Jonathan: You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate your non- existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual and creative superiors. As required by the original Constitution, I only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the attacks of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark. My time would be better spent writing more essays. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR New > Constitution being criticized. > > On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
