MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 26, 1:45 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity. > Post this Constitution of yours so we can all revel in its splendor -- of > course doing so would further expose your failures. > Regard$, > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. > It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring > strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using > political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:06 PM 3/25/2011, you > wrote:Dear MJ, the socialist-communist, party-crashing jerk: You have an IQ > problem, evident in your continued YELLING of the words of others, > while having nothing worthy to say, yourself. From day one, you have > been rude to attack even the fringes of anything I say or do. Those > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written! If, like > you say, you are... "interested" (very weak compared to MOTIVATED) > toward returning America to liberty and freedom, you would be praising > everything I am doing for the benefit of hard-working Americans. Your > TONE is clearly one of opposition to me. That fact is proof positive > that you are a fraud who is undeserving of being called an American! > — J. A. A. — > > > On Mar 24, 12:17 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > And yet you continue to reply -- spewing fallacy -- while pretending NOT to > > reply. > > In reality, I am interested in returning America to liberty and freedom. > > What is obvious, however, are your Orwellian efforts. > > Regard$, > > --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 12:07 PM > > 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not > > saving the USA. So, > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply. — > > J. A. A. — > > > > > On Mar 22, 6:43 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response. > > > You will be hard-pressed to PROVE your silly assertion that I am somehow > > > a "deranged, socialist-communist" ... but I suggest you do so. > > > There is a pattern here ... you provide absurd claims/assertions ... > > > others 'call' you on it -- usually requesting substantiation ... you > > > pitch a fit and spew fallacy while calling names. > > > 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 06:38 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ, the deranged, > > > socialist-communist, party crasher is undeserving of > > > being replied to. — J. A. A. — > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:57 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >Folks: Apparently, MJ is incapable of reasoning. He supposes that > > > > >since my "ideal" (not mandated in my New Constitution) government > > > > >would have ZERO outlays to individual citizens, i.e., no SS, Medicare, > > > > >Medicaid, nor Unemployment, that that shows me to be a socialist. Can > > > > >you believe it?! > > > > > > > > <sigh> > > > > How a Government programs the STEALS from person > > > > A in order to give to person B will be > > > > 'privatized' not being provided notwithstanding, > > > > the portion that continues to embrace socialism, > > > > of course, was "while continuing to "cover" only > > > > those older or sicker people who have no other > > > > means of surviving or of getting first rate > > > > care". Like the woman who finally agrees on her > > > > price being a 'prostitute', so too is yours an embrace of socialism. > > > > > > > > Sad isn't it, that Armistead is reduced to > > > > projecting his shortcomings onto others. > > > > > > > > It is also noted that you AVOIDED the second > > > > example (like the misdirection you attempt on the > > > > first) of your socialist tendencies. > > > > > > > > >Socialism and communism (the ideal of Barack Obama) > > > > >have government providing everything and controlling everything. > > > > > > > > Government 'providing' everything is not required > > > > for socialism's myriad of children. > > > > > > > > > I want government to provide next to nothing and to control next to > > > > >nothing. > > > > > > > > Except what excerpts of your Constitution you > > > > have provided does not bolster such a claim. > > > > > > > > > A properly functioning free enterprise system can do those > > > > >thing, AND allow the maximum FAIR prosperity for the maximum number of > > > > >Americans! > > > > > > > > And yet your own brand of utopian socialism raises its head again. > > > > > > > > >MJ is revealing himself to be a socialist-communist bent on retarding > > > > >my efforts to promote my New Constitution. He and Jonathan Ashley > > > > >aren't wanting to save the USA, but to have the USA fail. A person > > > > >can be either FOR me or AGAINST me. 100% of those who are against me > > > > >are criminal, socialist-communists like OUTLAW Barack Obama. — John > > > > > > > > Your fantasies and fallacies may aid you in > > > > retaining that pleasing vision, but they do little to those who grasp > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > I certainly understand your need to pretend your > > > > embraces of socialism are really not. I can also > > > > understand your desire for baseless > > > > 'name-calling'. I am quite certain that OTHERS do as well. > > > > > > > > Regard$, > > > > --MJ > > > > > > > > Nothing in the world is more dangerous than > > > > sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, > > > > Jr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >A. Armistead — Patriot > > > > > > > > >On Mar 21, 10:26 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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... > > 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.
