J. Ashley: Unlike... Bill O'Reilly, I don't go out of my way to make myself look like an educated fool. The words I use to explain things are the same ones I use in daily conversation. My verbal vocabulary is very high, but not "showoff" high, like Bill O'Reilly. — J. A. A. — > On May 26, 12:22 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Obfuscation! Look it up! > > On 05/26/2011 08:58 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > J. Ashley: "One-person-one-vote" negates about 90% of what has been > > done by government. We are presently living under a non-viable and > > corrupt government! --- J. A. A. --- > > > On May 25, 12:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> I am not a union member. Nor do I find their extortion tactics to be > >> acceptable. But I must ask, what article and section number of the > >> Constitution makes unions unconstitutional? > > >> On 05/24/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> J. Ashley: Firing bad people from their jobs is preferable to throwing > >>> them in prison, don't you think? One of the reason's the USA is going > >>> busted is because those employed were being given... "benefits" in > >>> excess of the private sector. And those same government employees are > >>> allowed to vote and to have enough control over government that they > >>> can't be fired. For starters, ban all unconstitutional labor unions > >>> of those working for government! If teachers strike for higher pay, > >>> fire the entire batch! No one working for government should be > >>> allowed to vote on the processes of government. Employees are the > >>> laborers, NOT the management! � J. A. Armistead � > >>> On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker" > >>>> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show > >>>> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate. > >>>> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick > >>>> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says > >>>> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof). > >>>> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the > >>>>> receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the > >>>>> same communiqu� differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a > >>>>> "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was > >>>>> hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great > >>>>> lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in > >>>>> a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point? > >>>>> Ha, ha, HA! � J. A. A. � > >>>>> On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> John, > >>>>>> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable > >>>>>> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of > >>>>>> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no > >>>>>> intention of entering the race. > >>>>>> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>> J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. � > >>>>>>> On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> *John, INLINE:* > >>>>>>>> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan: > >>>>>>>>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the > >>>>>>>>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played > >>>>>>>>> out. > >>>>>>>> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump > >>>>>>>> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to > >>>>>>>> believe? > >>>>>>>> The media? Or, Donald Trump?* > >>>>>>>>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below: > >>>>>>>>> "Preface: > >>>>>>>>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. > >>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that > >>>>>>>>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the > >>>>>>>>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that > >>>>>>>>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such > >>>>>>>>> shall > >>>>>>>>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of > >>>>>>>>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both > >>>>>>>>> internal > >>>>>>>>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet > >>>>>>>>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and > >>>>>>>>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from > >>>>>>>>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be > >>>>>>>>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class > >>>>>>>>> nor > >>>>>>>>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and > >>>>>>>>> shall > >>>>>>>>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens > >>>>>>>>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> our posterity." > >>>>>>>> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New > >>>>>>>> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not > >>>>>>>> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not > >>>>>>>> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New > >>>>>>>> Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian > >>>>>>>>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to > >>>>>>>>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. > >>>>>>>>> This > >>>>>>>>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy: > >>>>>>>>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly > >>>>>>>>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a > >>>>>>>>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in > >>>>>>>>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes > >>>>>>>>> allowing > >>>>>>>>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power' > >>>>>>>>> than the members have. > >>>>>>>> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> > >>>>>>>> (4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier > >>>>>>>>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for > >>>>>>>>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years > >>>>>>>>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath > >>>>>>>>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly > >>>>>>>>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all > >>>>>>>>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are > >>>>>>>>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the > >>>>>>>>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating > >>>>>>>>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and > >>>>>>>>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the > >>>>>>>>> highest > >>>>>>>>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste! > >>>>>>>> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, > >>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this > >>>>>>>> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither > >>>>>>>> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have > >>>>>>>> attained > >>>>>>>> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident > >>>>>>>> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution > >>>>>>>> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or > >>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not > >>>>>>>> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be > >>>>>>>> evidence > >>>>>>>> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the > >>>>>>>> eligibility > >>>>>>>> of the POTUS. * > >>>>>>>>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>>>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>>>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no > >>>>>>>>>> doubt > >>>>>>>>>> avoid answering, as usual): > >>>>>>>>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race." > >>>>>>>>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > >>>>>>>>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As > >>>>>>>>>> such, > >>>>>>>>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most > >>>>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a > >>>>>>>>>> local > >>>>>>>>>> PTA "Madam President." > >>>>>>>>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret > >>>>>>>>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The > >>>>>>>>>> mission > >>>>>>>>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's > >>>>>>>>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the > >>>>>>>>>> integrity > >>>>>>>>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of > >>>>>>>>>> state > >>>>>>>>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security > >>>>>>>>>> Events." > >>>>>>>>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our > >>>>>>>>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their > >>>>>>>>>>> souls to > >>>>>>>>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington. > >>>>>>>>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to > >>>>>>>>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long > >>>>>>>>>>> battles in� > >>>>>>>>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a > >>>>>>>>>>> enough > >>>>>>>>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many > >>>>>>>>>>> states > >>>>>>>>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to > >>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> President. > >>>>>>>>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The > >>>>>>>>>>> rock > >>>>>>>>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to > >>>>>>>>>>> raise > >>>>>>>>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. > >>>>>>>>>>> If, > >>>>>>>>>>> as I�ve > > ... > > 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.
