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, 1:33 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from > the fog of the controversy." -- House Speaker Nancy PelosiAt 01:24 PM > 3/4/2011, you 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, > thesocialist-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:> >>>... > > 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.
