Fwd: Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir

    Chris nailed it today

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir
Date:	Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:57:44 +0000
From:	Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir <gabeposey@gmail.com>
To:	rhomp2002@earthlink.net

Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir

---

03/27/2011 Posted: 26 Mar 2011 06:38 PM PDT American Dream.

03/26/2011 Posted: 25 Mar 2011 09:36 PM PDT Rats.

You are subscribed to email updates from Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>      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<micha...@america.net>      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 planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of getting first rate care.     The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism. There is ALSO this from the same person: Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry regulated. Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism. It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh> Sad. As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you refuse to present and merey proclaim. Regard$, --MJ Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote: MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about the people-oriented content of my New Constitution!  Please reference a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private property is used.  You can't do that, I'm sure!  Ha, ha, HA!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote: 

Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas and I the converse. It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see 

how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation. 

Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private 

property without outside interference. 

Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention. Regard$, --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy 

when they are writing and because the 

 ..  read more » 

--
Do something today that questions the legitimacy of government. "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless or corrupt." - Mahatma Gandhi

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept the bull crap you have written.

It is highly unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses necessary for its passage surely don't.

In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our dumbed-down society.

On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution.  I don't have time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the other.  I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you. "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical."  — J. A. A. — 

On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?  On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        

Dear Jonathan:  If I had wanted to have the opinions of others influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the House and the Senate.  I realized, early on, that the status quo governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the founding fathers.  Not a single person would have risked their lives to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their own weight in society. 

It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.  From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the US economy.  My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to assess the events of the day.  Once John Q. Public starts watching news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of hardworking Americans!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, 

I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought, considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to create a one-man nation. 

On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts', you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas.  I don't have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back into my thread.  Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about my New Constitution.  I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives." Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long as I respect the equal rights of others? Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any government was created? Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that existed naturally before any government was created? Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud? Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.? I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions � preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any different? On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Jonathan:  You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my New Constitution!  The proper function of government is to pass only the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of which has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the people.  There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull any of the strings. Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government interaction with the people.  And that is NOT anarchy.  My New Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives.  I recommend to others (than Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."  from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble.  There is a chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the freedoms of others.  If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving out of the USA.  No "group" nor individuals will have the power to limit your personal liberties�trust me on that!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854. Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market system, all economic decisions are made _without government intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept. Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by necessity prevent government intervention into business. I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that a government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have complete liberty without such need.        *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]        1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the        body, or to the will or mind.*        CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and        government of the citizens and subjects of a state_; On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a socialist-communist�or else you can't read and comprehend.  Attack me in any way, and you attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil liberties for the vast majority of Americans.  Until you can recognize those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a sharply pointed wooden stake.  ï¿½ NE � On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>        wrote: 

Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope of a REAL Constitution ie. *The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.* * * ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution" posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.* On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote: 

MJ:  All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't increasing your status in the groups one bit.  And haven't you heard? It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size).  You are a pest on my post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me.  In the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you haven't gotten many readers, have you.  Please make a "quote" of your own worthy of being in Bartlett's.  If you can't do that, then you should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>        wrote: 

And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response. SADLY, you offer no support to your claims. Regard$, --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual 

legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being replied to.  ï¿½ J. A. 

A. � On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>        wrote: 

It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this 

Group (PoliticalFo...@GoogleGroups.com). 

I never claimed to be a moderator. I did not request a 'discussion'. I did, however, 

 ..  read more » 

--
Do something today that questions the legitimacy of government. "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless or corrupt." - Mahatma Gandhi

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 26, 1:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> If I had wanted to have the opinions of others influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the House and the Senate. 
> You are confused.
> MOST of the comments toward your efforts seek either clarification OR to denote how your approach fails to deliver as promised. Few to zero comments have been to suggest a 'red' color be used rather than a 'blue'.It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions. From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the media—which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the US economy. 
> Lincoln begins what is now readily viewed as Big Government. It is only since television that 'weather people' tend to dominate the political spectrum. It is the Nanny State and subsequent pull-peddling that has fueled the machines.My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to assess the events of the day.
> So you continue to repeat, but like other claims ... once viewed, your Constitution does not deliver.
> Regard$,
> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

On Mar 26, 1:46 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity.
> Regard$,
> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:09 PM 3/25/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party-crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On Mar 24, 12:17 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > And yet you continue to reply -- spewing fallacy -- while pretending NOT to reply.
> > In reality, I am interested in returning America to liberty and freedom. What is obvious, however, are your Orwellian efforts.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:07 PM 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not saving the USA.  So,
> > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply.  —
> > J. A. A. —
> > >
> > On Mar 22, 6:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response.
> > > You will be hard-pressed to PROVE your silly assertion that I am somehow a "deranged, socialist-communist" ... but I suggest you do so.
> > > There is a pattern here ... you provide absurd claims/assertions ... others 'call' you on it -- usually requesting substantiation ... you pitch a fit and spew fallacy while calling names.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:38 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ, the deranged, socialist-communist, party crasher is undeserving of
> > > being replied to.  —  J. A. A. —
> > > >
> > > On Mar 22, 12:57 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > >Folks:  Apparently, MJ is incapable of reasoning.  He supposes that
> > > > >since my "ideal" (not mandated in my New Constitution) government
> > > > >would have ZERO outlays to individual citizens, i.e., no SS, Medicare,
> > > > >Medicaid, nor Unemployment, that that shows me to be a socialist.  Can
> > > > >you believe it?!
> > > >
> > > > <sigh>
> > > > How a Government programs the STEALS from person
> > > > A in order to give to person B will be
> > > > 'privatized' not being provided notwithstanding,
> > > > the portion that continues to embrace socialism,
> > > > of course, was "while continuing to "cover" only
> > > > those older or sicker people who have no other
> > > > means of surviving or of getting first rate
> > > > care". Like the woman who finally agrees on her
> > > > price being a 'prostitute', so too is yours an embrace of socialism.
> > > >
> > > > Sad isn't it, that Armistead is reduced to
> > > > projecting his shortcomings onto others.
> > > >
> > > > It is also noted that you AVOIDED the second
> > > > example (like the misdirection you attempt on the
> > > > first) of your socialist tendencies.
> > > >
> > > > >Socialism and communism (the ideal of Barack Obama)
> > > > >have government providing everything and controlling everything.
> > > >
> > > > Government 'providing' everything is not required
> > > > for socialism's myriad of children.
> > > >
> > > > >  I want government to provide next to nothing and to control next to
> > > > >nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Except what excerpts of your Constitution you
> > > > have provided does not bolster such a claim.
> > > >
> > > > >  A properly functioning free enterprise system can do those
> > > > >thing, AND allow the maximum FAIR prosperity for the maximum number of
> > > > >Americans!
> > > >
> > > > And yet your own brand of utopian socialism raises its head again.
> > > >
> > > > >MJ is revealing himself to be a socialist-communist bent on retarding
> > > > >my efforts to promote my New Constitution.  He and Jonathan Ashley
> > > > >aren't wanting to save the USA, but to have the USA fail.  A person
> > > > >can be either FOR me or AGAINST me.  100% of those who are against me
> > > > >are criminal, socialist-communists like OUTLAW Barack Obama.  — John
> > > >
> > > > Your fantasies and fallacies may aid you in
> > > > retaining that pleasing vision, but they do little to those who grasp reality.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly understand your need to pretend your
> > > > embraces of socialism are really not. I can also
> > > > understand your desire for baseless
> > > > 'name-calling'. I am quite certain that OTHERS do as well.
> > > >
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > >
> > > > Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
> > > > sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   -- Martin Luther King, Jr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >A. Armistead —  Patriot
> > > >
> > > > >On Mar 21, 10:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > 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 planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  J.
> > > > > A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same
> > > > > person:I am personally recommending that Social
> > > > > Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> > > > > Insurance ALL be privatized—while continuing to
> > > > > "cover" only those older or sicker people who
> > > > > have no other means of surviving or of getting
> > > > > first rate care. The implications are rather
> > > > > OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism.
> > > > > > There is ALSO this from the same
> > > > > person:Businesses or professions meeting
> > > > > licensing standards germane to the type and
> > > > > scope of work such perform, and being regularly
> > > > > apprised of substantive new developments, may
> > > > > control their own work without governmental
> > > > > sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to
> > > > > be other than self-trained to maintain
> > > > > continuing competency for doing safe work
> > > > > within their chosen type. Professionals
> > > > > qualified by training, testing and experience
> > > > > who perform safe and acceptable work within an
> > > > > area of their competency shall not be
> > > > > sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job
> > > > > class or licensing jurisdiction—beyond fair
> > > > > registration cost.  No more than 25% of
> > > > > regulatory board members shall have been
> > > > > employed in the profession or industry
> > > > > regulated.Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> > > > > > It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this
> > > > > 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR
> > > > > that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.
> > > >...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 26, 1:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity.
> Post this Constitution of yours so we can all revel in its splendor -- of course doing so would further expose your failures.
> Regard$,
> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:11 PM 3/25/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On Mar 24, 1:06 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Round and round we go ... Armistead makes claims ... others request he support those claims ... he replies spewing fallacy while pretending his is not replying.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:10 PM 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> > saving the USA.  So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> > undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
> > >
> > On Mar 23, 11:44 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response complete with the standard fallacies and name-calling.
> > > As noted previously, I am a member (in good standing?) of this group. If I am crashing your socialist-communist party it is ONLY because you chose to conduct such in THIS forum.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 11:27 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:Folks:  MJ—the lying, deranged, yelling, socialist-communist, party
> > > crasher—is undeserving of being replied to.  — J. A. A. —
> --
> 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 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 26, 1:49 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> My New Constitution is probably 50 times more explicit about the
> proper scope of government.  It most definitely limits what government
> is empowered to do!  I invite you to elucidate why you suppose my even
> more limited government than the Founding Fathers spelled out is in
> any wise a bad idea. 
> Probably, but unlikely if the 'snippets' are an indicator.
> The proper scope of government is to secure (natural) rights <period>. How much more 'explicit' is necessary?
> Regard$,
> --MJIt is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all. -- Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795.

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 26, 1:45 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity.
> Post this Constitution of yours so we can all revel in its splendor -- of course doing so would further expose your failures.
> Regard$,

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark, one of those socialist-communists who's scared to death of my
pro-democracy New Constitution, is undeserving of a reply. — John A.
Armistead — AKA NoEinstein
>
On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to defend MJ or anything of the sort but to say this:
>
> Those
> WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> strongest and most people-oriented document ever written!
>
> Is so Stalinesque that it is hilarious. You write that and call someone else
> an idiot ??
>
> If by disagreeing with you (or anything else for that matter) is cause in
> your little mind to say that someone is un-American then you really need a
> little (or a lot) of "rest" (accompanied by some gentle but consuming
> drugs).
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear MJ, the socialist-communist, party-crashing jerk:  You have an IQ
> > problem, evident in your continued YELLING of the words of others,
> > while having nothing worthy to say, yourself.  From day one, you have
> > been rude to attack even the fringes of anything I say or do.  Those
> > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written!  If, like
> > you say, you are... "interested" (very weak compared to MOTIVATED)
> > toward returning America to liberty and freedom, you would be praising
> > everything I am doing for the benefit of hard-working Americans.  Your
> > TONE is clearly one of opposition to me.  That fact is proof positive
> > that you are a fraud who is undeserving of being called an American!
> > — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:17 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > And yet you continue to reply -- spewing fallacy -- while pretending NOT
> > to reply.
> > > In reality, I am interested in returning America to liberty and freedom.
> > What is obvious, however, are your Orwellian efforts.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:07 PM
> > 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not
> > saving the USA.  So,
> > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply.  —
> > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > On Mar 22, 6:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response.
> > > > You will be hard-pressed to PROVE your silly assertion that I am
> > somehow a "deranged, socialist-communist" ... but I suggest you do so.
> > > > There is a pattern here ... you provide absurd claims/assertions ...
> > others 'call' you on it -- usually requesting substantiation ... you pitch a
> > fit and spew fallacy while calling names.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:38 PM
> > 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ, the deranged, socialist-communist, party crasher is
> > undeserving of
> > > > being replied to.  —  J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 12:57 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Folks:  Apparently, MJ is incapable of reasoning.  He supposes that
> > > > > >since my "ideal" (not mandated in my New Constitution) government
> > > > > >would have ZERO outlays to individual citizens, i.e., no SS,
> > Medicare,
> > > > > >Medicaid, nor Unemployment, that that shows me to be a socialist.
> > Can
> > > > > >you believe it?!
>
> > > > > <sigh>
> > > > > How a Government programs the STEALS from person
> > > > > A in order to give to person B will be
> > > > > 'privatized' not being provided notwithstanding,
> > > > > the portion that continues to embrace socialism,
> > > > > of course, was "while continuing to "cover" only
> > > > > those older or sicker people who have no other
> > > > > means of surviving or of getting first rate
> > > > > care". Like the woman who finally agrees on her
> > > > > price being a 'prostitute', so too is yours an embrace of socialism.
>
> > > > > Sad isn't it, that Armistead is reduced to
> > > > > projecting his shortcomings onto others.
>
> > > > > It is also noted that you AVOIDED the second
> > > > > example (like the misdirection you attempt on the
> > > > > first) of your socialist tendencies.
>
> > > > > >Socialism and communism (the ideal of Barack Obama)
> > > > > >have government providing everything and controlling everything.
>
> > > > > Government 'providing' everything is not required
> > > > > for socialism's myriad of children.
>
> > > > > >  I want government to provide next to nothing and to control next
> > to
> > > > > >nothing.
>
> > > > > Except what excerpts of your Constitution you
> > > > > have provided does not bolster such a claim.
>
> > > > > >  A properly functioning free enterprise system can do those
> > > > > >thing, AND allow the maximum FAIR prosperity for the maximum number
> > of
> > > > > >Americans!
>
> > > > > And yet your own brand of utopian socialism raises its head again.
>
> > > > > >MJ is revealing himself to be a socialist-communist bent on
> > retarding
> > > > > >my efforts to promote my New Constitution.  He and Jonathan Ashley
> > > > > >aren't wanting to save the USA, but to have the USA fail.  A person
> > > > > >can be either FOR me or AGAINST me.  100% of those who are against
> > me
> > > > > >are criminal, socialist-communists like OUTLAW Barack Obama.  — John
>
> > > > > Your fantasies and fallacies may aid you in
> > > > > retaining that pleasing vision, but they do little to those who grasp
> > reality.
>
> > > > > I certainly understand your need to pretend your
> > > > > embraces of socialism are really not. I can also
> > > > > understand your desire for baseless
> > > > > 'name-calling'. I am quite certain that OTHERS do as well.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
> > > > > sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   -- Martin Luther
> > King, Jr
>
> > > > > >A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > > > >On Mar 21, 10:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > 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 planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  J.
> > > > > > A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same
> > > > > > person:I am personally recommending that Social
> > > > > > Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> > > > > > Insurance ALL be privatized—while continuing to
> > > > > > "cover" only those older or sicker people who
> > > > > > have no other means of surviving or of getting
> > > > > > first rate care. The implications are rather
> > > > > > OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of
> > socialism.
> > > > > > > There is ALSO this from the same
> > > > > > person:Businesses or professions meeting
> > > > > > licensing standards germane to the type and
> > > > > > scope of work such perform, and being regularly
> > > > > > apprised of substantive new developments, may
> > > > > > control their own work without governmental
> > > > > > sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to
> > > > > > be other than self-trained to maintain
> > > > > > continuing competency for doing safe work
> > > > > > within their chosen type. Professionals
> > > > > > qualified by training, testing and experience
> > > > > > who perform safe and acceptable work within an
> > > > > > area of their competency shall not be
> > > > > > sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job
> > > > > > class or licensing jurisdiction—beyond fair
> > > > > > registration cost.  No more than 25% of
> > > > > > regulatory board members shall have been
> > > > > > employed in the profession or industry
> > > > > > regulated.Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> > > > > > > It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this
> > > > > > 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR
> > > > > > that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.
> > > > > > > <sigh> Sad.
> > > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > > --MJThere is simply no other choice than
> > > > > > this: either abstain from interference in the
> > > > > > free play of the market, or to delegate the
> > > > > > entire management of production and
> > > > > > distribution to the government. Either
> > > > > > capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von
> > Mises
>
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >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.
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help see <a...
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark, one of those socialist-communists who's scared to death of my
pro-democracy New Constitution, is undeserving of a reply. — John A.
Armistead — AKA NoEinstein
>
On Mar 25, 2:55 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are a leader and have no followers or adherents .... you are not a
> leader
>
> if you are a writer and have no readers....  you are not a writer
>
> Do you get the point there Einstein ??
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Jonathan:  If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
> > influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
> > insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
> > House and the Senate.  I realized, early on, that the status quo
> > governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
> > away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
> > founding fathers.  Not a single person would have risked their lives
> > to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
> > make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
> > society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
> > own weight in society.
>
> > It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
> > photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
> > From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
> > norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
> > media—which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
> > US economy.  My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
> > US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
> > assess the events of the day.  Once John Q. Public starts watching
> > news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
> > on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
> > hardworking Americans!  —  John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
>
> > > I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> > > appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> > > considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> > > opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> > > Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> > > create a one-man nation.
>
> > > On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Jonathan:  Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> > > > you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas.  I don't
> > > > have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> > > > that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> > > > into my thread.  Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about
> > > > my New Constitution.  I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions
> > > > in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated.  ï¿½
> > > > J. A. A. �
> > > > On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> John,
>
> > > >> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits
> > of
> > > >> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."
>
> > > >> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long
> > > >> as I respect the equal rights of others?
>
> > > >> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and
> > > >> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any
> > government
> > > >> was created?
>
> > > >> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that
> > > >> existed naturally before any government was created?
>
> > > >> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve
> > the
> > > >> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery,
> > > >> kidnapping, and fraud?
>
> > > >> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special
> > > >> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?
>
> > > >> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions
> > �
> > > >> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be
> > any
> > > >> different?
>
> > > >> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> Dear Jonathan:  You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of
> > my
> > > >>> New Constitution!  The proper function of government is to pass only
> > > >>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of
> > which
> > > >>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to
> > the
> > > >>> people.  There are no "czars" or government officials required to
> > pull
> > > >>> any of the strings.
> > > >>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
> > > >>> interaction with the people.  And that is NOT anarchy.  My New
> > > >>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
> > > >>> governmental influences of our lives.  I recommend to others (than
> > > >>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony
> > > >>> Through Prosperity."  from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble.  There is a
> > > >>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal
> > freedoms
> > > >>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the
> > > >>> freedoms of others.  If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell
> > > >>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately
> > moving
> > > >>> out of the USA.  No "group" nor individuals will have the power to
> > > >>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that!  ï¿½  John A.
> > Armistead
> > > >>> � Patriot
> > > >>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> John,
> > > >>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent
> > when
> > > >>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.
> > > >>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market
> > > >>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government
> > > >>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that
> > concept.
> > > >>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should
> > by
> > > >>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business.
> > > >>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil
> > > >>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that
> > a
> > > >>>> government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have
> > complete
> > > >>>> liberty without such need.
> > > >>>>       *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
> > > >>>>       1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable
> > to the
> > > >>>>       body, or to the will or mind.*
> > > >>>>       CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and
> > > >>>>       government of the citizens and subjects of a state_;
> > > >>>> On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>> Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a
> > socialist-communist�or
> > > >>>>> else you can't read and comprehend.  Attack me in any way, and you
> > > >>>>> attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil
> > > >>>>> liberties for the vast majority of Americans.  Until you can
> > recognize
> > > >>>>> those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a
> > > >>>>> sharply pointed wooden stake.  ï¿½ NE �
> > > >>>>> On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond
> > the scope
> > > >>>>>> of a REAL Constitution ie.
> > > >>>>>> *The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the
> > character
> > > >>>>>> of a government by defining the basic principles to which a
> > society must
> > > >>>>>> conform; by describing the organization of the government and
> > regulation,
> > > >>>>>> distribution, and limitations on the functions of different
> > government
> > > >>>>>> departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the
> > exercise of its
> > > >>>>>> sovereign powers.*
> > > >>>>>> *
> > > >>>>>> *
> > > >>>>>> ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your
> > time and most
> > > >>>>>> importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your
> > "constitution"
> > > >>>>>> posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this
> > forum. What you
> > > >>>>>> have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.*
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<
> > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> MJ:  All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste
> > aren't
> > > >>>>>>> increasing your status in the groups one bit.  And haven't you
> > heard?
> > > >>>>>>> It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size).  You are a pest
> > on my
> > > >>>>>>> post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for
> > me.  In
> > > >>>>>>> the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution,
> > you
> > > >>>>>>> haven't gotten many readers, have you.  Please make a "quote" of
> > your
> > > >>>>>>> own worthy of being in Bartlett's.  If you can't do that, then
> > you
> > > >>>>>>> should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby.  ï¿½
> > J. A. A.
> > > >>>>>>> �
> > > >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response.
> > > >>>>>>>> SADLY, you offer no support to your claims.
> > > >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> > > >>>>>>>> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an
> > anti-intellectual
> > > >>>>>>> legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism
> > has taught
> > > >>>>>>> many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at
> > inconvenient
> > > >>>>>>> facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer
> > at the
> > > >>>>>>> intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of
> > its
> > > >>>>>>> enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of
> > acquiring and
> > > >>>>>>> using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06
> > AM
> > > >>>>>>> 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of
> > being
> > > >>>>>>> replied to.
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.
— J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > 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!  ï¿½ John A.
> >>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> 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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>>>> Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>      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<micha...@america.net>      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 planet!  Get
> >>>>>>> lost, Jonathan!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:
> >>>>>>> I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
> >>>>>>> Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only
> >>>>>>> those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>>>>>> getting first rate care.
> >>>>>>>     The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see
> >>>>>>> his EMBRACE of socialism.
> >>>>>>> There is ALSO this from the same person:
> >>>>>>> Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type
> >>>>>>> and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive
> >>>>>>> new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction,
> >>>>>>> nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain
> >>>>>>> continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type.
> >>>>>>> Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe
> >>>>>>> and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be
> >>>>>>> sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing
> >>>>>>> jurisdiction�beyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory
> >>>>>>> board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry
> >>>>>>> regulated.
> >>>>>>> Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> >>>>>>> It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully
> >>>>>>> presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh>
> >>>>>>> Sad.
> >>>>>>> As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE
> >>>>>>> examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you
> >>>>>>> refuse to present and merey proclaim.
> >>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>> Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It
> >>>>>>> has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside
> >>>>>>> and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or
> >>>>>>> contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual
> >>>>>>> process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as
> >>>>>>> a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power
> >>>>>>> in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
> >>>>>>> At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
> >>>>>>> MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> >>>>>>> the people-oriented content of my New Constitution!  Please reference
> >>>>>>> a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> >>>>>>> property is used.  You can't do that, I'm sure!  Ha, ha, HA!  ï¿½  John
> >>>>>>> A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You
> >>>>>>>> aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably
> >>>>>>>> doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> >>>>>>>> and I the converse.
> >>>>>>>> It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see
> >>>>>>> how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> >>>>>>>> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private
> >>>>>>> property without outside interference.
> >>>>>>>> Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy
> >>>>>>> when they are writing and because 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.