No, the tree definitely makes noise. Get real. On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:31 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote:
> Mark: So, you suppose that... "If a tree falls in the forest and > there is no one to hear it, there is no sound." Get lost, jerk! — J. > A. A. — > > > On Mar 25, 2:55 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > ... > > > > 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.
