GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
Home Learn Discuss Act Donate Media Store
Skip Navigation Links  [ SIGN IN OR JOIN NOW ]
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics |

7 Pages «<4567>
Suggested Questions for Inclusion Options
JenniVera
#101 Posted : Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:59:39 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 6/25/2009
Posts: 7
cayla wrote:
I feel they must pass the following questions prior to even considering them for office.

Do you promise to only vote in favor of laws in which you actually have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to enact?

Do you know what powers the constitution has granted congress and what powers it has not? Please list them.


Here are the answers:

Powers given:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Powers denied: anything and everything not listed above (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.)

I'd like to speak up in favor of organizing the questionnaire by power of Congress, as suggested by others in this topic.
ryknow23
#102 Posted : Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:42:20 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/8/2009
Posts: 5
I would like to see questions regarding whether a candidate would vote for the elimination of perks that Congress gets and that the American people do not. They should be like us and not get extra benefits such as taxpayer subsidized health insurance and life insurance, free prime parking at airports in the DC area, voting for their own salary, gifts from lobbyists, unfailing pensions that all Americans envy, etc.

According to http://dcrepublican.com/...onal-perks-you-pay-for/ did you know that if a member of Congress wanted a prime ticket to a sold-out event, he could still get that ticket from lobbyists he’s close with, as long as the face value of the ticket is reimbursed by the member. However, this money doesn’t have to come from the member’s pocket, but instead can come from the usually deep campaign account, which usually contains money from lobbyists and their associated PACs.

How about the following perks from the same article?

* Comfortable salaries that are often determined through legislative sleight-of-hand. Contrary to the arguments of many Washington “insiders,” the cost of living has rarely eroded the historical value of lawmakers’ pay, which on a constant-dollar basis is hovering near the postwar high.
* Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives. Taxpayers directly cover at least 80 percent of this costly plan. Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer.
* Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers.
* Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, “junkets” are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.
* A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.
* The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.
* An office staff that performs “constituent services” and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for “favors” that can be returned only at election time.
* Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens — all crafted by lawmakers themselves.

Makes you sick and willing to throw the bums out but make sure the next batch is willing to dump these perks.

Thanks,

Rick

ameara
#103 Posted : Sunday, March 07, 2010 4:36:13 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/7/2010
Posts: 2
After working as a legal secretary for a personal injury firm in the state of Florida, it was eye opening as to how much abuse goes on in the system.

There were few legitimate cases.

Most were for the $10,000 limit on auto insurance policies. Many clients had several cases going at once and would settle for the $10,000.00. 30% to the Chiropractors, 30% to the attorneys, plus their paperwork cost ($1.00) per page, and the rest to the client.

Many times the Chiro's would give up their take knowing many more cases were coming their way. At Christmas time their were untold gifts, luncheons, dinners, sponsored by the above.

When there was a legitimate case, the firm would hang on to the money until the client was absolutely loosing their mind. I use to have to beg to get $5000.00 out at a time.

Supposedly it was held in escrow, but I doubt it.

The owner of the firm tried to run for Congress and lost.

This was a huge, well known firm. The owners were greedy and very skimpy with pay for their employees. We were on time clocks. Yet every day the employer pulled up in a different exotic sports car. In the end he treated his Lawyers like crap too. Fired them all along with their Secretaries.

What is the point of this post? Someone running for us must have experience in the business world, must not be influenced by anyone, and ready to be ripped to shreds....

I have served as the president of a Condo association, took over some one who resigned. I was furious funds had been wasted and had as much done as I could have.

So anyway, would love to see someone without an agenda serve for us in Florida.













Adoniah
#104 Posted : Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:31:57 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/9/2010
Posts: 1
Will you vote for any Bill that has "Pork" tagged onto it or any special interest languge added to it that has nothing to to with the actual Bill?
billgow
#105 Posted : Saturday, March 13, 2010 5:50:12 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/13/2010
Posts: 7
Would you support a change in the tax code along the lines of this;

Change to the tax code (which ever one we end up with) that would allow for a business tax deduction for the number of employees on the payroll.

For example, let’s say we impose a national tax on businesses at 25% but they pay zero taxes on employees. Instead, they receive a 50% tax credit against their business liability for the salary of each employee kept on the payroll during that tax year. The effect will be a person making $50,000 a year will actually only cost the company $25,000.
JYW Enterprise
#106 Posted : Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:53:11 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/30/2010
Posts: 4
I recently was informed about and directed to the GOOOH website. I have watched several of the videos and listened to the Dennis Miller interview.

The folklore some years from today will be of Tim's son telling Tim to do something. This will be compared to the stories of George Washington and the cherry tree.

But to return to the topic of this forum thread, "Suggested Questions for Inclusion", I believe my review of this section has left me a bit disenfranchised. I saw this as a party of the People, all people, unifying under the values and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.

Instead what I find is much of what I see on the right. As a person who has never fully subscribed to either party, nor any party, but has been a practitioner of the "lesser of two evils" principle, was really hoping to see a much more concentrated effort on upholding the constitution.

We defeat poverty through encouragement, expectation and enthusiasm. We teach the golden rule. We spread the American Dream as a contagion, which needs to infect every American. We steer away from separatism and campaign on ideas and values which are common for all Americans.

The one true question which needs to be asked of all candidates, and in fact is part of the oath of all candidates, but never upheld, is:

"Will you cast your vote with the truest of conviction and in complete alignment with the constitution?"

Additional questions may be in clarifying the constitution with several amendments for term limits, legislative procedure (e.g. a single bill has one topic: Health care and college loans do not fal under the same one), public service amendment (work for the government does not provide pensions for elected, appointed or employees of the government), elected, appointed and employed personnel of the government earn the median income of their elected body (e.g. President earns median income of US, whereas a House Rep earns the median of his/her district), and others.

If a law falls outside the powers of the federal government, vote "NO".

I sincerely hope, we understand this should not be another conservative movement, but rather a revival of a movement when it was America versus England.

My two cents...
Slowmont
#107 Posted : Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:15:05 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/10/2010
Posts: 16
JYW Enterprise wrote:
The one true question which needs to be asked of all candidates, and in fact is part of the oath of all candidates, but never upheld, is:

"Will you cast your vote with the truest of conviction and in complete alignment with the constitution?"....

If a law falls outside the powers of the federal government, vote "NO".
Thank you for bringing up so important a point your first post. I hope that it is not your last.

I have long seen the failure to pin candidates down on the point of honoring their oath of office as a major glitch in the GOOOH process, but I've not taken the time to voice that concern as you have. And, I have to wonder how many others share our concern?

It is my strong conviction that the future of America and the freedoms we've known require a return to honoring the Constitution. Otherwise we'll continue to spiral downward into a socialist democracy. The Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic, but we have allowed our representatives in Washington to act as accomplices in turning it into a government of bureaucracy by their perjury.

I will be on the ballot in TN as an independent candidate for Congress and as a Constitutionalist. My campaign is based on proclaiming the need to hold those in D.C. accountable to the oath they took. If a man's word is no good in so important a regard, how can he be trusted in any other?

With all the intricate questioning and severe penalties for perjury incorporated in the process here, I see the lack of any reference to honoring one's oath to uphold the Constitution as a glaring omission. Moreover, if each district is left to choose their own candidate with no regard for Constitutional considerations, then GOOOH will be dishonoring that great document by its silence.

I would love to hear other's opinion on this, including the leadership here, as I'm convinced that the future of America will be decided by what we do with the Constitution. I know that I cannot put my heart into GOOH unless this flaw is remedied.
JYW Enterprise
#108 Posted : Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:41:47 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/30/2010
Posts: 4
Thank you for your kind words Slowmont.

Like, Tim Cox, I come from an technology background. I have been a programmer, programmer/analyst, system analyst, project coordinator and currently a project manager. I have worked for small businesses, S&P 300 companies, start-up ventures and non-profit organizations.

Tim's concept truly originates from a vision our founding Fathers. They saw politics, governing, as a process. Men (as a species) was merely suppose to operate it. Instead, we (career politicians) misinterpreted it, manipulated it and forced it to do our (again, career politicians) selfish bidding.

If this process does not, or cannot, enforce personal integrity to uphold the legal limits of the constitution, this process will not succeed. Those of the same mind as those who corrupted the original system of government, will eventually control this one as well.

But beyond this critical point of constitutionality, the idea of non-partisan and total inclusion is absolutely mandatory for the success of this process.

The only way to truly achieve this is to appeal to CORE needs of ALL Americans. If we continue to discuss "issues" as defined by each parties radical branches, we will polarize everyone.

When our voice, the American voice, is UNITED we are strong and "undefeatable", but when we become separatists, we defeat ourselves soundly.

Of the people, for the people and by the people...

Thank you Tim for your vision!

Another ante from me...
Rotorwash
#109 Posted : Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:04:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 6/26/2009
Posts: 284
Location: VA 3rd
Just maybe, if a GOOOH candidate were to win, the integrity would be higher. I have gone through several mock selections and the best person at my table each time gets much more trust from me than ANY career politician. I can only imagine the quality after two or more rounds.

Also, if upon winning the election and using the typical oath for the swearing in to office, I would not want to be the person that strays outside the constitution's lines with the wrath of 1,000 in my district reigning down on me!

Beyond that, what would you have GOOOH do to make you feel better about the candidate's constitutional reliability? Certainly it would be better than it is now, right?





Oath of Office for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:

Article VI of the Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.




The text of the Constitutional Oath is not written in the Constitution, but the current oath was enacted by Congress in 1862. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."




Oath for Access to Classified Information (House only)

Before a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may have access to classified information, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any classified information received in the course of my service with the House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Representatives or in accordance with its Rules."

Source: Clause 13, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives: the Code of Official Conduct.
sbtbill
#110 Posted : Sunday, April 04, 2010 5:04:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 265
I don't think we need tort reform. That is just a way of protecting big business from its mistakes.
usarespnsblty
#111 Posted : Saturday, April 17, 2010 1:40:03 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/16/2010
Posts: 12
Abortion.
There is a question of being legal at all times.
There is no question about abortion being illegal at all times...as it should be.

There is a question for IRV which lowers the percentage by which a candidate gets elected.

There is no question for raising the required percentage to 75% of the vote instead of 50+1%

1984 Reagan got 97% of the vote. Obama got 67% of the vote. Bush got less. Presidents politicians and legislation that can't get 75% of the vote need to be in office or be passed.

75% is a "C" grade...average. Why would you want a "D" or "F" grade President, Rep. Senator, or legislation?

donmalex
#112 Posted : Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:01:34 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 5/23/2010
Posts: 7
Tim ask me to include this in the forum. Below is the note I sent to Tim.

I ran across something that I would like you to present to the group that makes the final decision on what is included in the candidate questionnaire.


Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

Don Alexander
Houston, TX
832-443-5108
I am a blogger.
donmalex
#113 Posted : Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:02:38 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 5/23/2010
Posts: 7
Tim ask me to include this in the forum. Below is the note I sent to Tim.

I ran across something that I would like you to present to the group that makes the final decision on what is included in the candidate questionnaire.


Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

Don Alexander
Houston, TX
832-443-5108
I am a blogger.
donmalex
#114 Posted : Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:03:24 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 5/23/2010
Posts: 7
This does not need to be a constitutional amendment as congress can pass this as a law and should be passed with only this attachment. "This law can only be changed by the citizens of the United States by a vote in each state equal to 90% of the number of people that voted in the last presidential election; and should any one states vote be less than 90% the law would not be changed."
Curt21
#115 Posted : Sunday, February 13, 2011 6:58:10 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 2/13/2011
Posts: 1
Tim C wrote:
I am personally in favor of the end of lawyers chasing customers and medical advertisements!


Part of the pledge is not supporting Socialism, Communism or Fascism, and I think that telling people what they can and cannot talk about on TV would fall into this category.
jaws810
#116 Posted : Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:12:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/15/2009
Posts: 109
Curt21 wrote:
Tim C wrote:
I am personally in favor of the end of lawyers chasing customers and medical advertisements!


Part of the pledge is not supporting Socialism, Communism or Fascism, and I think that telling people what they can and cannot talk about on TV would fall into this category.


Well the lawyers are easy to deal with, just pass a law that forces the loser to pay all court costs, it will end frivolous law suits and and get insurance companies to settle most reasonable suits without going to court. Everybody wins, the court system is freed up, no more lawyers ads promoting law suits, insurance companies will be more likely to settle out of court which will decrease the time it takes for people to get paid as well as lower the cost of insurance.

As for the medical ads, they are necessary to let people know that new medication is available; however, the doctors should not be allowed to promote medication, they should only prescribe a new medication when older medications fail or are unavailable. Then the FDA should be restructured to reduce the cost of getting new drugs approved, so new drugs won't cost so much or take as long to get approved.
Politicians are like diapers and like diapers need to be changed frequently and for the same reason, after a while the begin to stink. GOOOH is potty training for congress, it gets rid of the diapers.
bill munson
#117 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:00:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 2/9/2011
Posts: 37
Quote:
Well the lawyers are easy to deal with, just pass a law that forces the loser to pay all court costs, it will end frivolous law suits and and get insurance companies to settle most reasonable suits without going to court. Everybody wins, the court system is freed up, no more lawyers ads promoting law suits, insurance companies will be more likely to settle out of court which will decrease the time it takes for people to get paid as well as lower the cost of insurance.



You are absolutly right. We get caught up in passing laws that really do nothing and say look what we did. Simple laws that have teeth is what we need. A good one would be something like this:

No federal tax or spending legislation introduced in the congress of the united states shall be signed into law before it is submitted to the individual states for approval by a two thirds majority vote of the people. Any law voted on by the people shall not be amended at any time or for any reason except it be submitted to the individual states for approval by a two thirds majority vote of the people. Any law contrary to this will be deemed to be superseded.

I think that would fix a few things.
JimboFromIrmo
#118 Posted : Saturday, March 05, 2011 11:38:02 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 2/28/2011
Posts: 3
Here are some quick "filter out the BS" type questions:

"I believe the best purpose of Government is to ensure everyone behaves the way we want them to (Agree/Disagree)."
(non-PC version: "I am an arrogant control freak who thinks the word "compromise" means you people have to learn to do what I tell you (A/D).")
(see Mike "The Huckster" Huckabee for an example)

"I believe the best purpose of Government is to take care of the unfortunate poor who have needs (A/D)."
(non-PC: "I am a worthless loser who can't be bothered to participate in Society in any meaningful way and insist that evil people with guns come to YOUR house and take from YOU so that I can still get fat without having to associate with greedy corporatist pigs (A/D)."
(see a guy named Moore who records leftist screed on film for an example)

"Strangers I meet tell me I have a sense of humor (A/D)."

Now stop laughing and read this:

Here's another simple one:
"I steadfastly hold, as my First Principles, exactly those First Principles espoused in the Constitution of the united States and the Declaration of Independence (Agree or Disagree)." (Do NOT enumerate, as the idea is to prove fluency, not just consensus)

If you'd allow discussion (say, 5 words or less) the next questions after that one could be:
"The two Founding Principles with which I have the most difficulty allowing OTHER PEOPLE to enjoy are:
1 _________
2 _________"
-and-
"The two Founding Principles for which I would gladly die anonymously in a hole in someone else's country are:
1 _________
2 _________"

More to follow... Glad we met!
Love
JimboFromIrmo
#119 Posted : Saturday, March 05, 2011 12:00:15 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 2/28/2011
Posts: 3
Full Disclosure:
For me, it's:
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Endowment of Rights
Jurisdiction/Scope of the Constitution itself
Liberty
Pursuit of Happiness.
RepLamoni
#120 Posted : Friday, April 01, 2011 8:16:00 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/31/2011
Posts: 2
joestrix wrote:
First let me say, I am all in favor of the basic concept of GOOOH, and my beliefs seem to be (for the most part) in line with the non-platform platform.

However, I think that we could attract significantly more members in a much shorter period of time if we narrowed our wish list on the first go around (2010).
How about the following in any order:

1. Border protection.
2. English only.
3. Repeal the 14th Amendment.(Retroactive to the 80's amnesty)
4. Absolutely no benefits for illegal aliens,or their offspring...NONE!
5. Harsh penalties for employers of the same.
6. Tort reform (loser pays?).
7. Complete disclosure of every donation, gift and/or perk to everyone occupying or running for every office from 5 years before through time in office.
8. No junkets whatsoever.
9. Leaving the UN and sending it to France.
10.No pork of any kind ever.
11.Ethics committees for all branches formed of randomly selected voters.
12.No bailouts or buyins period.

Any other ideas for a shortened wish list?


I went through and answered many of the questions. I too agree that there are too many things going on here. But I would like to see an area addressed for Congressional seats. I think the pay question for congress is ok except that as part of that a question should be that a governement building of appartments that resides next to the capital building be used to house all the congress. Let them walk to work. No car expenses and extravigant living expenses. Let them have a grocery store the same kind of health care the rest of us have. No more pension plan, if they really want a 401k plan they can choose that option. They should pay for all their expenses as any other citizen. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Utilities, etc. They should be able to get travel expenses to and from their district at a reasonable rate. Something like the 50 cents per mile given to business owners for tax purposes.

On another issue I believe our Constitution is an inspired document and when the oath of office is taken it should be viewed as a sacred covenant between the representative and our Creator. Many of the questions asked were in my opinion striving to correct wrongs done to that sacred document. I firmly support correcting those wrongs.

As to the marriage issue I am in favor of civil unions to grant rights to couples of same sex to be able to visit their partners in the hospital, etc. To me that is an issue of human dignity. I do oppose same sex marriage as it would degrade the institution set up by our Creator. Most gays I've spoken with don't care what it would be called as long as they had the dignity that married couples share whether it was called civil union or not. I believe that as long as the issue is not put behind us the leadership of alternative lifestyles will continue to push for gay marriage rights.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages «<4567>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.