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 |

12 Pages «<101112
Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions? Options
kelnozz
#221 Posted : Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:41:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46

[/quote]
Banning those who do not agree is a short sighted action. Think about this for a minute if you were to disagree with a particular rule at work should you be banned just for because you disagree or because you did not follow the rule that you disagree with. If you were to be banned from working just because you disagree you are being discriminated against and discrimination is a way of life that has caused many problems in this world.[/quote]


So by your way of thinking if I disagree with the rule about "Thou shalt not kill" and I am put in jail for doing so, then I am being discriminated against.
Rotorwash
#222 Posted : Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:39:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 6/26/2009
Posts: 284
Location: VA 3rd
No offense to the poster, but the previous explanation regarding work and discrimination is not accurate or effective.

When you work for another person they are paying you for certain desired behaviors. When an employee's behavior ceases to be desirable to the employer, the job often also ceases to exist for that individual. Vocal disagreements with the boss will get you canned, as well.

Work is a voluntary action, requiring an acceptance by both employee and employer. When the employee is not satisfied with the rules and conditions, that employee is free to find another employer. The employer "owns" the job....not the employee. The employer only has "jobs" when there are desired behaviors to be filled AND it is worth paying someone for those behaviors.

As for the charge of "discrimination"....darned right it is discrimination. People discriminate every day and the simple act of discrimination is not a bad thing. You do it every time you choose Skippy peanut butter over Jif BigGrin.

I just thought I should clear that up since I have seen this post or something similar several times now.

Back to the GOOOH process....it is what it is. The requirement could be changed, sure. I kind of like the situation like it is, personally. But if Mr. Cox and the others wanted to remove the requirement, I just think it would water down the process's integrity. That being said, GOOOH would still be a far cry better source of candidates than the parties.
kelnozz
#223 Posted : Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:03:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
Rotorwash wrote:


As for the charge of "discrimination"....darned right it is discrimination. People discriminate every day and the simple act of discrimination is not a bad thing. You do it every time you choose Skippy peanut butter over Jif


Absolutely right. Too many people use discrimination as a battering ram.
skstewart
#224 Posted : Friday, May 27, 2011 6:51:45 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 2
I've pondered this issue and read some (not all) of the post in this section.

This question does automatically eliminate some people, especially in Democratic leaning districts. Term limits tends to be a conservative issue. Since the purpose of GOOOH is to allow the voters of a district select a candidate that best represents their values, the more liberal leaning districts need to have potential candidates that may not agree with term limites.

Term limits are also a matter that must be voted on in the House. Thus, should be on the candidate questionnaire. Let the people in the district decide.
kelnozz
#225 Posted : Thursday, June 2, 2011 8:40:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
skstewart wrote:


This question does automatically eliminate some people, especially in Democratic leaning districts.


I don't think Goooh is worried about dem or repub. that is what makes this a non party and if we start worrying about it then others can ligitimatly use it against us. I know they will try any way they can.
just4given
#226 Posted : Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:23:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
I am all for term limits. However, I believe that the target here is too narrow. I believe all federal offices should have the same mandate as the office of the President. All terms should be reduced (senate) or increased (house) to four year terms. At this point, I would agree that two terms would be a fair limit.

Part of the rationale for my position with the House of Reps is the fact that a two-year term puts these candidates in perpetual campaign mode. They barely dig into their duties before the campaign trail beckons for the next election cycle. Essentially, they spend the final 35-40% of their term running in the next congressional race. Talk about limiting potential productivity. I believe the short terms actually handcuff potential productivity.

Steve
#227 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:20:51 PM
Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators

Joined: 6/22/2009
Posts: 71
Just hit the news. Rasmussen Reports just released poll results about Term Limits. The results might just surprise you.
Term Limit Poll
DTaft
#228 Posted : Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:51:04 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/27/2011
Posts: 2
Kel, I believe you are misunderstanding the question it is simply an are you for or against question. There is no right or wrong answer.

This question is just to get yourMellow opinion and your opinion in return would be considered by others as to whether or not you think alike.

It's not a matter of banning you from being able to be a candidate.

Doreen Taft

DTaft
#229 Posted : Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:59:33 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/27/2011
Posts: 2
I love the way ya'll are over thinking the simple reason for this question to be on the questionnaire.

No where does GOOOH say you would be banned from being a candidate if you voted for term limits. Nor does GOOOH say any where that you will be banned for voting against term limits.

These questions are for people to compare notes with members and then determine how close to them you think and so down the line it goes until everyone has picked a person who most represents all of their way of thinking.

Whether or not they are for or against term limits or any other question is not going to get them banned form being a candidate.

It's so simple your trying to make it complicated.Drool
Doreen Taft

just4given
#230 Posted : Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:24:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
skstewart wrote:
I've pondered this issue and read some (not all) of the post in this section.

This question does automatically eliminate some people, especially in Democratic leaning districts. Term limits tends to be a conservative issue. Since the purpose of GOOOH is to allow the voters of a district select a candidate that best represents their values, the more liberal leaning districts need to have potential candidates that may not agree with term limites.

Term limits are also a matter that must be voted on in the House. Thus, should be on the candidate questionnaire. Let the people in the district decide.


I disagree. There are careeer politicians on both sides of the aisle. Politics is not meant to be a lifelong profession. It is meant to be a short term act of service. When it becomes a profession, as it has, the concern becomes saving job over serving country.
Margo Armistead
#231 Posted : Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:22:42 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 2
"Should term limits be required to participate...". No, not required, although I support term limits. Too many elected officials forget their title is 'REPRESENTATIVE". As soon as they arrive in DC, their actions speak as an EMPLOYEE of the government.
wwilkins
#232 Posted : Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:55:19 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 12/21/2011
Posts: 1
I would be willing to go for a term limit of 12 years for either camber and no re-elect period. If you cannot get the peoples work done in 12 years time to get out and let someone else try.
RedXIII
#233 Posted : Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:21:07 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/3/2009
Posts: 25
The affect of NO Term Limits is apparant today with the out of control special interest group and lobbist controlling every decision by congress. Current drive to go green is pushed by lobbists against coal, oil, gas, and created the Solyndra scandel of only half a billion dollars.
Furthermore, the stench of working beyond the principle of term limits is apparent in the moratoriums imposed on coal and oil usage. While giving competitive advantage and taxpayer money to foreign entities to develop these natural resources. Perry (a lifer politician) running for President, has the correct call when saying, "eliminate the Dept. of Energy..." federal gov't should not be controlling states rights and shrinking control over states is a must. Term Limits does that.

Term Limits should be a part of every step of gov't local, state, and federal as well as the executive, legislative, and judicial systems. This will help in short-term to have candidates mandates or objectives to be elected on that cause and not special interest. What are you going to perform if elected? cut jobs? increase taxes? balance budget? print money constant at the fed? take bribes? pust to destroy the fabric of our liberty? create debt for generations to pay? fight for gun restrictions? put citizens in jail for free speech?

What do you stand for and what do you want to accomplish? Get in Get it done and Let the next guy bring forth his ideas...

If Goooh is not for term limits then they are the same as other parties in gov't which think politicians are a job to command over people instead they forget the gov't is of the people by the people meant to stand for states rights, peoples rights and best interest. Not corporate special interest and Not foreign entities.

While term limits is just a part of the overall system you have to ask yourself why you even want to take the peoples money and rule over them making a mockery of them. Do social systems have a place in our society today? Have generations of free handouts taken control and the real meaning of those systems, have they run it's course and being abused by millions? do you keep feeding the beast and make the people a slave of the gov't?

Get real!!! being a politician is not just a job and should be regulated as not to be abused by candidates wishing to serve their interest instead of the interest of the people in their districts.

Ask yourself??? Do I want to improve the way of life for those that elect me or Do I want to rule over the people for self motivated prestige?

Do I want to take their money daily and throughout retirement?

This is another subject retirement for politicians!!! What? work 5 years 2 terms and receive retirement? Get out and get a job and stop wasting the people's tax dollars...serve one term as President and receive millions the rest of your life...

NO LIFER POLITICIANS!!! TERM LIMITS!!! NO RETIREMENTS!!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
12 Pages «<101112
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.