Jonathan: For your information, no socialist-communist will ever get a chance to serve in, or be employed by government. The "input" that you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like you. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling rather than > engage in meaningful dialog. > > On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > 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, > > ... > > 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.
