Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an "outlaw" is absolutely Stalinesque.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan: My rationality for pegging you an outlaw and a traitor > should be evident to anyone who has read my pro-people New > Constitution that I've regularly detailed in Sections. Anyone, like > you, who has a holier-than-thou tone doesn't have the value system to > judge anything. Be content with looking things up in your elementary > school dictionary, Jonathan. That's all the discourse you'll ever > get. — J. A. A. — > > > On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John, > > > > If you truly believe I have "no virtues worthy of... being allowed to > > continue to live on this Earth," why don't you stop by sometime and we > > can discuss this in person. > > > > As for my being "an outlaw to humanity," how do you believe that is > > possible? > > > > *OUTLAW,* n. A person excluded from the benefit of the law, or > > deprived of its protection. > > > > *HUMANITY*, n. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is > > distinguished from other beings. > > > > How did you determine that humanity is law? > > > > On 04/01/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most highly-motivated, > > > for-the-people document ever written. Jonathan, the socialist- > > > communist, is bent on destroying the USA. He has no virtues worthy of > > > his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth. He is an outlaw > > > to humanity, along with Mark and MJ. I'm amazed that Keith can't see > > > what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate! � J. A. > > > Armistead � Patriot > > > On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> John, > > > > >> The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to defend > it, > > >> you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to personal > > >> attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every instance > > >> thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more than a > > >> hypocrite. > > > > >> On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > >>> 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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.* * * * * -- 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.
