Jonathan, the socialist-communist, has the respect of no patriotic American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 4, 1:45 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Respect is earned. Your incessant name calling does nothing to enhance > your chances of earning my respect. > > Post YOUR New Constitution and defend it. If it's worthy of respect, I > will bestow respect upon it. > > On 03/04/2011 09:55 AM, NoEinstein 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 the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall > >>>>> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any > >>>>> pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside > >>>>> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the > >>>>> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed, > >>>>> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided > >>>>> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all > >>>>> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress > >>>>> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No > >>>>> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by > >>>>> others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall > >>>>> be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium. Each medium > >>>>> shall > >>>>> respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other > >>>>> medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall > >>>>> not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on > >>>>> government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment� > >>>>> being neither laudatory nor critical by > > ... > > 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.
