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, 1:54 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Name calling doesn't cut it, John. > > You have yet to answer a single question I have asked you. Why are you > so intent on dodging questions? Could it be that YOUR New Constitution > is all fluff and no substance? > > On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks: Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus > > undeserving of a reply! � J. A. A. � > > On Mar 4, 11:10 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> *John, > > >> You certainly live in a twisted mind. How did you deduce from reading "a > >> brief post" of mine in which I expressed my "dislike of big government" > >> and my "desire to have power returned to the people and to the States" > >> that I am "ticked-off" that anyone, like YOU, "could single-handedly fix > >> all of the problems"? > > >> Better yet, how could you possibly conclude by reading anything I have > >> posted to this forum that I am a "socialist-communist ... undeserving of > >> a reply" - a statement you made earlier in this very thread? > > >> I asked ten simple questions regarding only a minor portion of your > >> response to Keith and you dodged them all by stating, "None of the ten > >> thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a considerate > >> tone..." **If you don't like my tone or the tone of others who challenge > >> you on this forum, how will you deal with the boat-load of crap and > >> sarcasm that will be heaved upon you IF YOUR New Constitution is ever > >> presented to the masses?* > >> * > >> Had I spent further time dissecting your short response to Keith, I am > >> sure I would have had at least ten more questions. So one must ask, How > >> can you possibly believe you are capable of "single-handedly" fixing > >> "all of the problems"? > > >> I have reached the opinion that anything having to do with YOUR New > >> Constitution must result in "it's my way or the highway" for you. You > >> obviously have no tolerance for criticism. Therefor, one must conclude > >> you are not open to suggestions. Without being open to criticism and > >> suggestions, YOUR New Constitution will never see the light of day. > > >> *On 3/3/2011 6:14 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Folks: My first impressions KILLED any chance Jonathan Ashley might > >>> ever have had to have me reply to him. Today, I read a brief post of > >>> his in which he expressed his dislike of big government and his desire > >>> to have power returned to the people and to the States. Apparently, > >>> Ashley was ticked-off that anyone, like me, could single-handedly fix > >>> all of the problems. So, that guy is attacking my patriotic efforts > >>> by picking at 'the details' of my constitution. *** Note: None of the > >>> ten thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a > >>> considerate tone which Ashley completely lacks. Most of his pet > >>> questions have already been answered, if he, and others, would simply > >>> read back into the thread. I don't have time to repeat the same > >>> things just so a jerk like Jonathan Ashley can feel important. I > >>> suspect he is more motivated to retard my efforts than he is to > >>> actually fixing any government problems, anywhere. So, whatever I > >>> call Ashley, he is, and will remain, undeserving of being replied to. > >>> � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> 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 > > ... > > 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.
