The “Second American Revolution” Has Begun

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by SilverOne

In the proposed bill that has been posted a passage states that if you have children under the age of 18 the government has the right to enter your home and check on the welfare of the children. If you own a gun will this give them the right to take it just because there is a child in the home.

I posted the piece about Gerald Clenete to inform people about what the trend is leading toward, now I am being put down as a nut job-- just for posting an article and expressing what is in HS 3200.

That is only the first stage. After the name calling comes the burning of your church with children still inside. Just ask Sarah Palin. All these liberal freaks know is violence.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Glitch

ROFL! Yea, that's right. Attacking Somolia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti, East Timor, Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan while Clinton was President never really happened, right? Those wars were just vicious propaganda spread by the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

1. Those weren't "wars".
2. The troops were dispatched to Somalia by George H.W. Bush.
3. Whatever the wisdom of his Balkan policies may have been, Clinton certainly did not "attack" Bosnia or Kosovo.
4. There were never U.S. troops in East Timor.
5. Clinton's policies on Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan were roundly condemned by most 'liberals'--as opposed to Democratic Party hacks--at the time and since.

That leaves only Haiti for you to chew on--an operation that, while unnecessary from my perspective, did not cost a single American or Haitian life--and Serbia. Fair enough.

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by Glitch

That is only the first stage. After the name calling comes the burning of your church with children still inside. Just ask Sarah Palin. All these liberal freaks know is violence.

Got any links to proof that a "liberal" burned Caribou Barbie's Church or that a "liberal" ANYWHERE has EVER burned ANY Church or is it just more of your rambling mindless fantasy???

[USNRET04]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

From "Reasons to Join Goooh":

"You want to become a U.S. Representative.
All you need to do is document how you will vote, commit to voting that way, pass the Screening Exam, and support the system with a $100 donation. Your peers will determine if you are the best person to be placed on the ballot in your district (see How The Process Works)."

You cannot change your mind. You must commit to voting the way you have documented you will vote.

If a candidate's platform is to vote a certain way, and is voted into office, then he "changes" his mind, is that right? What does his constituents say about that?

From "Candidate Selection Sessions":

"Pass the Candidate Screening Exam, ensuring you meet all of the requirements to run for Congress (citizenship, age, etc.), as well as the prerequisites for our system (not a politician or member of a political family, etc)"

Some pre-selected Americans will not be eligible for public service, based on family ties. How very democratic of them.

We are looking for CHANGE! Remember that? If you are in a political family, you can still run as a D, R or I.

"Complete the Candidate Questionnaire in order to document your opinions on the issues. There are no "correct" responses, but all questions require a for/against answer to indicate which side of an issue you gravitate toward. Here are a few sample questions:
Will you vote for or against a presidential line item veto?
Will you vote for or against term limits of four years (two terms) or less for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives?
Will you vote for or against replacing the current tax system with the FairTax as proposed by Linder and Boortz?"

No agenda here, is there?

The idea behind this is to pick the person who best represents the beliefs and ideas of his or her community. Obviously you want a candidate who will represent the way the district wants to be represented.

Saying no doesn't mean you will not be a candidate.

And my favorites:

"That's it. You may need to spend some time studying up on the issues in order to have an informed stance on a few Questionnaire answers, but we suspect you already know exactly how you would vote on most of them."

"Donate at least $100 to the GOOOH campaign fund. This fund will finance the national campaign of the 435 Candidate Selection Session finalists, as well as cover all marketing / administrative costs."

"Originally, the founder of GOOOH proposed excluding lawyers, members of political families, and individuals with more than $11.5 million in assets (250 times the median income). They were not to be excluded because they are bad people, but because they are overly represented in government today and, generally speaking, no longer seem to represent the common man. However, based on input from our members, the Question Committee has voted to remove the exclusion of laywers and the wealthy. Instead, it has been decided that members of these two groups must simply declare that they are a lawyer or have more than $11.5m in assets in each Selection Session in which they participate. It will be up to the participants in each pool to decide whether or not that is of concern. We believe this change is indicative of the continuing evolution of the GOOOH system."

"Candidates are competing for a job that will pay $168,000 per year. If someone does not have the ability to raise $100 from family, friends or a side job, it is unlikely they are qualified to represent their district as a US Congressman. If someone is not willing to support the system with a minimum $100 donation, we do not consider them committed to the process."

Can you say "SCAM"?

In order to do this, several things have been put into place. The candidate screening removes people who could not represent the people of their district; the questionnaire helps identify how individuals will vote; the selection process selects the best candidate; the commitment letter helps hold the candidate accountable.

By doing all of this, GOOOH provides a basis for selecting a true representative, and the means to hold that person accountable for how they vote. Without the party platform, the candidate is free to vote in a manner that they believe will best benefit the people, and free them from voting "along party lines".




Joining with either the democrats or republicans will just put us right back where we are right now. Neither party is worth supporting. Neither party represents the people until a huge number of them stand up and say NO to something, and even then they only listen if they think it will hurt them later.

There is a problem with people not wanting one of those two parties to win. Whichever side is not in control will promise that things will change once they are in power, but nothing does. It's always waste and corruption. The worse part is that those in power are not even making an effort to hide it anymore.

So ask yourself this: Why would we want to join with those causing the problems that we are trying to fix?

[FutureBrennanDad]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

That's a great point I hadn't considered before.

Where's the outrage over universal vehicle insurance?!?!?!?

This isn't even close to that, as you aptly point out (simply creating another option in addition to the private options already available and a commitment to not raise the deficit).

A lot of misguided fear. I seriously want to see outrage over auto insurance that we are all forced by government to pay before I take this sudden outrage over providing insurance to the least of our brethren seriously.

Vehicle insurance is no where near the same as this Health Care topic. I do not have to pay taxes so someone who can not afford insurance or simply chooses not pay for it can get it on my dime. I like everyone that says the public option will solve this debate. I say it would if I can opt out of paying for it. Taxes come out of my paycheck and I have little say on how they are spent because whoever holds the White House is going to use it however they feel is best and my opinion be damned. I would like to see those who need health insurance go through a co-op situation to where they pool resources and pay for it themselves. I had a co-worked who did not have health insurance and she had a heart attack but refused to go in an ambulance because she could not afford a $500.00 ambulance ride. That was a decision that she made but after all the medical bills were tallied from the actual procedures done that $500.00 would have been just a small drop in a bucket. I believe it is unfortunate for those who do not have insurance but the real question is why. I feel most are from their own poor life choices that they made and not something society had thrust upon them so why should I pay for their mistakes. If there are people out there who feel we all need to pay, then please pay my share because I made the mistake of not going to college so I can not afford to pay.