Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope of a REAL Constitution ie.
*The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.* * * ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution" posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.* On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > MJ: All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't > increasing your status in the groups one bit. And haven't you heard? > It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size). You are a pest on my > post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me. In > the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you > haven't gotten many readers, have you. Please make a "quote" of your > own worthy of being in Bartlett's. If you can't do that, then you > should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby. — J. A. A. > — > > > On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response. > > SADLY, you offer no support to your claims. > > Regard$, > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM > 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being > replied to. — J. A. > > A. — > > > > > On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this > Group ([email protected]). > > > I never claimed to be a moderator. > > > I did not request a 'discussion'. > > > I did, however, ask for YOU to support YOUR assertion and explain: > > > What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine 'run counter' when you > claim, "sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients > and their families" > > > Apparently you cannot support your claim(s) which is why you resort to > spewing fallacy when anyone responds to your posts. > > > Regard$, > > > --MJ"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a > right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the > right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are > evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of > self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel > Adams, November 20, 1772At 05:42 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: You are a > rude party crasher, not a moderator. I am not > > > interested in having a discussion with anyone regarding the specifics > > > of my New Constitution. As for science, I am the King of the Hill of > > > patriotic Americans! — J. A. Armistead — > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:45 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >In medical facilities all across the country, "medical protocol" > > > > >sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients > > > > >and their families. > > > > > > > > What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine to have 'run counter'? > > > > Please cite some examples. > > > > > > > > Regard$, > > > > --MJ > > > > > > > > Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it > > > > cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on > > > > the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not > > > > prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the > > > > government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a > > > > charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. -- > > > > Alyssa Rosenbaum > > > -- > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * *Fila Coffee* *www.filacoffee.com* -- 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.
