Jonathan: The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution. I don't have time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the other. I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you. "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical." — J. A. A. — > On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite > for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New > Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted? > > On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein 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, > > ... > > 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.
