I do not disagree with the Candidate questionnaire. Ask whatever questions you like I am not REQUIRED to answer them in the affirmative. This is about the Screening Exam were if I say no to any question I am BANNED.

Do you believe that MOB RULE should supersede NATURAL LAW?

Is she representing your district? If so, it sounds like you need to be more involved in your area's politics. If not, does knowing the names of representatives from other districts really matter? They don't represent you. They aren't accountable to you.

I don't believe that most people consider those who serve several terms to be dirtbags. We may not completely trust them, but that hardly means we dislike them. The ultimate goal is to help prevent corruption.

It is impossible to determine what natural law is. Without a written law, anyone can believe whatever they want, and assume that to be the law. PETA would have us treat all animals in the same manner that we treat people. They may consider that a natural law. Does that mean we need to follow that law even though the rest of us don't think that is appropriate?

If GOOOH only says "We are here to make sure that the people are represented" without trying to enact changes to ensure that happens, what good will it be? The GOOOH process is a good start, but it alone is not enough. GOOOH can become corrupt. It may take several decades, but it can happen. Look at our current parties. Did they start out the way they are now? GOOOH's support of term limits will help the people we represented. If GOOOH were to decide not to require that term limits be supported, it will appear to be just another party seeking power for it's own goals.

On a side note, bboyer, you really shouldn't post the same message over and over on multiple threads.

“Mob rule. No, Majority rule in accordance with the Constitution. While respecting all rights of the citizens.”

Well that just begs the question how do you respect the rights of the citizens if you believe in MOB RULE.

Aug 6 1883 Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs orders all Mormons to either be driven from the state or wiped out.

October 30: Stirred up by the governor's decree, an anti-Mormon mob massacres church members at Haun's Mill, killing 17, including unarmed children. Opposition to the Mormons rages.

Yep the killing of Americans was legalized in Missouri.

Steve “You will always be able to find instances of where OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT passes a law that violates Natural Law, the Constitution, and Inalienable Rights. The point you just brought up was a horrendous example, and needs to be retold so we never forget, others are Separate but Equal, Dred Scott decision, Campaign Finance Reform (Freedom of speech) the judiciary ruling on Separation of church and state, and the list can go on and on. It is up to true patriots like us to stand up against these affronts whenever and wherever they occur. “

Thank You, my point in showing this quote is I have in fact had two people now say the will of the majority is absolute. I was simply trying to give a few horrendous examples that not only happened not around the world, but right here in America. I would also like to remind people that within the last 100 years we gathered up Japanese citizens and put them into internment camps. MOB RULE works great for you as long as you make sure you are in fact in the MOB.

Steve “You accuse everyone who defends the Term Limit requirement as believing in Mob Rule. That is simply not a valid argument. At today's 9-12 meeting we were discussing Principle 20 in the "5000 year leap" Interestingly enough it is talking about the need for Majority Rule, however there is a requirement for Constitutional Provisions to be in place to protect the rights of the minority. “

Thanks Again, I am fully aware that I was overstating my point that everyone who defends Term Limits was into MOB RULE. What I was trying to do is at least make people choose. The fact is you cannot support Term Limits if you are fully on the MOB RULE side. You would be limiting the will of the people with something other than the majority.

Steve “Now that having been said, the will of the majority cannot override the principles, rights and protections of the constitution. Insert argument here for passing a law that runs contrary to any one of the Bill of Rights. If the Law is passed it must be challenged and overturned. If not overturned then you must remove the politicians from office that passed that law and repeal the law.”

Right now you have crossed into NATURAL LAW. The founders sat down and developed the first ten amendments with the purpose of defining some of what they considered to be rights of the MINORTY from majority and government oppression. The day congress moves to repeal the 2nd amendment is the day I will have to go rogue.

Steve “You say that we are removing your Natural Right to vote when we mandate that you support Term Limits. We are not. You still have the right to vote in the election and vote for your choice between the republican, democrat and GOOOH party. You are right that you won't have a say in who will be the candidate for GOOOH, but I guarantee that you didn't have a say in who was the Republican AND Democrat Nominee for the president last year or any other political race. The primary system is setup by the party, run by the party, organized by the party, and ruled by the party. And little surprise here, the two major parties choose their candidate in different ways, not to mention how the Libertarian party chooses their candidate. I, as a precinct chair in one party, don't have a say in how the other party chooses their candidates. Does that mean that my Natural Rights have been stolen from me? Certainly not. I made my choice as to who I was going to work for and help get elected, therefore I had no choice in who the other side chose. That is a simple fact of life.”

Right were on the same page here. I believe that the founders felt that protecting the right to vote would be sufficient to protect the people choice in candidates. I think we are saying the same thing when we say none of the parties give us the choice in candidates. I believe that what we have is a NATURAL LAW right to choose our candidates. Without this right the right to vote is pointless as your voting for someone you did not want. This is what I believe the magic of the GOOOH system is and what I believe Tim was shooting for.

“GOOOH was designed not to favor any person or viewpoint”

This is on the back cover of Tim’s book that you sent me! Thanks for the book by the way! Was this a lie? This allows everyone to engage in the debate. I got very excited because finally there would be a system put in place that would give everyone an equal shot at being and choosing the candidate representing me. Then I came to the site and starting to fill out the SCREENING EXAM only to find out I was not going to be allowed to PARTISAPATE. So if we follow what you wrote above then you’re saying you’re no different than the Republicans or the Democrats. Well if it is you’re intention to set up a new party this is very true and I really do not want to have any part of GOOOH. I believe that this is not the true magic of GOOOH. I think you have the ability to set up a new system of choosing candidates for all future political offices. To do this though you MUST respect everyone’s right to PARTISIPATE in the process. Otherwise your just another oligarchy with a different agenda. Let all political ideas be fought for on the battlefield of ideas. If TERM LIMITS time has come not having any decent in your meetings will not help you strengthen your arguments just solidify your position.

Steve “So to answer the question you keep raising. Do we believe in Mob Rule? The answer to that is no. We do have the right and obligation to build the system the best way we see fit and then appoint keepers over that system. Someone earlier in the thread brought up the fact that the wealthy and lawyers were excluded, but are no longer excluded. The overseers of the system (of which I am one) are the members of the Questions Committee. We vote on changes to the system as questions are raised.”

Again thanks I knew the answer to the question was that you did in fact support NATURAL LAW for this reason alone. That is why I brought it up.

Steve “Did you notice that career politicians are still excluded from the process. I don't see a huge push on the forums saying we need to allow politicians to participate in the Candidate Selection Session. Are we removing their Natural Rights when we prevent them from participating in the process? No, we are setting the rule as to who can participate and who cannot. The Secretary of State in each state has the obligation to set the rules for who can vote in each state. In Texas, if you don't register to vote 30 days before the election, you can't vote. Does that remove your Natural Right to vote. No, you didn't follow the rules that regulate the process. Therefore you don't participate. If I think that I should be able to vote without registering, and then don't register, I can't vote. This debate is over one thing. Do the founders and overseers of the system have the right to build and organize the system the best way they see fit? "Will you support Term Limits?", is analagous to the SOS in each state saying you have to register to vote according to these list of rules in order to vote. “

I believe that everyone should be allowed into the GOOOH system. I think I even stated several times that GOOOH had no obligation to follow me. My question to you then as a national leader is this.

Do you want to create a new system for selecting candidates?

Or just be another party with an agenda?

One I think could be the best shot America has to re-found itself. One I believe will leave you on the cutting room floor of obscurity.

Steve “You have stated repeatedly, that this forum isn't to discuss the pros - cons of term limits, but it is. If term limits were something that the majority of the populace was against, then you might have a discussion point here about us forcing you to follow our rule. However, the lions share of the populace desire term limits and I cannot tell you how many meetings I have been to, and how many people I talk to that this is their first desire. TERM LIMITS.”

I have never said that this forum isn’t to discuss the pros-cons of term limits. I said this thread of this forum is not for that. If you move to the thread of the Candidate Questionnaire there is a TERM LIMIT thread there. This is a very good place to discuss the pros-cons. This is the title of this thread. Replies should relate to this question.

Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions?

As for the response of their first desire being TERM LIMITS. I would expect no other response. At the moment I would not attend a meeting of GOOOH as your ACT page clearly says I am not allowed to PARTISIPATE. I mean if you’re going to BAN opposition to TERM LIMITS you’re probably not going to get a lot of opposition right? I quit GOOOH two days after joining then two things happened. I got two e-mails from members that are not in support of TERM LIMITS asking that I not give up and I had a dream. The dream is unimportant other then it was a determining factor in me coming back.

Steve “You mention Michelle Bachmann and that you didn't know she existed for 3 1/2 yrs. I contend that term limits are a requirement to keep these Representatives grounded and rooted with their constituents. There is a movie line that I bring up every time someone has a problem with term limits. In the movie, "The Untouchables" Malone is talking with Ness and Ness is worried about getting a corrupt policeman off of the force to work on his task force. Malone says "If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't go to the barrel. Get it off the tree."
I bring this up because we can see how power corrupts and if the politicians stay in the "barrel" Washington D.C. they will eventually become corrupt as they begin to owe their vote to the special interest money men that put them in power. It is time to go to the tree and continue to go back to the tree.”

All of this is your opinion. I have asked several times for anyone to give me some evidence that TERM LIMITS work. Here in Michigan we have them and you know what is happening. The Governor is waiting on several very important issues because we have TERM LIMITS expiring. There is no guarantee that she will get what she wants, but there is a one that if she tries now it is not going to happen.

Taken from Tim’s Book “In states where term limits have passed, a member of the exiting representative’s family assumes the vacated office a large percentage of the time.”

So there ya go two pieces of real factual evidence that TERM LIMITS will not work the way you intended them to. So if you want to debate term limits I am happy to, but let’s take it to the right thread. I simply tend to stay off that one more because until I get this question answered for good the other does not even matter.

Steve “Also, when you brought up Michelle Bachmann you indicated that because I support term limits, I and others like me, consider her a dirt bag. Not at all. I think there are 10 to 12 members of the House of Representatives that are doing an admirable job, however, I think it is time that they move up to another job. “

Yes I understand it was an overstatement to make a point. My question here is if they are corrupt cannot they just do the same thing. Won’t those that stood against the major parties have less of a chance to move on? So won’t the party following Dirtbags have a better shot at keeping a Government job and the ones standing against the system be removed from doing the will of the people? So won’t TERM LIMITS have unintended results that will be detrimental to the will of the people? Again I believe this discussion should be moved to a different thread because it has nothing to do with whether I should be BANNED for my non-support of them or not.

Steve “Ed Stanley posted back on page 2 this

* Member of Virginia House of Burgesses, 1769-74
* Member of Continental Congress, 1775-76
* House of Delegates 1776-1779
* Governor of Virginia, 1779-81
* Member of Continental Congress, 1783-85
* Minister to France, 1785-89
* Secretary of State, 1790-93

Guess who.

He didn't answer. But it was Thomas Jefferson. Why is that important? Look at how long he served in each job. Look at how many different jobs he had. No one can intelligently argue that he was ineffective in his service to our country. Yet, he believed in term limits by his actions. He served and moved up to another level of service. That is what I expect from Michelle Bachmann and the other great public servants. They should move to Senate, Governor, State House, Ambassadors and other seats of service.”

Please apply my above reasoning with this in mind. Thomas Jefferson was not the only man to do this. Our current president has not spent more than 2 terms in any office. This has not made him uncorrupt. I am sure I can find more examples of people that were corrupt and did not spend more than 2 terms in any office then you can find ones that were benevolent.

Steve “I can only hope that this helps bring some light onto the subject for you.

Am I a founder? No. National leader, yes. Member of the Question Committee that voted to remove the restriction on lawyers and the wealthy? Yes.”

In all honesty Steve I appreciate your input, but you have changed nothing in my mind. No PARTISIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION. Think on that before you decide to BAN people.

THANK YOU finally another voice to add to the debate and show them just what I have been talking about.

A. Most of you hard core TERM LIMITS people seem to be from Texas. Great, but Texas does not represent the will of the United States. We have TERM LIMITS in Michigan and people’s eyes have been opened to the fact that they will not do what you say they are going to do.

B. If you eliminate descent from the debate then you will get 95% + support for sure. How many people have come to your site seen that they were going to be BANNED and then leave? I did it! How many others have you lost and will you lose until you realize that that question is killing about 30% to 40% of your support?

I asked you a few very specific questions Steve hard to have a debate if the other side does not rebut your arguments.

Steve “How bout we keep this civil?”

Sorry you read this statement as anything but. I hate using E-mail and message boards for this very reason. It is very hard to see anyone intent and then get read from the wrong perspective. I did get used to people answering the questions within a day so sorry I assumed you would be able to as well.

I feel time is critical and with every day I do not get someone with the power to do something to answer is another day lost where I could be in support of the GOOOH system instead of being an ancillary member.

Steve “Time to discuss something with someone who has already made up his mind on a something, resorts to exaggerating the facts to make his point falls to the bottom of my list of things to do.”

I have not made up my mind on anything, but I have asked three times on two different threads for someone to come up with any factual evidence on TERM LIMITS working. Other then Robert who use three Latin American countries presidential elections administered at the point of a gun no one has come up with anything. I am never going to change my mind to be for TERM LIMITS without some success story. Someone opinion of what they will or will not do has no bearing on the argument for me. As for the exaggerating facts I explained how and why I did it in two cases listed above.

Steve “I bring this up because we can see how power corrupts and if the politicians stay in the "barrel" Washington D.C. they will eventually become corrupt as they begin to owe their vote to the special interest money men that put them in power. It is time to go to the tree and continue to go back to the tree.”

This is an overstatement and exaggerating on your part. Not every politician that stays in the “barrel” of Washington D.C. will eventually become corrupt. People in a debate try to make logical arguments and as such tend to overstate their points to some degree. Does this make you wrong or your points invalid no. You are trying to take your position to the extreme to show what might or could happen. So I think we can just drop that argument. Your welcome to point out whatever you feel is an overstatement. Sometimes I might agree as I did before sometimes I might not.

The last thing I would like to point out is that it took you longer to write the statement above then it would have to answer the questions I asked.

My question to you then as a national leader is this.

Do you want to create a new system for selecting candidates?

Or just be another party with an agenda?

I don't think I ever saw anything about re-running after a time off.

This specific topic isn't really about the pros/cons of term limits, but should we be REQUIRED to support GOOOH's very narrow view of term limits in order to participate. If I disagree with just one of the candidate screening questions (and this one is the ONLY one I disagree with) then I am blocked from participating, even from having a voice in choosing a candidate.

I love your idea about trying things at the state level before moving it up to the feds. The states that tried socialized medicine found out - IT DOES NOT WORK.

Wow, you're a conservative working in education/theatre. You must be very accustomed to debating!