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 «<7891011>»
Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions? Options
TexasTornado
#161 Posted : Tuesday, January 12, 2010 5:57:13 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/8/2010
Posts: 5
C'mon guys, bring it up a notch. It wasn't my intention to start anything other than a discussion on the merits of my post. I just want Tim or any other founders to address the points in my post in an honest manner.

Gotta leave to go to work at my second job to help pay for all the friggin' TAXES I have been blessed with. I wouldn't want Nebraska to go without its $100 million Medicare bribe, er, payment promised in the Healthcare bill or Mary Landrieu's $300 million for Louisiana...
John Magee
#162 Posted : Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:25:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 237
Location: Walkertown, NC
TexasTornado wrote:
C'mon guys, bring it up a notch. It wasn't my intention to start anything other than a discussion on the merits of my post. I just want Tim or any other founders to address the points in my post in an honest manner.

Gotta leave to go to work at my second job to help pay for all the friggin' TAXES I have been blessed with. I wouldn't want Nebraska to go without its $100 million Medicare bribe, er, payment promised in the Healthcare bill or Mary Landrieu's $300 million for Louisiana...


TT, I am sorry, I just get so fired-up about politics.

I have issues with people when I calmly ask them a question about something and they either don't answer it, or they turn it around saying that I don't know what I'm talking about so "there's no point in replying" to the question... Or when they don't like my answer to one of their questions so they again say things like "you don't know what you're talking about" just because I don't see things their way.

There are so many problems in DC that I would like to be part of the team to solve, but there are some people who seem to think that only those who agree 100% with their narrow view should be allowed to participate in their plans.
Patriotic American who is disgusted with the "lifetime" career politicians who lie during the election races making promises that they know they never plan to keep.
Limitedgovt
#163 Posted : Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:26:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
Kaptain Karl wrote:
If you are in "99% agreement" why do you spend over 80% of your posts challenging a 1% variance?

- KK


Because that 1% variance is blocking us from getting involved at the candidate level - we cannot be a candidate AND we cannot participate in picking the candidates.

If your position is so strong and so broadly supported, you have nothing to fear by at least letting us participate in the candidate selection process. If I am 1 of 1000 GOOOH participants in my district to not agree with term limits, there is almost no chance of the other 999 deciding I am the best candidate.
TexasTornado
#164 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:18:26 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/8/2010
Posts: 5
I had hoped some of our "pro-term limits" members would have considered the points in my earlier post and given me their thoughts. Too bad they didn't because I had really hoped that GOOOH was the answer to my frustration with today's Congress.

I think Limitedgovt had the "Post of the Month" when he/she said
Quote:
If your position is so strong and so broadly supported, you have nothing to fear by at least letting us participate in the candidate selection process. If I am 1 of 1000 GOOOH participants in my district to not agree with term limits, there is almost no chance of the other 999 deciding I am the best candidate.

The other thing that is truly annoying is that if you don't agree 100% with "the masses", you cannot participate in this great experiment. That's not how I was raised. Not considering others' reasonable points of view makes GOOOH exclusionary.

If GOOOH ever hopes to be "it", they are going to have to appeal to lots of voters by having a larger scope. Remember, GOOOH is supposed to be a selection process, not a political party. A candidate's position on term limits is a SELECTION criterion. Making term limits mandatory creates a political platform. That stance makes GOOOH a political party.

I guess for now, I and my like-minded friends will have to sit on the sidelines until GOOOH's self-imposed term limits are relaxed or eliminated. I won't put a lot of time, energy, or money toward a movement that will continually chop itself off at the knees every 2 years.

I want to thank Tim for the phenomenal job he is doing. If anyone has taken the time to look at his schedule, you will realize he has the drive to get this done. However, if he doesn't stop, LISTEN, and debate us every once in a while, he risks alienating his base.
Limitedgovt
#165 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:31:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
Limitedgovt wrote:
Kaptain Karl wrote:
If you are in "99% agreement" why do you spend over 80% of your posts challenging a 1% variance?

- KK


Because that 1% variance is blocking us from getting involved at the candidate level - we cannot be a candidate AND we cannot participate in picking the candidates.

If your position is so strong and so broadly supported, you have nothing to fear by at least letting us participate in the candidate selection process. If I am 1 of 1000 GOOOH participants in my district to not agree with term limits, there is almost no chance of the other 999 deciding I am the best candidate.


I'm not sure why this was deleted by the moderator. When I undeleted it, the reason given was "off topic." This thread is "Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions?" I can't see where my response is off that topic.
Limitedgovt
#166 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:05:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
I'VE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION!!!!! Oh, you're all going to love this one, I can't wait to hear your responses. Laugh

In each district allow no more than 10% of the initial population of candidate selection participants to be anti-term-limits (ATL).

If the number of ATL persons is greater than 10%, ATL participants will be decided by a lottery.

IF (and this is a BIG IF) an ATL becomes the nominee for a particular district, though not bound to vote for a constitutional amendment, the nominee would be required to step down after 2 terms (assuming they serve 2 terms).

This would open up the possibility for us to participate without compromising our beliefs and would allow GOOOH to continue pursuing term limits with a pretty good insurance policy that the vast majority of its candidates will be pro-term-limits.

Now, I'm sure most of you are either dismissing this completely right now, or really laughing at me, but I do have a serious question for all of you who are 110% dedicated to 2 terms or less in the Constitution:

If GOOOH adopted such a plan, would it diminish your enthusiasm? Would it cause you to promote GOOOH less? Would you be deeply disappointed and feel sold out?

(if you respond that there are so few of us ATL that there is no reason to make such an accomadation, then you prove my point that it is OK to let us play, so please actually evaluate the idea)

Can't we all just get along???? LOL
GO
#167 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:19:20 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/16/2009
Posts: 3
Personally I think PTL or pro term limits candidates should be the only candidates allowed. Why get involved with people (candidates) who seek to debate this issue ad nauseum here or in caucuses? It would seem to be a waste of time. No offense but people are needed in office as public servants; people pursuing political careers need not apply. JMHO
Limitedgovt
#168 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:27:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
GO wrote:
Personally I think PTL or pro term limits candidates should be the only candidates allowed. Why get involved with people (candidates) who seek to debate this issue ad nauseum here or in caucuses? It would seem to be a waste of time. No offense but people are needed in office as public servants; people pursuing political careers need not apply. JMHO


Don't you think that's quite a leap to imply that someone who does not agree with GOOOH's narrow term limit view can't be a public servant??
John Magee
#169 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:50:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 237
Location: Walkertown, NC
Limitedgovt wrote:
GO wrote:
Personally I think PTL or pro term limits candidates should be the only candidates allowed. Why get involved with people (candidates) who seek to debate this issue ad nauseum here or in caucuses? It would seem to be a waste of time. No offense but people are needed in office as public servants; people pursuing political careers need not apply. JMHO


Don't you think that's quite a leap to imply that someone who does not agree with GOOOH's narrow term limit view can't be a public servant??


I think it's quite a leap to automatically equate us (those who disagree with forced term limits) with the existing "lifetime career" politicians.

If WE wanted to be like THEM, would WE be HERE in the first place? NO!

Have we at ANY POINT said we were looking for lifetime careers? NO, absolutely NOT!

HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION ABOUT US!

Why don't you pay attention to what we post and use LOGICAL DEBATE to show your disagreement with our point of view. Looks to me like you can't use LOGIC to discuss it because you are reacting with EMOTIONS.
Patriotic American who is disgusted with the "lifetime" career politicians who lie during the election races making promises that they know they never plan to keep.
John Magee
#170 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:58:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 237
Location: Walkertown, NC
Limitedgovt wrote:
Limitedgovt wrote:
Kaptain Karl wrote:
If you are in "99% agreement" why do you spend over 80% of your posts challenging a 1% variance?

- KK


Because that 1% variance is blocking us from getting involved at the candidate level - we cannot be a candidate AND we cannot participate in picking the candidates.

If your position is so strong and so broadly supported, you have nothing to fear by at least letting us participate in the candidate selection process. If I am 1 of 1000 GOOOH participants in my district to not agree with term limits, there is almost no chance of the other 999 deciding I am the best candidate.


I'm not sure why this was deleted by the moderator. When I undeleted it, the reason given was "off topic." This thread is "Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions?" I can't see where my response is off that topic.


Limited, I see that two of my recent posts (which were in reference to statements made to my by Kaptain Karl, and his posts that I was responding to) are no longer readable in this thread, and are flagged as "off topic".

Edub, how is it "off topic" when I was defending myself against statements made by Kaptain Karl? The discussion in those posts revolved around the core of this thread: term limits.

What happened to Freedom of Speech? Where did those posts go "off topic"?
Patriotic American who is disgusted with the "lifetime" career politicians who lie during the election races making promises that they know they never plan to keep.
Limitedgovt
#171 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:05:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
edub felt like it was turning into bickering, therefore not staying on topic. In the words of several posters on here, "I disagree" but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. I'm just hoping my latest proposal generates some good, thoughtful discussion.
Kaptain Karl
#172 Posted : Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:37:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups:

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 190
Location: Colorado
Limitedgovt wrote:
Because that 1% variance is blocking us from getting involved at the candidate level - we cannot be a candidate AND we cannot participate in picking the candidates.
This is getting tedious. When Limits is THE platform of GOOOH, why would anyone even be on the forum if they were opposed to them?

Quote:
If your position is so strong and so broadly supported, you have nothing to fear by at least letting us participate in the candidate selection process. If I am 1 of 1000 GOOOH participants in my district to not agree with term limits, there is almost no chance of the other 999 deciding I am the best candidate.
Hmm. You are making the emotional appeal of challenging us as fearful? Interesting tactic....

I suspect you have exaggerated the ratio, but I cannot figure out why those who are opposed to Limits are so consistently portraying themselves as "victims" on this forum. It makes no sense.... You come to a site which supports Limits and spend an inordinate amount of time and posts complaining about the biggest defining trait of GOOOH? (I know! Why don't you join the NRA and rant against gun ownership on their forum? Go join the Democrat party and promote only Republicans.)




TexasTornado wrote:
The other thing that is truly annoying is that if you don't agree 100% with "the masses", you cannot participate in this great experiment.
Huh? If "the masses" were for Limits GOOOH probably wouldn't exist. GOOOH members -- at the moment -- represent a distinct minority. (IOW, your premise is inaccurate.)

Quote:
Not considering others' reasonable points of view makes GOOOH exclusionary.
There's a difference between being "selective" and being "exclusionary" or "banning" others. If you (writing generally) are not for Limits you are self-selecting to be a bit different than GOOOH. What's so complicated about that?

Quote:
If GOOOH ever hopes to be "it", they are going to have to appeal to lots of voters by having a larger scope.
As the polls consistently report, the "scope" of supporters of Term Limits is rather large. The GOOOH "platform" does appeal to a lot of citizens.

Quote:
Remember, GOOOH is supposed to be a selection process, not a political party. A candidate's position on term limits is a SELECTION criterion. Making term limits mandatory creates a political platform. That stance makes GOOOH a political party.
I seem to remember something in GOOOH's FAQ's or other descriptive documents which addresses this. Have you read the FAQ's?


Quote:
However, if he [Tim] doesn't stop, LISTEN, and debate us every once in a while, he risks alienating his base.
Wow. Limits being the central plank on GOOOH, why do you consider those opposed to Limits to be part of the GOOOH "base"?



Limitedgovt wrote:
Don't you think that's quite a leap to imply that someone who does not agree with GOOOH's narrow term limit view can't be a public servant??
Sure. Go be a Staffer for a Town Council person. Apply for the Dog Catcher position. Work in your County in some role. (Etc.) Those are all roles of "public servants."

- KK
Limitedgovt
#173 Posted : Friday, January 15, 2010 12:18:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
Yes, KK, this is getting tedious because you seem completely unable to argue from a position of logic. You ignore people's points, dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, and question why anyone is here that doesn't measure up to your beliefs.

Cursing

I'm sure this will get deleted, BUT COME ON AND LETS HAVE SOME THOUGHTFUL, LOGICAL, REASONED DEBATE HERE.
Kaptain Karl
#174 Posted : Friday, January 15, 2010 3:48:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups:

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 190
Location: Colorado
Limited, up until the last 2-3 days I have considered you to be the best "ambassador" for your side (being opposed to Limits). Lately you've been adopting the posting style of some of your colleagues with the "Straw Man." Please don't rephrase my points to make them easier to address. Let's keep the discourse IN the category of intellectual honesty, please.


Limitedgovt wrote:
Yes, KK, this is getting tedious because you seem completely unable to argue from a position of logic.
I suppose you believe this. Please point to my (specific) illogical posts and I'll attempt to do better.

Quote:
You ignore people's points, dismiss anyone who disagrees with you ...
Hmm. "Pot / Kettle?"

Quote:
... and question why anyone is here that doesn't measure up to your beliefs.
See? That's an example of the Straw Man. I have not demanded, insisted or strong-armed anyone about "my beliefs." (Since I've been posting on these forums only in the last few weeks, I doubt you even *know* what "my beliefs" are.)

I *have* questioned -- with a pretty good simile, if I do say so myself -- why you would join a group which identifies its primary issues to be getting the riffraff out of the House and implementing Term Limits ... and then spend so much time arguing against one of the defining goals of the group. *That* seems illogical to me. (Here's my simile:) It's like joining the NRA and arguing FOR governmental gun control...!

Quote:
I'm sure this will get deleted, BUT COME ON AND LETS HAVE SOME THOUGHTFUL, LOGICAL, REASONED DEBATE HERE.
In another thread on which we both post I wrote...

"We don't agree. (And your desire for more "substance" is unfounded. Since Limits have not been tried, we are both just supposing....)" And that's true. You are predicting a set of (bad) consequences. I am predicting a set of (good) consequences.

Over there you also wrote that our arguments are " ... more emotional rather than logical and there is a complete resistance to thoroughly thinking through the process and results."And I replied, "We really are at an impasse, because you just described my opinion of your arguments."

Limited, I don't know that you and I can resolve our disagreement. You think my arguments are batty and I think yours are looney. "That's life...."

- KK
mn_voyageur
#175 Posted : Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:06:35 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/20/2010
Posts: 1
IMHO, the reason term limits are justified is because of the war chests that incumbents hold. With GOOOH's limits on finance, the war chest is removed. (Therefore the need for term limits is removed.)

I am in the same position of TT and others. Because I do not agree with term limits, you prevent me from becoming a candidate.

What if my constituents AGREE with me, feel I am doing an outstanding job, and WANT me to continue?

Finally, I agree with TT's comment regarding self-imposed term limits will be political suicide.

Regards,
MN
Cold_War_Warrior
#176 Posted : Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:05:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/23/2009
Posts: 173
Here is what Ben Franklin had to say so long ago. After you read it ask yourself two questions: What Happened since then? Did he expect them to impose their own Term Limits?

Benjamin Franklin letter to George Whatley
Categories: House of Representatives
Date: May 23, 1785
They are of the People, and return again to mix with the People, having no more durable preeminence than the different Grains of Sand in an Hourglass. Such an Assembly cannot easily become dangerous to Liberty. They are the Servants of the People, sent together to do the People's Business, and promote the public Welfare; their Powers must be sufficient, or their Duties cannot be performed. They have no profitable Appointments, but a mere Payment of daily Wages, such as are scarcely equivalent to their Expences; so that, having no Chance for great Places, and enormous Salaries or Pensions, as in some Countries, there is no triguing or bribing for Elections.
bboyer9052
#177 Posted : Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:46:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
I agree with everything in that statement.

I disagree with giving up my liberty to something that will help acheive nothing in that statement.

We are disagreeing on the tool to achieve the same result. (for that I am BANNED)

Our founding fathers debated Term Limits and rejected them.

This entry comes from Thomas Jefferson’s notes on the continental congress.

1 - by Thomas Jefferson
“To prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress, to preserve to that body the confidence of their friends, and to disarm the malignant imputation of their enemies: It is earnestly recommended to the several Provinces, Assemblies or Conventions of the United colonies that in their future elections of delegates to the Continental Congress one half at least of the persons chosen be such as were not of the delegation next preceeding, and the residue be of such as shall not have served in that office longer than two years. And that their deputies be chosen for one year, with power to adjourn themselves from time to time & from place to place as occasions may require, and also to fix the time & place at which their successors shall meet.” This resolution is not dated, and is apparently not entered in the Journal of the Continental Congress. It was probably offered in July, 1776, when Congress was establishing rules for its own guidance, and rejected.”
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
sbtbill
#178 Posted : Monday, January 25, 2010 1:34:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 265
I'd rather see public financing then term limits. Yes, incumbents have a lot of advantages but public financing would handle most of those. Term limits have the problem that if I want to vote for someont for more then a couple of terms. Two California examples are our current governor Arnold. Of all the Republicans out there he is the only one I would consider. Certainly wouldn't want a tratorious job exporter like Farino. On the other hand I want to keep Boxer in place as long as possible.
sbtbill
#179 Posted : Monday, January 25, 2010 1:35:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 265
I'd rather see public financing then term limits. Yes, incumbents have a lot of advantages but public financing would handle most of those. Term limits have the problem that if I want to vote for someont for more then a couple of terms. Two California examples are our current governor Arnold. Of all the Republicans out there he is the only one I would consider. Certainly wouldn't want a tratorious job exporter like Farino. On the other hand I want to keep Boxer in place as long as possible.
sbtbill
#180 Posted : Monday, January 25, 2010 1:36:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 265
I'd rather see public financing then term limits. Yes, incumbents have a lot of advantages but public financing would handle most of those. Term limits have the problem that if I want to vote for someont for more then a couple of terms. Two California examples are our current governor Arnold. Of all the Republicans out there he is the only one I would consider. Certainly wouldn't want a tratorious job exporter like Farino. On the other hand I want to keep Boxer in place as long as possible.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
12 Pages «<7891011>»
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.