Ho, hum... Won't someone put their finger in the dam? The liberal lake is leaking, rapidly. And with that leak, the pressure is falling! — J. A. A. — > On Mar 28, 1:04 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Einstein.... One there is no bridge here that is high enough and > B. there are no icy waters any time of the year.... Geographically > challenged as well I see........and 3. you can't tie a concrete block > to a ball of slime...just won't work. > > You metaphors/similes (or whatever they are) are just as poorly > thought out as your "New Constitution". > > With all that you include in your Constitution that is prohibitive and > answerable to the state.... it is indeed > > "STALINESQUE" > > On Mar 28, 8:41 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark: Glenn Beck says he employs eight people to produce his TV > > show. But the liberal media which attacks him employs 40 or so. You > > are a socialist-communist of the worst order (worthy of being HANGED > > for treason) for trying to peg my for-the-people New Constitution > > Stalinesque! You are attacking me for doing things diametrically > > opposed to your God-damned liberal ideals. Do the world a favor, > > slime-ball, tie a concrete block to your feet and jump off the nearest > > bridge into icy waters. People will rejoice at your passing—the only > > acclaim you'll ever get in your miserable life! — John A. Armistead > > — Patriot > > > On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not to defend MJ or anything of the sort but to say this: > > > > Those > > > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the > > > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written! > > > > Is so Stalinesque that it is hilarious. You write that and call someone > > > else > > > an idiot ?? > > > > If by disagreeing with you (or anything else for that matter) is cause in > > > your little mind to say that someone is un-American then you really need a > > > little (or a lot) of "rest" (accompanied by some gentle but consuming > > > drugs). > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, NoEinstein > > > <[email protected]>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 > > ... > > 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.
