Correction: Make that "polls" not poles; and That means... not The means... J. A. A. > On Apr 9, 12:07 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan: Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a > "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities > vote. The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles > than the man-on-the-street. Of course, that shift of power runs > counter to principles of fair play and democracy. The 1st Amendment > says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other > medium". Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is > allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I > correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google > didn't FIRE Mark, post haste! — J. A. A. — > > On Apr 5, 2:44 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for > > any medium to express their personal political biases. > > > Does that mean my sister will no longer be allowed to work for Kenny > > Kingston? > > > On 04/05/2011 11:28 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > Folks: Pushing for socialism or communism in a Republic or Democracy > > > is the same as trying to overthrow the government. There is no higher > > > crime than that! I've never said that "anyone" who speaks freely is > > > an outlaw. Only those like Mark, alias "The Annointed (sic) One" who > > > attack me�the most patriotic and pro civil liberties person in the > > > USA� > > > is clearly an outlaw. Free speech IS allowed for all of those not > > > employed by government and not being paid by any medium. Working as a > > > 'moderator' for Google gives the likes of Mark an advantage of > > > exposure. My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for > > > any medium to express their personal political biases. There can be > > > no exceptions if the USA is to return the control of government to the > > > People, and away from the elitist media and elitist politicians which > > > the media made to be elitist in the first place. � John A. Armistead > > > � Patriot > > > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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: > > ... > > 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.
