|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 25
|
bboyer9052 wrote:Oh my god I just got a way out!
The question does not state that I have to vote Yes or No. I can now say that I will defiantly vote and I will defiantly vote No. So if we all want to play the game of semantics I am good.
Or you can just not attend that vote.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
You cannot pass the screening exam unless you answer all the questions Yes. and you cannot participate unless you pass the screening exam. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
|
From GOOOH's FAQ. If this is truly how GOOOH feels, then it is not logical to REQUIRE agreement to 2 terms or less to participate. And notice they say "advocates", not "requires." (I added the red/bold for emphasis)
Does GOOOH advocate Congressional Term Limits?
This is a hard one. The short answer is "Yes, from a practical standpoint, but No from a theoretical standpoint". The best explanation we can give is that Term Limits are "a bad idea whose time has come" - meaning that if the Legislative branch were working as intended we would not be advocating that Representatives serve limited terms. Drastic measures are in order to remove the entrenched professional politician culture in Congress and return to the original intent of citizen statesmen serving short terms in the House and then returning to public life. Currently, GOOOH advocates that Representatives should be limited to two 2-year terms (4 years total), but we encourage you to participate in Term Limit discussions in the Forum and voice your opinion as to what the ultimate GOOOH position on the matter should be. The Candidate Screening exam requirement concerning Term Limits will not be finalized until shortly before the Candidate Selection Sessions kick off, and will be based on member polling and Forum discussions - so there is still much time for this issue to be debated. However, recent polling of GOOOH members placed support for Term Limits at ~66%, which is consistent with national polls on the issue. Ultimately, we would love to give up our advocacy of Term Limits, but this will likely not occur until our House has been returned to its rightful ownership.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
You would think that some of you Term Limits people would have realized that the debate is starting. Let’s see what kind of debate comes out of this. Maybe some of the facts might change my mind on the subject. Four Republican senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit senators to no more than two six-year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two-year terms. To become law, the amendment must be approved by two-thirds majorities of both the Senate and House, and by three-fourths of the states. Senators Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas, and Sam Brownback, Kansas, are the co-sponsors. By the way Kay Bailey Hutchinson ran on a promise of Term Limits and she has been in there 16 years. A corrupt Texan never thought it could happen? no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
Steve you said on the phone that GOOOH and its leadership is not based in TX. Farther you said that members of the Question Committee were not looking at this from a TX perspective. I would like to refute both claims. Founders- I would expect these people to be based in TX Tim Cox –Liberty Hill, TX Chandar Kamalanathan –Austin, TX Eric Wooten - Georgetown, TX Steve Cox – Unstated Other Founding Members Chris Ramirez – Cedar Park, Texas. Bogdan Odulinski – Unstated Reva Tolliver – Atlanta Georgia. Jay Schutawie - Austin, Texas. Brad Hill –Austin Kannan Kaliyur – (Austin-based entrepreneur organization). So Austin? Micah Wiseley –Pflugerville, TX Kent Nagase –Cedar Park, TX So 13 Founders/Co-founders 9 are from Texas 1 is not 2 are unstated. Question Committee Wade Strong (expires Nov 10) - Austin. . Shawn Roberts (expires Nov 10) - Liberty Hill, TX Steve Armbruster (expires Aug 10) - Austin, Texas. Roger Bjork (expires Jun 10) - Round Rock, Texas. Renee Glazer (expires Apr 10) - The Woodlands, Texas Elton Wolter (expires Feb 10) - Houston Texas. Kathryn Wilson (expires Dec 09) - Liberty Hill, Texas. 100% of the committee that designed the screening exam is from Texas. You really see this as a representation of the people of America as a whole? I told you if you ban decent then you’re going to get 90%+ support for sure. You need to expand your thinking. I am not saying I am in the majority I am saying I have ideas that should be part of the debate. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
What I would look to be fair. Each state having more than 50 people registered should have one or two delegates on any committee that is formed from the national GOOOH. The questions committee could met online and then come to some kind of consensus about what should or should not be on the Screening Exam and the Candidate Questionnaire bring their recommendations to the group as a whole. The committee should require a 66% agreement on any question on the Screening Exam and 51% agreement on the Candidate Questionnaire. Then the group as a whole could ratify or discard with recommendations what the committee has presented. Again I would want GOOOH as a whole to ratify with 66% of the vote. This is not a short process, but the outcome would be a consensus of the GOOOH party with the rights of the minority protected. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/28/2009
Posts: 190
|
Ya know, bboyer, I didn't think I would agree with you on much. What you propose seems reasonable. I would suggest that each state with less than 50 active members be given one delegate, and each state with 50 or more be given 2. I say "active" because someone can sign up and just walk away, and never engage in discussion. This might largely rely an honor system, or GOOOH could require that each state group meet once a month and collect signatures. I would suggest using the honor system until there is reason to expect dishonesty. Before the committee starts voting to change things, there should be a minimum of 20 people so that there can be views from several states. My 1 1/2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
I was thinking more along the lines of a state not being recognized until it had 50+ members. At this point it would have 1 vote. If any given state cannot get 50 members then someone has not taken the bull by the horns so to speak. A state would not be fully recognized until it had 1,000 members. I mean fair is fair. I would not want Michigan with me and two other people deciding for Texas with 10,000 anymore then I would want Texas with 10,000 telling Michigan with 1,000 what I had to do and have no voice in the matter. At this point 1,000 people some kind of State delegation needs to be determined. Maybe not this time around as it would be too hard to get it all done, but in 2012 the Candidate Questionnaire might even be different from state to state as the national GOOOH (We do need to change this name. Had three people this weekend tell me they were not going to get on board with a negative campaign. They were all family.) Starts to relinquish some control down to the state level. Then each state for themselves would need to design a system to move control down to the local level. I would be interested in what GOOOH had planned to move the power down to local control. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 283
Location: League City, Texas
|
You can tell them a name change will be coming, but it will be closer to when we reach 500,000. Preston Tullos GOOOH Texas State Coordinator goooh.tx@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/28/2009
Posts: 190
|
Heh, for the second time today I am intrigued by you, bboyer. You want to exclude people from participating? As long as the state has a group of people willing to put for the effort, and who will be available for contact by local people interested in GOOOH, they should be given a voice in the system. Once they get 1000 active member in the state, giving them a second person seems like a good reward. As far as the name goes, GOOOH seems more like a positive message than a negative one to me. It is a message to those in the House, from the people they "represent". It is telling them that this is our House and we want it back. My 1 1/2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
They would not be excluded. The questions would have to be ratified by membership as a whole. They would have a voice. Just not on the committee. They would also have a resolution to get a larger voice. This would be limiting a voice based on process not ideology. I have no way to change by beliefs that Term Limits will not work other than to lie about it and even then I should be BANNED. I do have a way to get 50 people in the state of Michigan to sign onto GOOOH. I believe these numbers are very very low and can be achieved quickly. So lets compare this to the smell test we applied to the 30 day voting restriction. Process orientated- Yes it does not restrict anyone for any reason other than an event. It will also affect everyone equally. Necessary to prevent fraud or abuse- Yes I would believe that a group of 50 or less would be incredibility over represented on the committee. Let’s say I get 10 people in the state of Michigan by the time this committee is formed and Texas has 10,000. The factor would be 1 to 10 compared to 1 in 5,000. Known event- Yes I have the opportunity to know that if I do not have 50 people in my state I will not have representation on the committee. Likewise I know that I will when I have achieved this stated goal. Not overly restrictive- I do not believe the 50 person rule is overly restrictive. I probably have 50+ friends and family members that would join let alone statewide. If you believe that it is overly restrictive then let’s hear your argument. Just a guess if I told you to GET OUT OF MY HOUSE! I would think you would see this as a negative. The statement itself is not for anything. The result might be, but these days most people do not look past their first impression of anything. Term Limits is a great example of this. People see that it will get the corrupt politicians out of the House of Representitives (and it will!). They just do not look past that to see that you’re not ending the corruption though you’re just shifting it around. Under Term Limits anyone that is organized will have more power. Unions, Parties, Special Interest. What you will have are disposable Congressmen just like the administration is doing now. Opps you figured out that this guy is a Marxist well we will just get him out of here then NEXT! Unions, Parties, and Special Interest have the organization in place to just rifle up 10 people in a row that will all tow the line regardless of their beliefs. Will a few patriots get through sure, but not compared to the 400 that are part of the inherent machine. The people will then go back to sleep knowing that lifelong corrupt politicians have been put out as a thing of the past. Nothing will change, but the faces. They are going to give you Term Limits as a sleeping pill while they keep their power structure intact. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
The reason I chose the 50 is that what if we put the Committee in place then someone in Iowa joins GOOOH. They by the simple fact that they joined would be put on the Committee for a year. Anyone joining after would just have to deal with the fact that someone simply got there first. If you wait until at least 50 you would have a pool to draw a committee member from. Yes anyone that joined after would not have a chance at it, but at least an entire state would have a member that represented more than one persons view. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
|
Look were getting away from the debate again. I know it is my fault. I just would love to move on and starting making this system work. I have ideas, but for now I have to hold them in check as I am not even a member of GOOOH. I need to know I am not going to be BANNED because of my beliefs before I can jump whole hog into this thing and start getting members in Michigan and the surrounding states. I mean I brought this up before, but as it stands we cannot have military members in GOOOH. My brother could not come to the the Candidate Selection Sessions which is what GOOOH “ IS_AND_ONLY_IS” because he cannot run for office while under contract with the US government. Do we really want that? So I started asking about the Candidate Selector. I would like to start helping define that role rather than sit here day after day and complain about being BANNNED, but until I get this issue resolved I do not see much point in dealing with the rest. no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
|
bboyer9052 wrote:
Term Limits is a great example of this. People see that it will get the corrupt politicians out of the House of Representitives (and it will!). They just do not look past that to see that you’re not ending the corruption though you’re just shifting it around. Under Term Limits anyone that is organized will have more power. Unions, Parties, Special Interest. What you will have are disposable Congressmen just like the administration is doing now. Opps you figured out that this guy is a Marxist well we will just get him out of here then NEXT! Unions, Parties, and Special Interest have the organization in place to just rifle up 10 people in a row that will all tow the line regardless of their beliefs. Will a few patriots get through sure, but not compared to the 400 that are part of the inherent machine. The people will then go back to sleep knowing that lifelong corrupt politicians have been put out as a thing of the past. Nothing will change, but the faces.
They are going to give you Term Limits as a sleeping pill while they keep their power structure intact.
Great point, this is exactly what I mean in my other posts when I talk about "unintended consequences." Term Limits will return SOME of the power to the people, but it will simply SHIFT the rest of the power to someone else. Take campaign finance reform - did it get money out of politics? Not on your life! It SHIFTED some money (and power) from the parties to groups like moveon.org and George Sorros - an unintended consequence.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
|
bboyer9052 wrote:Look were getting away from the debate again. I know it is my fault. I just would love to move on and starting making this system work. I have ideas, but for now I have to hold them in check as I am not even a member of GOOOH. I need to know I am not going to be BANNED because of my beliefs before I can jump whole hog into this thing and start getting members in Michigan and the surrounding states.
I mean I brought this up before, but as it stands we cannot have military members in GOOOH. My brother could not come to the the Candidate Selection Sessions which is what GOOOH “ IS_AND_ONLY_IS” because he cannot run for office while under contract with the US government. Do we really want that? So I started asking about the Candidate Selector. I would like to start helping define that role rather than sit here day after day and complain about being BANNNED, but until I get this issue resolved I do not see much point in dealing with the rest.
I feel the same. I'm ready to start distributing flyers and promoting it, but not if I won't be able to participate. And I seriously doubt that these discussions alone will change anything. I still can't get anyone to answer my idea of 2 terms on, 2 terms off, able to run again as an alternative to 2 terms and gone forever. And no one has responded to my question about HOW they poll the members - if you just ask about support for term limits - slam dunk, you have a clear majority. But if you ask about 2 term limits done forever vs. an alternative that is more flexible, maybe there will be a change in what people think of the original idea. So I guess we'll keep posting and hope someone listens and makes some changes.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
|
So the discussion on this thread is if I MUST support 2 terms or less in order to participate, then I found this in the "about us" section:
Question Committee
The Question Committee is responsible for evaluating suggested changes to the Candidate Questionnaire and the Screening Exam. Committee members serve terms of varying length, and will be considered for renewal when their terms expire along with those who have volunteered to serve. Our intention is to keep a mix of experienced and new members on the Committee.
No term limits here, and a mix of experience and new members is valued.
So it is possible that GOOOH people not subject to term limts can block me from participating for not sharing their narrow view of term limits placed on others.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
Please go back and reread the MANY posts in which I explain that Term Limit support is part of the Candidate Screening Exam because GOOOH MEMBERS said they wanted it to be a prerequisite for participating in the Candidate Selection Sessions... edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
|
edub wrote:Please go back and reread the MANY posts in which I explain that Term Limit support is part of the Candidate Screening Exam because GOOOH MEMBERS said they wanted it to be a prerequisite for participating in the Candidate Selection Sessions... But did they all say "2 terms and never serve again"? Just saying there is support for term limits is NOT the same thing as saying GOOOH members all want this particular type of term limit. I'm not trying to get rid of term limits from GOOOH, just trying to add some flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
Here is the exact wording of the survey we ran for over 6 months, with all Members able to vote: Question #6: Do you agree that supporting term limits should be mandatory for all GOOOH participants? Yes/No Question #7: Do you agree that two terms (4 years total) is the appropriate limit on terms? Yes/No edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
BTW, the overwhelming answer was "Yes" to both questions. I can't remember the exact stats, but well over 66% for each... edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Guest (2)
|
