• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
John,

How does using 160-plus words to say something that requires only 43 words to state make anything easier to comprehend?

On 04/26/2011 12:49 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear J. Ashley:  What you don't realize is that each paragraph in my New Constitution corrects multiple problems.  You are assuming that every word is for correcting just one problem.  I can assure you that my document is the most efficient and readable wording.  It is written in the narrative style expressly to be comprehended by people of average intelligence.  Once most Americans know what my New Constitution says, it will be unlikely government will ever over-step its boundaries again.  —  J. A. A. — 
 
On Apr 25, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John,  I accomplished the same outcome with 43 words of clarity that you did with your convoluted paragraph of more than 160 words.  On 04/24/2011 05:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote:        
J. Ashley:  How quickly YOU forget!  The following is from my New Constitution: 
 
"Section 9&  10:  Other than the President or his agents, no person, news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any lobby, within government or without, shall be allowed to contact representatives while such are in Washington.  However, invited persons or groups can make scheduled depositions provided they don�t communicate with the representatives otherwise.  A representative�s constituents shall be allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing their votes only while they are in their home states or districts. Representatives shall regularly contact their district offices or return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of their constituents, and their constituents only, and shall be held accountable for the representativeness of their votes.  The solicitation of Citizen support is permitted, but the targeted solicitation of representatives in any place, by any person, organization, group, or lobby within government or without, is prohibited.  Overt solicitation, feting, or laudatory ceremony, as above, is a felony�defined as any crime requiring a minimum three year prison sentence, but time off for good behavior is allowed."  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �  Patriot On Apr 22, 11:50 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John, 
 
How quick you forget. Do you not remember when you challenged me once before? I posted the following problem and solution: 
 
     (1) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of      anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited. 
 
     (2) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of      this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or      deported; 
 
On 04/21/2011 06:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 
 
J. Ashley:  You never did define a single problem with our government or society, and solve that problem in less than four sentences.  I did that for fourteen years!  Convoluted or not, my New Constitution solves society's problems!  ï¿½  J. A. A. � On Apr 21, 12:06 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John, How does your reply have anything to do with what I posted? It's no wonder YOUR New Constitution is so convoluted. On 04/20/2011 08:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 
Jonathan: "Polite" public figures can't go around calling everyone stupid.  There are contexts in which public health care makes sense. But FORCED Obama Care isn't that context!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Apr 20, 12:54 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John, 1) Trump has no ideology! 2) The District of Criminals is filled with Republican socialists. On 04/20/2011 02:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 
Jonathan: That would be "the pot calling the kettle black".  If Trump was a socialist he would be a Democrat and pro Obama.  When one's ideology has failed, like yours has, blame the opposition for your own socialist-communist traits.  You, like Mark, are very screwed-up in the head.  ï¿½  J. A. A. � On Apr 19, 12:50 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
*John, I cannot belive you call me -- a voluntaryist/anarchist -- a socialist, yet you cannot see that Donald Trump is a full-blown socialist. Pay attention!* http://www.americablog.com/2009/02/donald-trump-is-socialist.htmlhttp...... On 04/18/2011 08:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 
Folks:  The following essay contains the first two articles of my New Constitution.  I'm copying it, below, so those looking in the present post can find it.  Hope you readers are having a great Spring! Can Donald Trump �Fix� the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on? The contrast is striking between the potential presidential candidacy of The Donald and every other might-be candidate mentioned.  For one thing, if The Donald says he can fix something�like our broke economy� you can damn-well take him seriously!  Some of you may recall that a certain new ice skating rink in New York�s Central Park started leaking water and couldn�t be used.  That work had been done by three or four labor unions with each one pointing the fingers at the other. After millions of dollars had been wasted on attempted patches, The Donald took over the entire job and had happy skaters out on that ice before long. Every day when I realize how much labor unions of all kinds are effectively screwing the US economy and preventing our having a really �free� free enterprise system, I think of The Donald.  He has been able to find considerable success working in the morass of labor unions and government regulations that are found in NYC.  That man THRIVES on being able to get the disparate powers-that-be to get the job done!  Part of the secret is his charisma.  But most of it is because he is a trustworthy man-of-his-word.  He makes sure that all those involved in a project realize just what their responsibilities are, and what they are expected to do if there are any glitches.  In short, The Donald is one of the top businessmen in the country of all time.  His executive experience probably exceeds that of the governors of most states.  Under him people do their jobs and do them well. Just having The Donald as the head man improves the quality of projects, because it�s an honor just to be associated with one of his projects! Obviously, Donald Trump is politically conservative.  But he doesn�t owe-his-soul to the Republican Party like most of his would-be rivals do even without realizing that they do.  The USA has been hamstrung trying to avoid looking like a colonialist aggressor every time we �invade� other nations to help the oppressed. The reason oil fields get set on fire is because those people suppose we are there� just for their oil.  By destroying the oil, they believe we will simply go away.  The blind-leading-the-blind in our government think that the USA has the financial wherewithal to finance long wars, and will have enough wherewithal remaining to rebuild the busted infrastructure of the invaded countries; train the new armies; and care for those �poor� people till they are back on their feet.  All of that is being done like forced charity from the big-hearted American People whose standards of living keep dropping, because of the explosion in the size and the over-control of our government.  If The Donald can get us trillions of dollars worth of oil to repay the American Taxpayers for our sacrifices, I�ll vote for him! Some good news is that Republicans now have trillions of dollars in �possible� budget cuts that might save this country.  The bad news is that those takes-too-long-to-happen cuts will still leave the never- should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place entitlement programs being run by government.  After the nearly 15 years that I�ve spent penning and polishing my New Constitution, I have better than average ideas how to fix our government, fast.  The following 5 things aren�t written into the New Constitution, but are of fundamental importance: 1.  Get our government out of the entitlement business!  Privatize Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and Unemployment Insurance, etc. Like the Republicans are now planning to do, protect those now in programs from being hurt who are close to retirement.  But unlike Republicans, once and forever, get the USA out of managing the entitlement business!  If government pulls any of the strings, things will start getting bad again, soon. 2.  Inform China and our other creditors that the USA will not be paying them any interest on their loans.  We will repay the principal, but only when doing so won�t jeopardize our recovery. 3.  Bring home 90% of US troops within 90 days.  Leave 10% of the troops in bases around the world to serve as a front guard in case redeployment is necessary. 4.  Stop wasting billions and billions of dollars on political campaigns!  That money is going into the pockets of the media.  Those media rascals salivate over the ad money they generate by �talking up� how �close� the elections are going to be.  Britt Hume, though a conservative, keeps pumping air into Obama by talking about the money Obama can spend (waste!) to get re elected.  Barack Obama is a cash cow for the media.  That�s why no one in the media will call the majority of Democrats CROOKS! 5.  ï¿½Fat cats� should stop being wimps!  Government has become no- longer-legal STEALING from the supposed rich to give to the poor.  The Democrats talk about how Republicans are wanting to give tax breaks to the wealthy while denying women medical 
 ..  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.
INLINE:

On 04/26/2011 12:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
J. Ashley:  I care very little about "besting you" by twisting your words.  In the USA if you proposed atheism and "organized" followers for that, you would be subverting the government (a Representative Republic) and that would be TREASON.  
Are you trying to tell me the American Atheists are guilty of treason?
http://www.atheists.org/

TREASON: In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

If your ideal is having a minimum efficient government, that is legal.  But advocating no government will get you in a heap of trouble very quickly.  
I advocate no government all the time. I haven't gotten into trouble yet.
What would most likely happen is that you would be arrested and made to undergo psychiatric evaluation.  
Hasn't happened yet!
It's unlike you would pass muster.  Sorry I can't be more supportive.  Being "right" of me is to be guilty of TREASON.  —  J. A. Armistead —  Patriot 
 
On Apr 25, 11:58 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John,  Once again you have twisted what was said to reflect what you want to hear.  I never said that Belgium was "the ideal of the world." I merely pointed out that Belgium has gone more than 300 days without a national government and they are doing just fine.  On 04/25/2011 06:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        
Mark:  Tell that to J. Ashley.  He's holding up Belgium as the ideal of the world, and Jonathan is an out-and-out anarchist.  —  J. A. A. — On Apr 24, 11:37 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote: 
There is no "anarchy in Belgium: *an·ar·chy*/ˈanərkē/Noun 1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. 
 
It is not history, it is current events. 
 
If you are writing a constitution you should have known this. You should also know that absolute Democracy, absolute Communism and Socialism are for the most part identical in practice (if it were possible) 
 
To say we need more Democracy as you often do is the same as saying we need more Communism and or Socialism.... 
 
Just how ignorant are you ?? 
 
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote: 
 
Mark:  Please find yourself a history buff.  I'm not the least interested in anarchy, in Belgium or anywhere!  — J. A. A. — On Apr 22, 4:33 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote: 
And it still functions without the lawmakers.... Go figure. On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Ashley< jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  wrote: 
  John, "In terms of comparative social spending on welfare-related programs as 
a 
percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), Denmark ranks first, spending more than 29 percent of GDP on its welfare-related programs. 
Next 
is Sweden (nearly 29 percent), followed by France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland. The United Kingdom ranks in the 
middle of 
the pack in 13th place (nearly 22 percent of GDP). The United States 
ranks 
near the bottom, in 26th place (out of 29), spending less than 15 
percent of 
its GDP on social welfare programs. The United States ranks just ahead 
of 
Ireland, Mexico, and South Korea." http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2011/03/what-is-welfare-state/ ------------------------------ On 04/22/2011 08:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: On average, yes they are!  Few in Belgium look to government for handouts.  In the USA, close to 45% want a government handout. Anything over 5% is excessive.  But that's why I've written my New Constitution—to get government out of the hand-out, pull-the-strings business!   —  John A. Armistead —  Patriot    On Apr 21, 9:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  < 
jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 
wrote:   So, you're saying the People of Belgium are better People than those 
in 
the United States?   J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The USA would be in civil war...   � J. A. A. � On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  < 
jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 
wrote:   John,     It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without government. Belgium has been without a national government for more 
than 
313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't make 
much 
of a difference in their daily lives."     On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:     Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I am an untra- conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone, because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal.  I deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages' within one month of there being no government(s).  So, your "ideal" of no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth.  Is having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead � 
  Patriot 
On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  < 
jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 
wrote:   John, Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer questions posed to you.) On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:   Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist.  I suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government. Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. � On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  < 
jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 
wrote:   But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution. On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:   Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system that made this country great; and by supposing that government should control everything (with him in charge).  The fact that you even ask that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.  The remaining 5% are just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  < 
jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 
wrote:   John, That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites 
based 
on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression 
means. 
That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off 
this 
tremendous task? On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:   Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.  Google World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are very naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on moderation someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed? Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has caused more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler. Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government and in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested, tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you, Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's viewed you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you are so screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some couch- time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>  < 
markmka...@gmail.com>            wrote: 
  Einstein, Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law. Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s). On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  < 
noeinst...@bellsouth.net>            wrote: 
  Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such nice people.  Israel should become a training place for successful capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims feel. Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job.  If you butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying, then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has now  been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read.  The last 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads with, first hand.  Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85% of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available. But NOT on this forum.  The full document will be presented as part of a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why 
 ..  read more » 
 




Voodoo Climate Science: What happend to those "50 Million Climate Refugees" the UN said would be displaced?

Most of us know that the 'climate predictions' made by the likes of Al Gore, environmentalist and U.N. 'experts' just haven't panned out. With so many wrong predictions, how can those who believe in man-made climate change claim it is "settled science?"

Patrick Michaels reports, via Forbes.com

When will our greener friends at the UN learn that it's just not a good idea to make definite predictions about certain disasters?

This time they have been called out on their 2005 prediction that by now there would be 50 million "climate refugees"—people choosing to emigrate because of bad weather.  The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) even came up with a global map showing precisely where people would migrate from.

Pretty much every forecast about climate change or its effects should be viewed as a hypothesis rather than a fact.  After all, as Firesign Theater once noted, "the future's not here yet".  But the UN named a specific year (2010) which allows for an actual test of their prediction.

Census takers around the world have inadvertently adjudicated the UN's forecast. It was dead wrong.  Pretty much every recent census  reveals that populations are growing rapidly precisely where everyone was supposed to be migrating from. (And where is the story that global warming causes babies?).

Folks were supposed to be streaming away from low-lying tropical islands because of worse and more frequent hurricanes.  The population of the Bahamas, which catches about as many tropical cyclones as any place on earth, is up 14% since 2000.  The Solomons, up 20%.  Sychelles: 9%.

Did I mention that global hurricane activity has recently sunk to its all time measured low, despite the UN's strident statements about more frequent and terrible storms? (Note that the hurricane data is only reliable for the last fifty years or so, hence the word "measured".)

Is  this exaggeration of an affect of climate change by the UN an  isolated incident? Hardly. Recent history reveals the UN to be a systematic engine of climate disinformation.

In 2007, the UN famously stated that, if warming continued at present rates (whatever that means—there hasn't been any since the mid-late1990s), the massive Himalayan glaciers would disappear 23 years from now.  While the source, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims itself the consensus of climate science, there's no credentialed climatologist on earth who believes that this ice cap, which is hundreds of feet thick, could possibly disappear so soon.

When the government of India, which knows something about the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great Ganges River, challenged the UN's forecast, the head of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachauri, labeled it  "voodoo science".

It turns out that the UN was the voodoo practitioner.  Dr. Murari Lal, who authored the statement,  eventually admitted that it was in the UN climate report to spur the governments of India and China into reducing their carbon dioxide emissions, and that it was not based on anything in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
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.
0

--
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.

--
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.
Again with the MISUSE of the word Democracy. Democracy is simple rule by a majority that overrides any laws. By supporting <Democracy> you are supporting Communism and Socialism.  Why do you think the US is a Representative Republic and NOT a Democracy regardless of who uses the term incorrectly and often.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Mark:  NOT if I require that all public employees and public officials
SWEAR, on penalty of loss of one's job for employees, and penalty of
death for public officials, if anyone dares to violate this one
sentence: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"
The 40% or so of good-for-nothing socialist/communist liberals can
save themselves the trouble of voting, because my New Constitution
bans socialism and communism, so those votes, in whatever numbers,
will be ineffectual.  No labor unions nor minority groups will have
more power than one-person-one-vote.  And anyone lobbying for anything
will be jailed for three years.  Get the picture?  My democracy-on-
demand Republic works, because I permanently hamstring anyone with
socialist/communist notions.  —  John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 25, 1:46 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Johnathan is no Anarchist... but your cry (in you rantings and your
> "constitution") for "more democracy" IS indeed socialistic communism.
>
> On Apr 25, 7:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark:  Tell that to J. Ashley.  He's holding up Belgium as the ideal
> > of the world, and Jonathan is an out-and-out anarchist.  —  J. A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:37 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no "anarchy in Belgium:
> > > *an·ar·chy*/ˈanərkē/Noun
> > > 1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
> > > 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as
> > > a political ideal.
>
> > > It is not history, it is current events.
>
> > > If you are writing a constitution you should have known this. You should
> > > also know that absolute Democracy, absolute Communism and Socialism are for
> > > the most part identical in practice (if it were possible)
>
> > > To say we need more Democracy as you often do is the same as saying we need
> > > more Communism and or Socialism....
>
> > > Just how ignorant are you ??
>
> > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Mark:  Please find yourself a history buff.  I'm not the least
> > > > interested in anarchy, in Belgium or anywhere!  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 4:33 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And it still functions without the lawmakers.... Go figure.
>
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
> > > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > > > >  John,
>
> > > > > > "In terms of comparative social spending on welfare-related programs as
> > > > a
> > > > > > percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), Denmark ranks first,
> > > > > > spending more than 29 percent of GDP on its welfare-related programs.
> > > > Next
> > > > > > is Sweden (nearly 29 percent), followed by France, Germany, Belgium,
> > > > > > Switzerland, Austria, and Finland. The United Kingdom ranks in the
> > > > middle of
> > > > > > the pack in 13th place (nearly 22 percent of GDP). The United States
> > > > ranks
> > > > > > near the bottom, in 26th place (out of 29), spending less than 15
> > > > percent of
> > > > > > its GDP on social welfare programs. The United States ranks just ahead
> > > > of
> > > > > > Ireland, Mexico, and South Korea."
>
> > > > > >http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2011/03/what-is-welfare-state/
>
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On 04/22/2011 08:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > On average, yes they are!  Few in Belgium look to government for
> > > > > > handouts.  In the USA, close to 45% want a government handout.
> > > > > > Anything over 5% is excessive.  But that's why I've written my New
> > > > > > Constitution—to get government out of the hand-out, pull-the-strings
> > > > > > business!   —  John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > > > >   On Apr 21, 9:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  So, you're saying the People of Belgium are better People than those
> > > > in
> > > > > > the United States?
>
> > > > > >  J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The USA would be
> > > > > > in civil war...   � J. A. A. �
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
>
> > > > > >    It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without
> > > > > > government. Belgium has been without a national government for more
> > > > than
> > > > > > 313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't make
> > > > much
> > > > > > of a difference in their daily lives."
>
> > > > > >    On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >    Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I am an untra-
> > > > > > conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone,
> > > > > > because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal.  I
> > > > > > deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact
> > > > > > opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative
> > > > > > than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages'
> > > > > > within one month of there being no government(s).  So, your "ideal" of
> > > > > > no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth.  Is
> > > > > > having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> > > >  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
> > > > > > Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of
> > > > > > anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer
> > > > > > questions posed to you.)
> > > > > > On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist.  I
> > > > > > suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government.
> > > > > > Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on
> > > > > > your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution.
> > > > > > On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system
> > > > > > that made this country great; and by supposing that government should
> > > > > > control everything (with him in charge).  The fact that you even ask
> > > > > > that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
> > > > > > socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.  The remaining 5% are
> > > > > > just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> > > > > > Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
> > > > > > That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites
> > > > based
> > > > > > on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> > > > > > credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression
> > > > means.
> > > > > > That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the
> > > > > > USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> > > > > > ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off
> > > > this
> > > > > > tremendous task?
> > > > > > On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> > > > > > Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.  Google
> > > > > > World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are very
> > > > > > naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the
> > > > > > noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> > > > > > TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on moderation
> > > > > > someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed?
> > > > > > Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill
> > > > > > their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> > > > > > committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> > > > > > resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has caused
> > > > > > more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who
> > > > > > ever lived, including Hitler.
> > > > > > Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government and
> > > > > > in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested,
> > > > > > tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for
> > > > > > giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> > > > > > Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's viewed
> > > > > > you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you are so
> > > > > > screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> > > > > > better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some couch-
> > > > > > time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com> <
> > > > markmka...@gmail.com>          wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Einstein,
> > > > > > Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or
> > > > > > your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard
> > > > > > message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> > > > > > originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law.
> > > > > > Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> > > > > > responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> <
> > > > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>          wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in
> > > > > > those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews
> > > > > > are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such
> > > > > > nice people.  Israel should become a training place for successful
> > > > > > capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims
> > > > > > feel.
> > > > > > Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA
> > > > > > is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying
> > > > > > that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> > > > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL by
>
> ...
>
> 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.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.



--
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.
Folks: There is a Washington "Monument" and a Lincoln Memorial.
Never the twain shall meet! And my finger missed an "o" in the word
too (not to). Sorry. — J. A. Armistead —
>
On Apr 26, 11:24 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The supposed 'window of opportunity' for potential candidates to
> decide whether to run for President is getting smaller.  Donald Trump
> is now topping the polls with his give-'em-hell solutions to this
> country's pressing problems.  He's headed to New Hampshire to expound
> on those ideas.  Two weeks ago Michele Bachmann headed to… Iowa and
> got lost in the CORN by playing-up-to the people of that
> geographically central, but otherwise unexceptional, state.
> Intelligence should be one standard for judging the qualifications of
> anyone wishing to become President.  Even though it's a tradition of
> long standing… no person who accepts the archaic RITUAL of acting like
> impractical fools; jetting all over to USA; and wasting tens, if not
> hundreds of millions of dollars just to press-the-flesh with the
> maximum number of voters, isn't wise enough, nor practical enough, to
> be our President.
>
> As I regularly state, political parties—by whatever name—are
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  So to are the mindless, spaced-out, media-serving
> primaries.  Those automatically preclude from being President any non
> megalomaniac who would be a better choice for President simply by
> virtue of having a more sensible personality.  Within, say, a six-week
> period of well-thought-out candidate interviews and debates, every
> voter who has access to a TV should be able to pick the candidate who
> is most agreeable to him.  And the total campaign expenditure of any
> one candidate need not exceed five million dollars.
>
> Rep. Ron Paul, that derelict candidate from the 2008 election, is
> locked-in-on the RITUAL of brown-nosing the voters of Iowa.  Paul
> could easily have become our president in the last election if he had
> simply done what I urged him to do, and abandoned the Republican Party
> to run as an Independent.  Glenn Beck, to his credit, sees BOTH major
> parties as being out-of-touch.  The Tea Party movement, which isn't
> really a "party", is more agreeable to Beck, who has declined taking
> continued credit for the 9/12 project.  Beck will only go so far with
> anything, then he bails.
>
> On his flagging TV show, yesterday, Glenn Beck emotionally derided the
> declining moral values in this country—which he attributes to our
> being out-of-touch with God.  At a McDonald's restaurant, a
> transgender person got beaten-up badly enough to cause a seizure.
> Only one person in that restaurant attempted to stave-off the attack.
> Glenn Beck is most naïve; there is limited 'first aid' that can be
> done for anyone having a seizure, other than to put them on their side
> to reduce the chance of possible choking if they vomit.  That person
> was already on her side.  Beck chided the video camera operator for
> not rushing over to, essentially, do nothing.  In defense of those
> customers in the restaurant, they very likely didn't know "what
> infraction" had so angered the attackers.  Supposing that the victim
> was a "bad person", most just looked around, and seeing no others
> taking action, they took no action, themselves.  The psychology of why
> that same thing happens—most often in big, impersonal cities—has been
> studied extensively.  In rare cases, those not calling police, or
> calling down the attackers, have been found to be criminally negligent
> for not providing reasonably prudent assistance.
>
> As was the case with that video camera operator, Glenn Beck sees the
> "historically predictable" failures of our government, our economy,
> and of our society.  But he consistently does little or nothing.  His
> 56 Refounders—as of the Constitution—failed to expose the "Good
> Dirt" (a quote of J. R. from "Dallas") that would rally the American
> people to vote-in good candidates.  Prior to the 8/18 rally last year
> in Washington, that drew 3/4 million people, Beck vowed to keep on his
> "combat boots" until the corruption in Washington has been corrected.
> But about that same time, the Obama W. H. put out a directive saying
> that suspected terrorists (supposedly, including those proposing
> violence, as in a… revolution) could be shot without recourse.  That
> threat caused Beck to take off his combat boots, put on his bullet-
> proof vest, and to take-on the guise of being an evangelist deferring
> all solutions to Divine Providence.  He saw it as an act of God that a
> flock of curious and very 'ham' Canada Geese flew over the reflection
> pool.  And of course there was that "eight-year-old" (looked 14) red-
> headed kid who lucked up and got the last tickets to sit in a section
> close to the Lincoln Monument.  A father loving his son, oh how much
> of a God-send 'that' is…
>
> I could be flattered, but I'm not, that Glenn Beck has been reading my
> essays under "Wringing-the-neck of empty ritual."  For the first time
> ever, Beck is acknowledging that no groups—religions included—can make
> the needed changes in our government.  Following my lead, he is now
> charging INDIVIDUALS with that responsibility.  Surprisingly, Beck
> realizes that having anything other than a secular government would be
> wrong.  (Note: The latter is such a huge departure for Beck, that I
> suspect it is due to the world-threatening mess caused by Muslims
> believing that their religion should also control governments.)  The
> second proof that Beck is reading what I write is his overt… slap at
> me for saying that 'I repeatedly asked myself what James Madison would
> have thought about what each new thing I wrote in my New
> Constitution.'  Beck, almost angrily said: "James Madison isn't Jesus
> Christ!"
>
> Glenn Beck seems to be saying he would have preferred that I ask Jesus
> Christ what should be included in my New Constitution.  The reason I
> used Madison and the Founding Fathers as my standard was because I
> could sense the SPIRIT of the Constitution just from reading what they
> wrote.  Jesus never wrote a Constitution, but the Golden Rule, "Do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you." and "Love thy
> neighbor as thyself."  Would be pretty good constitutions, taken alone
> or together.  Beck is a cad if he supposes my motives are less high
> simply because I, unlike him, don't DROP the name Jesus or give…
> "credit" to God at every turn.  I'll guarantee you this: I wasn't
> inspired to spend fourteen years of my life writing my New
> Constitution to benefit most Americans, unless I was a highly moral
> person (who knows right from wrong).
>
> Charles Krauthammer is one of those political commentators who will
> lose his job once my New Constitution is ratified.  He flagrantly
> violates the provisions preventing celebrities in the media or in
> entertainment, etc., from having more influence on the outcome of
> elections than the man-on-the-street.  Though "conservatively"
> insightful, Krauthammer keeps including enough "jabs" at the right to
> keep the liberal publishers of his syndicated news columns happy.
> Unless he does that, he won't be making big bucks any more.
> Krauthammer has only one standard of right and wrong, and that is
> dollars and cents—just like most of those on the Fox News Channel,
> especially Brit Hume.
>
> Krauthammer erred big time when he called Donald Trump "a clown, with
> no chance of becoming President."  Sending out 'negative psychology'
> is a ploy used by both the left and the right that must be stopped, if
> we are to survive as a nation.  If a candidate says obvious untruths
> against another candidate he or she will be disqualified or jailed.
> All election-related commentary (but not COVERAGE) in the media shall
> stop!
>
> Pitiful Gov. Mike Huckabee is probably jealous that Glenn Beck has
> upstaged Huckabee's religious (insincere) sweetness.  Barack Obama
> hides his emotions behind a cool exterior.  Huckabee hides his
> insincerity behind a for-show, phony smile that may appeal to the
> religious right.  I knew Huckabee was two-faced when he interrupted a
> guest who was saying negative things about Obama, so that his audience
> wouldn't get to applaud their assent.  I call Huckabee a two-faced
> LIBERAL.  Beck calls him a Republican "progressive", which is a
> conflict of terms.
>
> Numbers of people are proposing that we should pass a balanced-budget
> amendment.  My New Constitution does that within the main body of the
> document:
>
> "The House shall author bills of appropriation within budget; in
> addition, the President shall have Line Item Veto power on all such
> bills, except if overruled by a 60% vote of the House.  12 years from
> the adoption of this New Constitution, and following a successful two
> year test in two or more states, taxation in the USA shall be changed
> to sales tax only—at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of
> the GNP—home food and medicines excluded.* "
>
> Thinking Americans—like I hope the majority of my readers are—should
> realize that merely passing a balanced budget amendment will still
> leave in place all of the corrupt Washington establishment that let
> the USA get into such sad shape to begin with.  The expression is: "If
> something is broken, FIX it!"  All of our piddling with government
> over the last century has left it still broken and unworkable.  ***
> The first step to correcting things is for any person with the
> public's ear to adamantly renounce our… two party system, which is and
> always has been, unconstitutional.  SCRAP the primaries and SCRAP the
> conventions!  Let the voters decide their favorite candidates via the
> magic of TV.  If we had had TV a century ago, the… "ritual" of
> campaigning in all of the states never would have gotten started.
> It's time we wring-the-neck of the empty ritual of primaries(!) as
> well as those of the other wasteful and hurtful things that we do in
> this country!  Instead of putting billions of dollars into the pockets
> of the media for campaigns lasting two or three years, put only a few
> million dollars into their pockets for campaigns lasting no more that
> THREE MONTHS!  Politics isn't a GAME, people; it is the bane of our
> existence!
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — John A. Armistead  —  Patriot
>
> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics news group.
>
> Those who are interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest
> Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity," available at Amazon and Barnes
> and Noble.

--
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.

Einstein.... To use Fox as an example as good as any other that is also clueless. The fact remains that it is a Proper Name and the Lybian spells it quite plainly and consistently the same in English every time. Just as I have no right (or reason for that matter) to change your name for My convenience , you do not have the right to change his.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Mark:  Fox News (gag) is the only approximately tollerable news
network I watch.  They spell his name:  Qaddafi.   "G", why would that
be?  —  J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 25, 1:44 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "G" it is. I believe he knows how to spell his own name....
>
> On Apr 25, 7:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Jonathan!   Mark, with his 'G', is no closer to correct than
> > my 'Q' but with ff.  I'd rate the guy a double F grade.  Agreed?  — J.
> > A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:37 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > His name in Arabic is /Mu?ammar al-Qad_d_a-fi-. /
>
> > > On 04/24/2011 08:29 PM, Mark wrote:
>
> > > > I am a Tico. We have monkeys. ..... Belgiums per capita income is no
> > > > where near The US...It is much lower... Moslems are welcome here.... I
> > > > never said I support Gaddafi.. please learn to spell his name if you
> > > > are going to talk about him.
>
> > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net
> > > > <mailto:noeinst...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>
> > > >     Mark:  Where do you live with monkeys in your back yard?  India?
> > > >     Because of the beauty of Belgium, making it a choice vacation
> > > >     destination, the per capita income in Belgium is higher than in the
> > > >     USA.  You should move there.  But my guess is that Muslims wouldn't be
> > > >     welcomed (said because you have defended Qadaffi).  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
>
> > > >     On Apr 22, 12:00 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:markmka...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >     > What is happening in Belgium is not History but rather Current
> > > >     Events.
>
> > > >     > They have law enforcement, welfare (higher percentage that the
> > > >     US) their
> > > >     > food is protected and as you say ...on and on. All the shutdown
> > > >     causes
> > > >     > (without explicit instructions from congress and the President)
> > > >     is that
> > > >     > nothing NEW can take place. Supervisors still supervise, all
> > > >     State functions
> > > >     > still happen, all taxes are paid.
>
> > > >     > One would think that something as basic as
>
> > > >     > "Do we need Congress, a President, or the Supreme Court to survive?"
> > > >     >  (answer is a resounding "No")
>
> > > >     > would be really important to a Constitutionalist.  The States
> > > >     and those
> > > >     > Federal departments that are necessary to "the Public Welfare"
> > > >      are left
> > > >     > operating as usual.
>
> > > >     > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:27 AM, NoEinstein
> > > >     <noeinst...@bellsouth.net <mailto:noeinst...@bellsouth.net>>wrote:
>
> > > >     > > Mark:  I'm not a world history buff, so forget about Belgium.  The
> > > >     > > welfare system in this country would stop; companies that had
> > > >     > > government contracts would shut down; there would be no
> > > >     protected food
> > > >     > > supply; there would be no law enforcement; crime would surge; the
> > > >     > > power grid would shut down, and on-and-on.  People would start
> > > >     using
> > > >     > > their guns to protect themselves.  Once "minorities" started
> > > >     > > wanting... their share, there would be civil war.  The USA can't
> > > >     > > survive without some the public order that is provided by well
> > > >     thought-
> > > >     > > out and agreed-to laws.
>
> > > >     > > You are most correct that just and acceptable (to the masses) laws
> > > >     > > don't require a government.  My minimum, efficient government will
> > > >     > > depend on having the citizens agree with and abide by their
> > > >     laws.  Our
> > > >     > > present federal government is totally dysfunctional, because
> > > >     Congress
> > > >     > > and the White House wrongly suppose that it is they who run
> > > >     things.
> > > >     > > WRONG!  It is the People, in a Republic, who run things!!!!!  
> > > >     Read my
> > > >     > > New Constitution to see that even one law-abiding citizen,
> > > >     > > knowledgeable of that document, is more powerful than any
> > > >     government
> > > >     > > employee or elected official, including the President!  ï¿½ J. A.
> > > >     > > Armistead �  Patriot
>
> > > >     > > On Apr 21, 9:39 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:markmka...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >     > > > Onestone,
>
> > > >     > > > At one full year with no government it is way past the
> > > >     "experimental"
> > > >     > > stage.
> > > >     > > > It is running and no services have been cut to anyone that
> > > >     cares. Just
> > > >     > > why
> > > >     > > > would the lack of a Congress and President would cause civil
> > > >     war ?? The
> > > >     > > laws
> > > >     > > > are in place and so are the programs that see to peoples needs.
>
> > > >     > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM, NoEinstein
> > > >     <noeinst...@bellsouth.net <mailto:noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> > > >     > > >wrote:
>
> > > >     > > > > J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The
> > > >     USA would be
> > > >     > > > > in civil war...   � J. A. A. �
>
> > > >     > > > > On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley
> > > >     <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com <mailto:jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>>
> > > >     > > > > wrote:
> > > >     > > > > > John,
>
> > > >     > > > > > It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone
> > > >     age without
> > > >     > > > > > government. Belgium has been without a national
> > > >     government for more
> > > >     > > than
> > > >     > > > > > 313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government
> > > >     doesn't make
> > > >     > > much
> > > >     > > > > > of a difference in their daily lives."
>
> > > >     > > > > > On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >     > > > > > > Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I
> > > >     am an untra-
> > > >     > > > > > > conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left"
> > > >     of anyone,
> > > >     > > > > > > because that would seem to make me... a God-damned
> > > >     liberal.  I
> > > >     > > > > > > deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am
> > > >     the exact
> > > >     > > > > > > opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more
> > > >     > > conservative
> > > >     > > > > > > than me, consider this: The USA would return to the
> > > >     'stone ages'
> > > >     > > > > > > within one month of there being no government(s).  So,
> > > >     your "ideal"
> > > >     > > of
> > > >     > > > > > > no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on
> > > >     Earth.  Is
> > > >     > > > > > > having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A.
> > > >     Armistead �
> > > >     > > > >  Patriot
> > > >     > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan
> > > >     Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> > > >     <mailto:jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>>
> > > >     > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >     > > > > > >> John,
>
> > > >     > > > > > >> Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one
> > > >     be "right" of
> > > >     > > > > > >> anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you
> > > >     NEVER answer
> > > >     > > > > > >> questions posed to you.)
>
> > > >     > > > > > >> On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >     > > > > > >>> Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is
> > > >     socialist.  I
> > > >     > > > > > >>> suggest you write your one paragraph constitution
> > > >     banning
> > > >     > > government.
> > > >     > > > > > >>> Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't
> > > >     survive very long
> > > >     > > on
> > > >     > > > > > >>> your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > >     > > > > > >>> On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > > >     > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> > > >     <mailto:jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>>
> > > >     > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > >     > > > > > >>>> But John, you're the one who has written a socialist
> > > >     > > constitution.
> > > >     > > > > > >>>> On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the
> > > >     capitalist
> > > >     > > system
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> that made this country great; and by supposing
> > > >     that government
> > > >     > > > > should
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> control everything (with him in charge).  The fact
> > > >     that you
> > > >     > > even
> > > >     > > > > ask
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> that question confirms my initial gut reaction
> > > >     that you are a
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.
> > > >      The remaining
> > > >     > > 5%
> > > >     > > > > are
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½
> > > >     J. A.
> > > >     > > Armistead
> > > >     > > > > �
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> Patriot
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > > >     > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> > > >     <mailto:jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>>
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> John,
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> That you own stock in a company that routinely
> > > >     downgrades
> > > >     > > websites
> > > >     > > > > based
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says
> > > >     much about
> > > >     > > your
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> credibility regarding the understanding of what
> > > >     freedom of
> > > >     > > > > expression means.
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic
> > > >     and social
> > > >     > > harm
> > > >     > > > > to the
> > > >     > > > > > >>>>>> USA than any other person who ever lived,
> > > >     including Hitler"
> > > >     > > seems
>
> ...
>
> 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.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.



--
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.
Mark: NOT if I require that all public employees and public officials
SWEAR, on penalty of loss of one's job for employees, and penalty of
death for public officials, if anyone dares to violate this one
sentence: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"
The 40% or so of good-for-nothing socialist/communist liberals can
save themselves the trouble of voting, because my New Constitution
bans socialism and communism, so those votes, in whatever numbers,
will be ineffectual. No labor unions nor minority groups will have
more power than one-person-one-vote. And anyone lobbying for anything
will be jailed for three years. Get the picture? My democracy-on-
demand Republic works, because I permanently hamstring anyone with
socialist/communist notions. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 25, 1:46 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Johnathan is no Anarchist... but your cry (in you rantings and your
> "constitution") for "more democracy" IS indeed socialistic communism.
>
> On Apr 25, 7:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark:  Tell that to J. Ashley.  He's holding up Belgium as the ideal
> > of the world, and Jonathan is an out-and-out anarchist.  —  J. A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:37 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no "anarchy in Belgium:
> > > *an·ar·chy*/ˈanərkē/Noun
> > > 1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
> > > 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as
> > > a political ideal.
>
> > > It is not history, it is current events.
>
> > > If you are writing a constitution you should have known this. You should
> > > also know that absolute Democracy, absolute Communism and Socialism are for
> > > the most part identical in practice (if it were possible)
>
> > > To say we need more Democracy as you often do is the same as saying we need
> > > more Communism and or Socialism....
>
> > > Just how ignorant are you ??
>
> > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Mark:  Please find yourself a history buff.  I'm not the least
> > > > interested in anarchy, in Belgium or anywhere!  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 4:33 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And it still functions without the lawmakers.... Go figure.
>
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
> > > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > > > >  John,
>
> > > > > > "In terms of comparative social spending on welfare-related programs as
> > > > a
> > > > > > percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), Denmark ranks first,
> > > > > > spending more than 29 percent of GDP on its welfare-related programs.
> > > > Next
> > > > > > is Sweden (nearly 29 percent), followed by France, Germany, Belgium,
> > > > > > Switzerland, Austria, and Finland. The United Kingdom ranks in the
> > > > middle of
> > > > > > the pack in 13th place (nearly 22 percent of GDP). The United States
> > > > ranks
> > > > > > near the bottom, in 26th place (out of 29), spending less than 15
> > > > percent of
> > > > > > its GDP on social welfare programs. The United States ranks just ahead
> > > > of
> > > > > > Ireland, Mexico, and South Korea."
>
> > > > > >http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2011/03/what-is-welfare-state/
>
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On 04/22/2011 08:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > On average, yes they are!  Few in Belgium look to government for
> > > > > > handouts.  In the USA, close to 45% want a government handout.
> > > > > > Anything over 5% is excessive.  But that's why I've written my New
> > > > > > Constitution—to get government out of the hand-out, pull-the-strings
> > > > > > business!   —  John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > > > > >   On Apr 21, 9:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  So, you're saying the People of Belgium are better People than those
> > > > in
> > > > > > the United States?
>
> > > > > >  J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The USA would be
> > > > > > in civil war...   � J. A. A. �
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
>
> > > > > >    It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without
> > > > > > government. Belgium has been without a national government for more
> > > > than
> > > > > > 313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't make
> > > > much
> > > > > > of a difference in their daily lives."
>
> > > > > >    On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >    Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I am an untra-
> > > > > > conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone,
> > > > > > because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal.  I
> > > > > > deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact
> > > > > > opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative
> > > > > > than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages'
> > > > > > within one month of there being no government(s).  So, your "ideal" of
> > > > > > no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth.  Is
> > > > > > having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> > > >  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
> > > > > > Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of
> > > > > > anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer
> > > > > > questions posed to you.)
> > > > > > On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist.  I
> > > > > > suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government.
> > > > > > Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on
> > > > > > your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution.
> > > > > > On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system
> > > > > > that made this country great; and by supposing that government should
> > > > > > control everything (with him in charge).  The fact that you even ask
> > > > > > that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
> > > > > > socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.  The remaining 5% are
> > > > > > just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> > > > > > Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <
> > > > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  John,
> > > > > > That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites
> > > > based
> > > > > > on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> > > > > > credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression
> > > > means.
> > > > > > That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the
> > > > > > USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> > > > > > ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off
> > > > this
> > > > > > tremendous task?
> > > > > > On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> > > > > > Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.  Google
> > > > > > World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are very
> > > > > > naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the
> > > > > > noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> > > > > > TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on moderation
> > > > > > someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed?
> > > > > > Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill
> > > > > > their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> > > > > > committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> > > > > > resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has caused
> > > > > > more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who
> > > > > > ever lived, including Hitler.
> > > > > > Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government and
> > > > > > in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested,
> > > > > > tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for
> > > > > > giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> > > > > > Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's viewed
> > > > > > you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you are so
> > > > > > screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> > > > > > better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some couch-
> > > > > > time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com> <
> > > > markmka...@gmail.com>          wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Einstein,
> > > > > > Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or
> > > > > > your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard
> > > > > > message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> > > > > > originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law.
> > > > > > Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> > > > > > responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> <
> > > > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>          wrote:
>
> > > > > >  Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in
> > > > > > those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews
> > > > > > are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such
> > > > > > nice people.  Israel should become a training place for successful
> > > > > > capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims
> > > > > > feel.
> > > > > > Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA
> > > > > > is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying
> > > > > > that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> > > > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL by
>
> ...
>
> 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.