J. Ashley: As you should well know, I willingly explain my New Constitution. But I am its author, and I alone determine its content. There shall never be a "debate phase" that allows an anarchist like you to have any say-so on anything! — J. A. A. — > On May 26, 12:20 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > How do you believe you will ever get anyone to support YOUR New > Constitution when you will not engage in HONEST debate? > > The fact that you choose to ignore almost every question posed to you, I > can only conclude you are a government shill. > > On 05/26/2011 08:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear J. Ashley: There are a zillion positive concepts that are beyond > > the grasp of an anarchist like you! If you had transcribed the > > Constitutional word by word the way I did, you would realize that the > > SPIRIT of that document is intent upon LIMITING the power of > > Government! The Founding Fathers expected the SPIRIT of the document > > to dictate what can be done more than an itemized section and sentence > > for every conceivable issue. You are really shallow, Jonathan. I > > admire Keith of Tampa for stopping reading your bluster. � J. A. > > Armistead � Patriot > > On May 25, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> You are once again guilty of obfuscation. Who among the members of this > >> group could not have guessed that would happen? It seems to be an > >> obsession with you. > > >> Simple questions require no more than simple answers. > > >> Earlier I asked you two simple questions: > > >> 1) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > > >> A simple reply with article and section number was all that was > >> necessary. That concept seems to be beyond your grasp. > > >> 2) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret > >> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? > > >> If you believe a "yes" answer applies, then why do you not provide > >> factual information to back up your claim? Instead, you choose to rant > >> about something entirely unrelated. > > >> So, rather than dodging my questions by asking me to "explain why > >> 'outsiders' other than our seated public officials get to dictate a > >> single thing that goes on in this country," why don't you answer the two > >> simple questions I posed? > > >> I'll even help you with the first question by providing a link to an > >> online copy of the Constitution. > > >>http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html > > >> Give it your best shot! > > >> On 05/24/2011 05:06 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear J. Ashley: I had answered where in my New Constitution, because > >>> I assumed that was your question. The most important part of the > >>> present Constitution is where it tells how our representatives are > >>> selected, and how each of those has a parity of the US population > >>> served. Governments of that type are representative (parity) > >>> REPUBLICS, and (supposedly) require the representatives to be doing > >>> the will of their electorates. That places the POWER in the hands of > >>> the people, not at the whim of those representatives (who aren't > >>> royalty). > >>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of > >>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has > >>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that > >>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy > >>> is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population > >>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and > >>> always has been, unconstitutional. > >>> Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power > >>> structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning > >>> party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue > >>> voted upon. The straw breaking the camel's back is giving the Speaker > >>> of the House; the chairmen of committees, and those having seniority > >>> more power than every other member of Congress has. Political parties > >>> aren't required to follow the FAIR principles of equal power of > >>> representation. That's like having visitors from foreign governments > >>> come in and saying what can be done and when. > >>> The Constitution doesn't sanction having pseudo-governmental bodies be > >>> the clearing houses for determining who our public officials can be. > >>> By the time most public officials move beyond county commissioner, > >>> they must have already SOLD their souls to the left or right planks of > >>> the parties. When individuality is destroyed, fair representation is > >>> destroyed! Requiring term limits or a balanced budget amendment can > >>> never pass because the opposing political party has close to a 50% > >>> control on the votes. Without the political party labels, voters > >>> could make decisions based on REASON, not based mainly on "tradition" > >>> and what the party line says to do. > >>> Rather than asking me why political parties are unconstitutional, why > >>> don't you explain why "outsiders" other than our seated public > >>> officials get to dictate a single thing that goes on in this country. > >>> Give it your best shot! � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> On May 24, 1:52 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You avoid any and all > >>>> questions posed to you. > >>>> Earlier in this thread, based on an assertion you made, I asked you > >>>> directly: Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > >>>> You have yet to answer (because you can't). Yet you have once again made > >>>> that assertion. > >>>> Also based on an assertion you made, I asked you: Does any part of the > >>>> Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the > >>>> qualifications of the President? You have yet to answer. > >>>> Instead you change subjects by opening your post with, "The 'myth' is > >>>> that with the right President the country will be OK." That is, of > >>>> course, completely off topic. Who ever made the claim that "with the > >>>> right President the country will be OK"? > >>>> On 05/23/2011 08:43 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> Dear J. Ashley: The "myth" is that with the right President the > >>>>> country will be OK. Well, the USA isn't OK after a lot of > >>>>> presidents! The only requirement for a candidate with our corrupt and > >>>>> failing government should be the repudiation of political parties. > >>>>> Those were never constitutional, but are effectively running things. > >>>>> Kick all political rituals in the ass! The easiest way to do that > >>>>> would be for the candidates to start eschewing campaigning (live) in > >>>>> any of the states. TV debates are an excellent enough way to select > >>>>> our candidates. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>> 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 > > ... > > 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.
