Dear J. Ashley: I corrected that on my proof, but inadvertently pressed the send button before I made the correction, here. I pride myself in using the correct words. Sorry for that slip-up. — J. A. A. —
P. S.: The only "expertise" needed is the be able to think without bias. Bias (against the works of others) is why you exist. On Jun 2, 6:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > 1) When did I become an atheist? > > 2) One does not need to be an expert to know that YOUR New Constitution > is defective. > > 3) You cannot factually prove that your ideas have more worth than mine. > > On 06/02/2011 12:41 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Atheist J. Ashley: Tell me, guy: Why are you an expert at > > saying there is a "better" constitution, when you want a government- > > less economy? If someone with "pure motives" devotes 15 years of his > > life to benefit others, as I have done, don't you think that person's > > ideas have more worth than, say, yours�which hates government so much, > > nothing is "right" enough for you? Move left, some, guy, or be happy > > defending your cave. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > > On Jun 1, 5:25 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Again with the obfuscation! > > >> MJ said nothing about your motives being impure. He said your claims are > >> deficient. > > >> If you took the time to absorb what you read, perhaps you would have > >> come up with a better New Constitution. > > >> On 06/01/2011 01:39 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Tell me, MJ, if there are deficiencies in MY New Constitution, then, > >>> why are you the only one trying to point those out? This Memorial > >>> Week vacation has the readership down. But I'll bet you a Big Mac > >>> that you can't find a named soul who will agree with you that my > >>> motives aren't pure. � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/browse_thread/thread/eb... > >>> On May 27, 11:34 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> IOW, you cannot support your claims which have been demonstrated to be > >>>> deficient. > >>>> Regard$, > >>>> --MJ > >>>> "Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest" > >>>> -- Alexander Dumas, author of "The Count of Monte Cristo."At 08:47 PM > >>>> 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: When a 'child', or someone with less > >>>> sophistication, keeps > >>>> questioning authority by asking, "why?", sometimes the best reply is: > >>>> "Because I say so!" You are definitely someone of low > >>>> sophistication. So... "Because I say so, kid!" � J. A. A. � > >>>> On May 26, 1:35 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> You can spew all the fallacious matter you choose, but it remains that > >>>>> you are (hopelessly) confused. > >>>>> Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, > >>>>> punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence > >>>>> of two thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the > >>>>> House the power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body > >>>>> deems Members with certain affiliations to have certain > >>>>> positions/duties, then such is within its purview. > >>>>> The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. > >>>>> This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the > >>>>> advantage providing laws unconstitutional. > >>>>> Regard$, > >>>>> --MJ > >>>>> Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional > >>>>> enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the > >>>>> Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was > >>>>> the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform > >>>>> basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could > >>>>> provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately > >>>>> heavy tax burden on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power > >>>>> and Liberty_ > >>>>> At 11:19 AM 5/26/2011, you wrote:Dear Pigeon-Dung-for-a-Brain, MJ: The > >>>>> SPIRIT of the Constitution > >>>>> champions FAIRNESS and equality of the power of INDIVIDUALS to control > >>>>> government. The (they were only human) Founding Fathers knew that > >>>>> there were rules needing to be made and laws passed to make this > >>>>> country function. But those naive Founding Fathers had no idea that > >>>>> by giving Congress the 'power' to make its own rules, without any > >>>>> controls over what those rules can be, that Congress would so willing > >>>>> depart from the sacred SPIRIT of the Constitution that is: "Fair play > >>>>> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Having... "rules" > >>>>> that give the power to 'the winning party', and not allocating power > >>>>> to individuals equally, is a SUBVERSION of our sacred Representative > >>>>> (parity) Republic! There is NO ASPECT OF THE MANDATED STRUCTURE OF > >>>>> OUR GOVERNMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE > >>>>> CONTROL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!!! > >>>>> Congress, nor the President have the power to vote to take power away > >>>>> from the People. And Congress, nor the President have the authority > >>>>> to do a God-damned THING that is socialist-communist or unfair!!! My > >>>>> New Constitution stipulates that no "rule" of Congress can concentrate > >>>>> power in the hands of any individual or group beyond one-person-one- > >>>>> vote. Political parties, because they are unfair and use leverage NOT > >>>>> granted by the Constitution are, and always have been > >>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You would be well advised NOT to question anything > >>>>> I have done on behalf of the American People, because there is not a > >>>>> Patriot on Earth with my intellect and my devotion to SAVING this > >>>>> country!!! � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>> On May 25, 9:49 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> 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. You are (hopelessly) confused. > >>>>>> Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, > >>>>>> punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence > >>>>>> of two thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the > >>>>>> House the power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that > >>>>>> body deems Members with certain affiliations to have certain > >>>>>> positions/duties, then such is within its purview. > >>>>>> The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. > >>>>>> This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the > >>>>>> advantage providing laws unconstitutional. > >>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>> Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional > >>>>>> enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the > >>>>>> Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was > >>>>>> the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform > >>>>>> basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could > >>>>>> provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately > >>>>>> heavy tax burden on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between > >>>>>> Power and Liberty_ > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >>>>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > >>>> -- > >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >>>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > >> -- > > >> Freedom is always illegal! > > >> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we > >> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we > >> have any possibility of being free. > > -- > > Freedom is always illegal! > > When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we > declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we > have any possibility of being free. -- 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.
