If you are a leader and have no followers or adherents .... you are not a leader
if you are a writer and have no readers.... you are not a writer Do you get the point there Einstein ?? On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Jonathan: If I had wanted to have the opinions of others > influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my > insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the > House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo > governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten > away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the > founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives > to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they > make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of > society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their > own weight in society. > > It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing > photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions. > From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the > norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the > media—which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the > US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt > US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to > assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching > news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be > on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of > hardworking Americans! — John A. Armistead — Patriot > > > On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John, > > > > I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor > > appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought, > > considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the > > opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New > > Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to > > create a one-man nation. > > > > On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts', > > > you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't > > > have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things > > > that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back > > > into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about > > > my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions > > > in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. � > > > J. A. A. � > > > On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> John, > > > > >> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits > of > > >> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives." > > > > >> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long > > >> as I respect the equal rights of others? > > > > >> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and > > >> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any > government > > >> was created? > > > > >> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that > > >> existed naturally before any government was created? > > > > >> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve > the > > >> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery, > > >> kidnapping, and fraud? > > > > >> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special > > >> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.? > > > > >> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions > � > > >> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be > any > > >> different? > > > > >> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > >>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of > my > > >>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only > > >>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of > which > > >>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to > the > > >>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to > pull > > >>> any of the strings. > > >>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government > > >>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New > > >>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and > > >>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than > > >>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony > > >>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a > > >>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal > freedoms > > >>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the > > >>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell > > >>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately > moving > > >>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to > > >>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that! � John A. > Armistead > > >>> � Patriot > > >>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> John, > > >>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent > when > > >>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854. > > >>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market > > >>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government > > >>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that > concept. > > >>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should > by > > >>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business. > > >>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil > > >>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that > a > > >>>> government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have > complete > > >>>> liberty without such need. > > >>>> *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.] > > >>>> 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable > to the > > >>>> body, or to the will or mind.* > > >>>> CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and > > >>>> government of the citizens and subjects of a state_; > > >>>> On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>>>> Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a > socialist-communist�or > > >>>>> else you can't read and comprehend. Attack me in any way, and you > > >>>>> attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil > > >>>>> liberties for the vast majority of Americans. Until you can > recognize > > >>>>> those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a > > >>>>> sharply pointed wooden stake. � NE � > > >>>>> On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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. > -- *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.
