *> 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.* > > > > >> 1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution > > > >> already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are > > > >> these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution? > > > > >> 2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A > > > >> Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic? > > > > >> 3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes, > > > >> slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"? > > > > >> 4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from > > > >> influencing your secular government? > > > > >> 4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, > > > >> and disbursements" need be secular? > > > >> * > > > >> > No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of > > > >> speech; * > > > > >> You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared > > > >> "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements > > shall > > > >> be secular." > > > > >> *> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;* > > > > >> 1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair > > > >> and pro-democracy"? > > > > >> 2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to > > > >> be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a > > sheep > > > >> deciding on what to have for dinner. > > > > >> *> 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.* > > > > >> It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our > > > >> current Constitution in tact. > > > > >> *> 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.* > > > > >> 1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant, > > > >> timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"? > > > > >> 2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority? > > > > >> 3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have > > thoroughly > > > >> read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances > > or > > > >> requests for directions or clarifications"? > > > > >> I am having too much fun to continue. > > > > >> Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack > > constructs > > > >> such as...* > > > > >> Rule of construction* > > > > >> If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official > > has > > > >> a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a > > power, > > > >> the presumption shall be that the official does not have the > > power, > > > >> or conversely, that the person has the immunity. > > > > >> *Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors* > > > > >> No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly > > > >> selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an > > indictment > > > >> or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute > > > >> the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction, > > > >> and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit. > > > > >> The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. > >http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm > > > > >> On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > >>> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has > > > >>> to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left > > > >>> going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are > > > >>> three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible > > > >>> and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and > > > >>> controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated > > > >>> governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is > > > >>> responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a > > > >>> top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly > > > >>> following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the > > > >>> media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning > > > >>> errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the > > > >>> very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit: > > > >>> "Bill of Rights and Amendments: > > > >>> 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 > > ... > > 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.
