I agree about the link and I would not want to be associated with the KKK. As for the term limits, we have representitives and senators that have been in the same office for so long that we have come to think of the seat as belonging to them or in the case of the kennedy seat as a family seat. Another kennedy was asked to fill the seat and I am not sure if she was qualified or not. The simple fact that she was a Kennedy was good enough.
In my understanding the goooh people want to limit the number of terms and I think that allowing a cooling off period would be a good thing. Let them go back to there home state to get re-aquainted with there own people. Case in point and I may be wrong, Forgive me in advance; the Wa. 5th district has three ladies representing us in Wa. and only one maintaines offices in the state. Sad is it not?
Goooh is not perfect but give it a chance please. You can always vote for someone else in the end

Question #2 needs to go.

1) Nowhere in the Constitution is any education requirement established to be eligible for office
2) A piece of paper, HS diploma or otherwise, doesn't mean you have a brain. If you believe this you are playing right into the Statists' hands.
3) With few exceptions, this rule ensures that candidates will have been educated by the Great Provider...the State. The exception is private schooling, but that's the exception, not the rule.

The way I understand it, these are just questions that require you to state your opinion and nothing more. Others can get an idea of where you stand and hold you to that position. Right or wrong it only matters if you lie. I may be wrong but the only question that requires anything is that you don't lie.
If what you do once elected is un-constitutional or not good for the people there are others right beside you to tell you that and if you continue, you are obligated to step down.
As long as we come to this forum with negative input we are showing others that we are not all on the same page and that only weakens our cause. We should suggest changes, yes, but lets come together and reassure newbies that this is the right thing to do. Answer their questions, yes, address their concerns, yes, but also reinforce the idea that this is not perfect, but it is better than what we have now. At present we are trying to get their opinion, they will be controlled by we the people.
Rotorwash said it best"...I would just as soon know where they stand on constitutional AND nonconstitutional issues alike."

I don't like this question either - the ACLU fights for religious liberty, freedom of speech, press, assembly - there may be some things they fight for the founders & members of GOOOH don't agree with, but you'd be better off being more specific than trying to corral it all under the ACLU. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - and they baby isn't the ACLU - its the people who are potential members who start to see partisan politics in a question like that, and from a group that is supposedly non-partisan.

(YES, I'm repeating myself in case you missed my response on the last comment about this question)

Seriously??? Equating the ACLU with the KKK? That shows a lack of grounding in reality. I can not support this group with that wording in place.

I am also concerned that there could be a right wing, anti-gay, anti-choice or "christian conservative" bias here as well. That and ACLU bashing tend to go together. Too bad folks.