Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In the case of > contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the > contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary interaction. That > is how things should be. > > However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have been treated > unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and > let the jury decide." Would not a better (and less expensive) solution > be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm that has no > vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would need, as > you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the God-damned > government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when "treated > unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the > government that has treated us unfairly. > > How can government be the problem and the solution at the same time? > Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not work. How > does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on the > bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the collection > of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm would have > no vested interest either way. > > Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury decide" is > the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of "democracy." > Will the population collectively sit on every jury? > > *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government > by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is > lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the > people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government > of Athens. > > On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jonathan: You are a hopeless case. No one is needed to explain the > > 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." > > And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair. In the case > > of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the > > contract are happy with the deal. If a person thinks they have been > > treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil > > court and let the jury decide. Those with a conscience (but not you) > > know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others. No one needs > > to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say! > > Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum. You don't have the > > reasoning ability of a (blind) mole. � J. A. A. � > > On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" > > >> Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule? > > >> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch." > > >> On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear Jonathan: If you had spent 14 years of your life writing a New > >>> Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize that > >>> "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive. Apparently, I pegged > >>> you right that you are simply jealous that I have already accomplished > >>> things you've only talked about. Conservatives such as Glenn Beck and > >>> Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but can't be > >>> taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be solved. > >>> Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of the > >>> unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing. But he always grins > >>> and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack Obama > >>> for TREASON. My New Constitution will hang any public official not > >>> upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and democracy shall > >>> have supremacy in the USA!" Since socialism and communism are the > >>> anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend that no > >>> socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office. If they > >>> do, there could become a shortage of hangman's nooses! � John A. > >>> Armistead � Patriot > >>> On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the > >>>> positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to > >>>> accomplish what I have." > >>>> On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> Dear Mark: Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from > >>>>> one day to the next? If indeed you can read and comprehend, you > >>>>> wouldn't need to put those words in capitals. Unlike you and MJ, I > >>>>> don't depend on YELLING to make my points. If you find what I'm > >>>>> writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are > >>>>> either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and > >>>>> thus opposed. The "tone" of my document is pro control of government > >>>>> by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use > >>>>> of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the > >>>>> rights of others. I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because > >>>>> you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I > >>>>> have. If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution. > >>>>> If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts. No > >>>>> socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA! � John A. Armistead � > >>>>> Patriot > >>>>> On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND. > >>>>>> The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the > >>>>>> next > >>>>>> what he says. > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while > >>>>>>> pretending > >>>>>>> it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>> the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy. My New > >>>>>>> Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, > >>>>>>> jail or > >>>>>>> hang those in government who support socialism and communism. When > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>> attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are > >>>>>>> attacking > >>>>>>> THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet! > >>>>>>> Get > >>>>>>> lost, Jonathan! � J. A. A. � > >>>>>>> And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: > >>>>>>> I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to > >>>>>>> "cover" only > >>>>>>> those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> getting first rate care. > >>>>>>> The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails > >>>>>>> to see > >>>>>>> his EMBRACE of socialism. > >>>>>>> There is ALSO this from the same person: > >>>>>>> Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the > >>>>>>> type > >>>>>>> and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of > >>>>>>> substantive > >>>>>>> new developments, may control their own work without governmental > >>>>>>> sanction, > >>>>>>> nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to > >>>>>>> maintain > >>>>>>> continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. > >>>>>>> Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who > >>>>>>> perform safe > >>>>>>> and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be > >>>>>>> sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing > >>>>>>> jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost. No more than 25% of > >>>>>>> regulatory > >>>>>>> board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry > >>>>>>> regulated. > >>>>>>> Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism. > >>>>>>> It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER > >>>>>>> fully > >>>>>>> presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he > >>>>>>> presents.<sigh> > >>>>>>> Sad. > >>>>>>> As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE > >>>>>>> examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>> refuse to present and merey proclaim. > >>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>>> Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual > >>>>>>> legacy. It > >>>>>>> has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught > >>>>>>> many-inside > >>>>>>> and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or > >>>>>>> contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the > >>>>>>> intellectual > >>>>>>> process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring > >>>>>>> strength as > >>>>>>> a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political > >>>>>>> power > >>>>>>> in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell > >>>>>>> At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote: > >>>>>>> MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about > >>>>>>> the people-oriented content of my New Constitution! Please reference > >>>>>>> a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private > >>>>>>> property is used. You can't do that, I'm sure! Ha, ha, HA! � > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA! You > >>>>>>>> aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily. You are > >>>>>>>> probably > >>>>>>>> doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas > >>>>>>>> and I the converse. > >>>>>>>> It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to > >>>>>>>> see > >>>>>>> how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a > >>>>>>> foundation. > >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their > >>>>>>>> private > >>>>>>> property without outside interference. > >>>>>>>> Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention. > >>>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>>> --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy > >>>>>>> when they are writing and because the > > ... > > 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.
