Guest Commentary… Getting to Know GOOOH

guest-commentaryGuest Commentary night again. As I have continued to say, this is one of my favorite parts of this blog. I love being able to have other folks talk about what they are passionate about. I love giving a forum to different ideas and points of view. As always, I have not censored or altered the thoughts of the guest commentator. As such, the opinions of guest commentators are their own, and have nothing to do with me. I am merely the conduit to the process. Over the last couple of weeks we have had some great commentaries. We had a Canadian’s take on Socialized Health Care, Common Man’s signs of socialism, and LOI’s take on the influences that pushed us there. I hope to see even more from folks as this becomes a regular Friday night tradition (so get writing all of you!). Tonight’s guest commentator is making a return appearance in the guest commentary spotlight. It seems that he liked the attention so much last time that he has subjected himself to coming back for more scrutiny and abuse! So I bring all of you tonight’s guest commentary from Life of Illusion

GOOOH… Getting to Know the Movement by Life of Illusion

GOOOH SignI joined GOOOH a couple years ago,($100 & read his book), long before USWeapon had started his site.  I am not trying to advocate for joining, but I do see some positive points for them compared to Libertarian, much less Democrats or Republican.  My belief is any political party, if it gains power, will do as the Democrats and Republicans have done, which is look to hold power, not follow their platform or principles.

So I ask you to look at GOOOH, with the thought, “if you were starting the Very Damn Little Government party, or the Tea Party, how would you begin?” Tim Cox is the founder of GOOOH. Like many of us here, he became upset with the way our government was acting. His biggest concern was with the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be our most direct representation in the federal government. But Mr. Cox has done one thing different from most of us: Instead of just talking, he has taken action, writing a book and calling for like-minded people to join this movement. Here are some of the highlights from the GOOH website, beginning with a letter from the founder:


GOOOH stands for ‘Get Out of Our House’ and is pronounced like the word ‘go’. It is a NON-PARTISAN plan to evict the 435 career politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives and replace them with everyday Americans just like you. GOOOH is NOT just another political party. It is a system that will allow you and your neighbors to choose, among yourselves, the person who can best represent your district.

GOOOH is an evolving system and your input is requested. The questions are changing based on the feedback of members. Participate in the forums, take the survey, and send us your thoughts. This is YOUR system. We will perfect it with your input.

If you are tired of career politicians, GOOOH is for you.
If you believe money has corrupted Washington, GOOOH is for you.
If you believe politicians have too much power, GOOOH is for you.
If you are weary of the death grip the two parties have on our government, and are ready to return control of our government to the people, then GOOOH is for you.


Career Politicians

Career Politicians

GOOOH is a new system that will allow “we the people” to select true representatives, not choose between a Democrat and a Republican. If we continue to elect career politicians who represent their party, the special interests that fund them, and themselves, nothing will change. GOOOH is a non-partisan process that will allow us to effect the change we all know we need. GOOOH will allow you to:

  1. Help select your Representative – while being considered yourself
  2. Hold your Representative accountable
  3. Replace career politicians – with true representatives
  4. Take the money out of the process.

The GOOOH process allows Americans of every political leaning to participate in the selection of their District’s Representative while being considered themselves. Through GOOOH’s Candidate Selection Sessions you and your peers will select the candidate in your district who best represents your district’s views. Even if you do not wish to become your district’s representative you will want to participate in the process and have a direct say in who is chosen to represent your district.

GOOOH will fund a single national campaign to promote the 435 candidates (one from each district) who are selected to run against the party politicians. Because GOOOH is a process for selecting representatives (not an agenda-based party platform) we expect a very liberal candidate to be selected in San Francisco and a very conservative one in Colorado Springs — but it will be up to the GOOOH members in each district to decide.

For GOOOH to succeed we will need at least 500,000 participants. We will continue to build our base of supporters until we have the participation we need, at which time we will begin our effort to have the GOOOH party added to the ballot in the 50 states and to select our 435 nominees. There are many variables involved in reaching this level of support, but we believe it is only a matter of time.


GOOOH Founder Tim Cox

GOOOH Founder Tim Cox

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.
Things are not getting any better in Washington. The outlook remains bleak. Despite all the promises of change from both presidential nominees, we must remember that it is Congress who votes. With over 90% of politicians likely to be re-elected, how much change should we truly expect? An approval rating that is stuck around 12%, as reported by the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, reminds us we should not expect much.
Do you think the politicians are going to curtail spending or improve education? Will they address illegal immigration or the pending Social Security fiasco? Is there any chance special interest money and personal career goals will cease to be their primary motivators? Will they give anything more than lip service to energy independence, health care reform, or tax relief?
Tens of millions of Americans get excited each election, believing for some reason this time will be different, but I can’t get Albert Einstein’s old adage out of my mind: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Let me ask a quick question: Who did AIG support for President last year?
a)      John McCain                          d) Rudy Giuliani
b)      Barack Obama                        e) All of the above
c)      Hillary Clinton                        f) None of the above

aig-logoIf you go by campaign contributions, the answer is e) All of the above. Obama received $110,332, McCain $99,249, Hillary Clinton $61,515, and Rudy Giuliani a mere $50,250. I wonder why?
Of course AIG did not limit their contributions to Presidential candidates. Chris Dodd, former head of the Senate Finance Committee has received $281,038 over the years. Charles Schumer, who became a member of the Committee in 2004, $111,875. George Bush collected $200,560. In all 86 different politicians have received over $10,000 from AIG since 1990, and the split is pretty even between Republicans and Democrats. You can see a list of all AIG recipients by clicking here. Check out this list if you want to see how businesses and labor unions purchase favor. I’m sure you will be shocked to see that almost all of the bailout recipients are on the list.

The problem is not the Democrats and it is not the Republicans; the problem is politicians and our selection process. While the parties might favor different programs and advance competing agendas, neither is concerned with spending more money than our children can afford. Nor do they hesitate to reward their financiers with tax breaks, cushy jobs, and earmarked projects. Our national debt is now over $11,000,000,000,000. That is $36,099 for every man, women and child legally in the United States. But remember, taxes are not paid equally. Take a look at this report from the Joint Economic Committee if you want to see who is actually paying how much. I think you’ll be surprised.

If that is not enough bad news, the OMB is currently projecting our debt will double in the next ten years. Can you in good conscience pass such a debt to your children? Is John Galt about to become a household name?
Change is needed indeed, but what we must change is the way we select our representatives. We cannot afford to keep passing the blame from one party to the next; waiting on the next election for the “other” party to fix what we all know is broken. They will not. They cannot. GOOOH will effect the change our country needs, but we need all of America to know that we exist. I hope you will continue to help us spread the word. I hope you will get everyone you can to evaluate

Tim Cox
Founder, GOOOH


One interesting thing is all candidates are required to fill out this questionair, and if they vote contrary to their stated position, they MUST resign. Written contract and breach of contract. I have picked a few questions as teasers, but the list done by candidates are much longer. I hope these are of interest. What ten questions would you ask a candidate as your most important in deciding whether to support them? Here is a small sample of some of the questions candidates must answer prior to the election. 

  1. Will you vote for or against limiting the time that any person or family can receive welfare to twenty-four months or less in any five year period?
  2. Will you vote for or against a law that requires all legislation be limited to one subject?
  3. Will you vote for or against defining marriage as the union between any two people (of legal age)?
  4. Will you vote for or against the legalization of marijuana?
  5. Will you vote for or against the teaching of religion in public schools, as an elective?
  6. As long as the federal government remains involved in the education system, will you vote for or against giving vouchers to students so that they can attend the school of their choice (including home schooling)?
  7. Will you vote for or against supporting the Kyoto Protocol (as written)?
  8. Will you vote for or against removing the worst 3 percent of judges each year, determined by the number of decisions overturned by a higher court? This question targets those who are actively adjudicating rather than interpreting the law, and who show a consistent tendency to rule based on political or personal preference rather than written law.
  9. Will you vote for or against electing our president with a popular vote, replacing the Electoral College?
  10. Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACLU?

The list of questions is extensive and comprehensive. If you would like to view the full list, you can click on the link here: GOOOH Questionnaire (opens link in a new page, not navigate away from this one). I think the most interesting thing about this, as I stated above is that this creates a binding contract between the representative and the citizens that he or she represents. If they vote contrary to what they represented on the questionnaire, they are removed from office. Wouldn’t it be nice to to have this sort of power over those in Congress today?

GOOOH SignThe real question is not if career politicians can solve the problem in a timely manner; they cannot. The real question is whether or not we would be better off with representatives who have successfully created jobs in the real world? Would we better off with patriots who would vote according to the needs of their district instead of the way their party chief dictates? Would success be more likely if our elected officials did not vote according to the desires of whoever is going to fund their next campaign?

Once again we have one party secretly hoping for failure so they can return to power while the other is determined to use its flavor of government to restore prosperity. History has have proven both approaches are recipes for failure.

The time has come to address the root cause of our problems: politicians. GOOOH offers a solution. I sincerely pray that things somehow turn around, but I am not waiting for that to happen. I hope you will join me by telling every person you know about GOOOH so they can evaluate the merits of the system. Our mission is to gain as many members as we can before we make our next big push later this year.

Despite what some say, it will not do any good to write your congressmen; they are not listening. It will not do any good to wait until the next election and vote the “other” party into power. We have done that time and time again with no results. It will not do any good to simply ignore the situation. We cannot afford to wait. Our children’s future is at stake.

You must get involved. This is your call to action!

So there you go. I quick article from Life of Illusion that fills us in a bit on the GOOOH movement. I can honestly say that I have seen the references to the movement in the comments by LOI and others and simply have not take the time to go over and check it out. It is an interesting concept, although I have some questions I will post below that I hope we can get some answers to. I know that this movement seems a bit radical, but it is obvious the system we have is not working, so what does it hurt to take a look? You can reach the main page for Get Out Of Our House by clicking the link here: GOOOH Main Website



  1. GOOOH sounds like a good idea, unfortunately, a slight majority of Americans are THRILLED with the present system and Obama. Until those people obtain brains, the rest of us will still be outnumbered. We can expect the powers that be will not allow this GOOOH to pick up steam. I’m looking forward to Black Flag’s thoughts on GOOOH. Sorry to be a wet blanket…..

    • Alan F. says:

      Never count on the intellectual prowess of any country’s citizenry to “win the day”. Most are reactive rather than proactive and head off to the doctor seeking a fix rather preventative measures. The one thing here is at the end of his 4 year reign, president Obama might just have burned enough economic bridges to leave the majority financially stranded and therein lies your next election’s results.

      As for GOOOH, its not a cut and dry issue. Were it large enough it could take hold in the house or senate and provide a check VS both extremes but we’re talking of the proverbial “best case scenario” on steroids here. It would however most likely manage just enough of a center right grab to grant democrats the win in situations where they otherwise would not. As far as I can tell the voting public in America is VERY roughly made up of 40% lefty, 30% centrist and 30% righty with the left lauding more “deal breakers” to the center in their rhetoric than the right itself extols.(Obama clearly won by projecting himself a centrist) Any party of the center stands to sequester more of the vote away from the right than the left and as such a 40% position actually becomes one to rule from. We here in Canada have already seen this happening within our very own “game of thrones” and its been doing such for decades. An MLA here can easily take his seat with that 40% leaving 60% of his/her district without a voice.

      Divide and conquer indeed. If the left clues in to this I’d expect them to be the ones fanning the flames should the need arise.

  2. Okay, LOI,

    It cost you $100.00 to join in and then had to read his book? First you exclude lawyers and rich from holding office, but then someone had a change of heart? Sorry for the questions, but this old ex-cop senses something about making money here and not political reforming. I have been to the GOOOH website a few times and did not like what I observed so did not “join” in the fray.

    I know that it will take many Constitutional amendments – all ratified by two thirds of the states – in order to put this country back on the freedom road that the founders intended for it to be on.

    I honestly do not believe that an organization as loosely formed as GOOOH could muster up that kind of massive support without corrupting itself.

    Case in point is ACORN. The original ACORN was formed with all the good intentions of the universe and look at what it has become over the years.

    I must confess that I do not possess the answer as to how we can muster the support for the amendments that have to be passed, and it will most likely not happen within my lifetime, but I know that it has to be done by exceptionally honest individuals working in absolute harmony.

    Oh where is Elliot Ness and his Untouchables when we need him?

    • G.A.
      I joined prior to 2008, which was when Tim Cox had planned this to start. Membership was slow in coming. I believe you can join without contributing. Hope some will try for the feedback. So far I receive an email every few months.

    • Start by correcting your mis interpretation re; the $100 and the book. Go and particpate in a GOOOH mock selection session.

      Sorry but your basic input is flawed and that carries thru to your conclusion.

      DYODD, but don’t mis apply the basic facts.


  3. I like the ideas of GOOOH, I do have reservations about anything/anyone that requests money and in a hurry, reminds me of Obama and congress.

    I don’t think 2010 is the time to try and get a new party up and going, it waters down the votes. I am very scared of what’s happening with our country and the best solution I see for 2010 is getting a republican congress to pull the brake on Obama. I want something…ANYTHING to slow him down.

    I do think it’s time for a new party, I just don’t think we have the luxury of doing it in such desperate times. Am I an alarmist, damn straight…I’m not going socialist without a fight. I don’t want my grandchildren/great grandchildren asking why I did nothing.

    I am happy to have another site to read, thanks for the heads up, LoI. I’m already reading sites until my eyes bleed; I want some answers and solutions. I answered the questions because I’m curious where others here fall on the questions.
    1) yes
    2) for
    3) for
    4) for
    5) for
    6) for
    7) against
    8) for
    9) against
    10) against

    • 1.Against
      8. – Abstain – this is an indeterminate question.(Are you talking U.S.Supreme Court or Fed Appellate Courts?)

  4. Morning All! This should turn out to be an interesting discussion today, based on how some have answered the ten questions. GOOOH, in itself is a good idea, at least it’s a method of reform, which goverment needs badly. After I FINALLY figured out the philosophy stuff, there are many questions running through my not quite awake brain. But I’ll ask one anyway. If you feel strongly about your Liberty, and the Liberty of others, would you answer the questions differently? I applied what I learned vs. what I what I would have answered two days ago, and came up with some different answers.


    • USWeapon says:

      EXCELLENT! There is noting better than applying the learnings you gain to form a better base from which to answer those questions.

      It is an interesting thing how once your core starts to come more in focus, and if you have made up your mind to stick to that core, how difficult it is to answer these questions in nearly the same way.

      Bravo G!

  5. Lemminkaenen says:

    I would agree that the government needs some sort of reform, but I don’t believe that GOOOH necessarily has the right approach. Will placing new people in power really do the trick? It may help right away, with representatives feeling the purity of their purpose and the need to bring betterment to all of society. But several problems do come up. First, GOOOH seems to ignore the Senate in its garnering of new representatives for Congress. Unless it expands to that house as well, there will still be at least one location where the two-party system remains entrenched and which will be much harder to compromise with, should the House be overtaken by GOOOH. But even that is not very likely. When presented with a third party candidate, many voters will still feel more confident providing their support to a major party candidate. As a result, GOOOH candidates will slowly trickle their way in and out of the Congress. Their voices may be heard somewhere far in the back, but a few representatives would not be able to do much against the weight of the other parties. History has shown that third parties do not have much of a chance of entering into the political fray and having a powerful effect. Third parties have typically succeeded only when there was a vacuum created by one of the parties. The only way I see a strong third party coming into existence is if a large group of people begin to be disillusioned with their party of choice. Then there would still be, for the most part, a two party system. GOOOH would be the second party, and they would likely find that it is difficult to pass purist ideas when the party composition is made up of both strong liberals and strong conservatives that must compete against a strong party to pass other legislation. Eventually, the GOOOH party would be forced to engage in some of the dirtier sides of politics in order to get what they want accomplished. Slowly, as the individuals lose their sense of purpose, they would begin to look a lot like the “politicians” that they were supposed to replace. Bad company corrupts good character, as it were. I have other ideas as well, but I am done for now.

    I don’t know guys, but I just can’t see something like this working out.

    • Lemm,

      As proposed, they are limited to just two terms. It would be hard to become entrenched in that time period. As a GOOOH candidate, they sign a contract for term limits, so if they try to extend their career, breach of contract. As for the Senate, I agree, but crawl before you walk, etc. It they win just one seat, that would be a start.

  6. SFC Dick says:

    3. what? Jeeze,the straight talk express this aint. Marriage = Church Bussiness, or..render unto Ceasar…Maybe a better question would be “should the government reward this that or the other group?” NO. are you going to try to ban gay marriage. NO.

    4.come on GOOOH, would I vote against the legalization of marijuana? Is there a pending bill. If i get in is some one, some where going to propose legalisation?(<-is that a word?) how about…hmm…I don't know, this "Do you support the controlled sale of marijuana, much as alcohol is today?" yes. I know what legalization means, but I'm kinda thinking alcohol aint so legal, like setting my still but up to cooking mash always seems to cause problems with the feds, so it aint so "legal".

    5. I again have to assume here, my local, edinburg IL schools? uh…that's the people of Edinburgs bussiness and not that of any group in washington.

    OK, I need to stop here.

    Does anybody else get the problem here?

    I'm all for the high minded ideals, but for Christ sakes, these are your national level questions. Not trying to be a Dick, but is this what the GOOOH came up with ? Man, call a spade a spade, ask what you want to know, tap dance the political correct and what good is it?

    seriously, this is the majors here, you had better bring an A game, by the wording of these questions I'm convinced this movement needs some real work.

  7. SFC Dick says:

    Ya know what my problem is? I’m the “I don’t do windows” guy.
    I’m the “don’t blouse the boots” guy, “the long Butch Cassidy haircut’s ok for killing Talib” guy
    The, “stop!’…”stop with another battle drill of troops in full combat gear in the get out of the incredibly hard to get into MRAPS, get out battle drill” guy.
    Yup, the laziest man in the Army, possibly the U.S Armed forces but some in command realize the Navy is part of the U.S Armed forces, so there’s always that.
    There is a whole Corps of senior NCOs and Officers out there that know, for a fact, that if I’m not continually told to do something, I won’t do it, and even after being told, I still might not do it.

    The ‘it” , wasted effort work, not the same as busy work, but I take a similar stand on busy work.

    Wasted effort work, the maker of many a stellar military career.
    See, while that Captain sits there stewing, scribbling about with 4 different colored marking pens, a special note pad, rehashing and attempting to get me to battle drill my guys on stuff that aint worth a damn, I’m over here trying to get a nap in.

    The MRAP battle drill?
    Have you ever been blown up in a vehicle? It’s a bit jarring. Ever been in a vehicle that’s been blown up, on fire and on its side, that’s a bit more so jarring.
    Nothing taught in the BS roll over drill or “got blowed up” drill prepares you to be crushed under a armored steel vehicle cross section while on fire.
    Nothing prepares you for being upside down, loaded with gear, under water, concussed, and under 4 ammo cans of Mark 19 rounds.

    The only thing the roll over drill does, if done properly, is get soldiers hurt. Soldiers I need to hump near 100lbs of gear, in the hot, through the Mada Khandow.
    I don’t need soldiers with scuffed shins that will get infected, turned ankles or gashes above their eyes that will open up, spilling blood in their eyes just as the Talib figure it’s a good time to make us pay for whatever small mistake we just made.
    I don’t need it and the troops don’t need it.
    Yes, you need to know where all the exits are and how to work the seat belt.
    You cannot train a soldier on how to get out of an upside down, in 8 feet of water, blown up vehicle. It’s pretty much going to be up to him on how he reacts, he’s got the rest of his life to figure out the right way.

    On the other hand, when we are stuck in the middle of the Mada Khandow, unexpectedly, that Captain and his battle drill aint gonna do a bit of good as the sun drops and the boogie man comes out.
    Then all of the sudden the laziest man in the Army can’t be found for a bit. Because the laziest man in the Army is now breaking out the bag of nasty tricks and moving about 100 meters out “there” doing ..”what ever”, and chances are, the other little lazy dudes that seem to hang around that bad influence, are out doing similar little things. All, at some point seemingly reappearing and doing nothing again; until it’s time to do something.
    Wasted effort work detracts the mind, body and soul from the real tasks at hand.
    I do like the sound of my own voice but I’ll wrap this up. Tilting at windmills, campaigning for “states rights”, forming a committee of the people to elect the people or building Arcs and praying for rain aint gonna get the desired results.

    I would even argue that it is counterproductive.

  8. I have a question about the “Written contract and breach of contract”. Can they really be forced to resign? If the contract is between GOOOH and the candidate, I don’t think GOOOH has any legal authority to force them to resign.

    GOOOH can withhold support in the next election.

    The other issue is currently most legislation contains many subjects, so this would only work if #2 (all legislation be limited to one subject) is inplemented first.

    If #2 is not implemented, I’ll bet the party that is in control (Dems or Reps) would intentionally create legislation with conflicting subjects and handcuff GOOOH representatives…

    • USWeapon says:


      Excellent point about handcuffing the GOOOH representatives. That is exactly what they would do. The two parties publicly despise each other, but will come together quite quickly to defend any threat to their collective lock on power.

      See my question below about enforcing the contracts. I don’t think they would be constitutionally able to enforce them, but I could be wrong.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    My immediate sniff test on this is that even as one may wish our elected officials to sign a position paper in blood and then be damned if they cross us – there is the sticky issue of Nat Sec – a reason we have clearance levels is there is information that cannot and should not ever be released for general consumption – not to say gut feelings and connecting dots may/may not provide the same – but sometimes decisions are made based on information we may never have access to or may not have access until the deal has long gone down.

    • USWeapon says:

      Good point Ray. Hard to hold them accountable on straight votes when we have no idea what other information they may have that we don’t.

  10. Life of Illusion,
    Do you have link to the Joint Economic Committee report mentioned in the article? I couldn’t find it on GOOOH’s website.

    • Todd,
      Sorry, but no. I will look for that if time allows, but no promises. Day job, wife, kids, short attention span.

    • Todd,

      Here is the link, and tnks for asking, hope this has been thought provoking.

      • Thanks for the link.

        This is very thought provoking. We’re so used to two political parties, both organized around issues and politicians, it can be difficult to even think about how to organize a political party differently. Even if someone doesn’t agree with GOOOH, it’s concept helps break down those barriers and opens the thought process to new ideas on how to organize a political party.

        • Glad to help, and that you are thinking on these issues.
          US has said both parties are corrupt, and I agree. So if a new party is started, how do we avoid it following in those footsteps? I think GOOOH has some answers, but am not sure it is the answer.

  11. ThomasP says:

    I’m not quite sure what to make of this thread on a Web site titled “Stand Up For America.” I applaud the poster for the attempt to stimulate debate, but most of these posts are disheartening, to say the least.

    There are accusations that perhaps GOOOH is a scam, yet if you listen to any of the interviews or read anything that is written you will see they are not asking for a penny – until they have 500,000 members. The founder quit his job and has financed every penny. Would you be willing to risk so much?

    There are complaints with the questions, but the site clearly explains they want your input to improve them. Have you tried to come up with the 100 questions you would ask? It’s easy to complain that they aren’t perfect, but are you big enough to help get them right? SFC Dick – if you haven’t looked the Feds do control your schools. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they do. Until you fix that, it is NOT Edinburg’s problem – unfortunately.

    There is a comparison to ACORN – based on what?

    There is a 600+ word post that comments, “Wasted effort detracts the mind, body and soul from the real tasks at hand.” Is SFC Dick talking about his post, it that the wasted effort that detracts from the real task at hand – fixing the political mess.

    Lemmink says, “I would agree that the government needs some sort of reform, but I don’t believe that GOOOH necessarily has the right approach.” Then what is the right approach? Are we going to elect the other party. See the original quote from Einstein.

    Alan F seems to argue GOOOH can’t succeed because it isn’t large enough. No kidding. You don’t start with a million people. This is a grass roots revolution. The question is can they get a million people to join them? Take some time and follow what these guys are doing. They have momentum.

    Irenic say, “I don’t think 2010 is the time to try and get a new party up and going.” If not now, then when? How long are you guys going to wait?

    Folks, step back and analyze your writings. Don’t bother to respond to me, but ask yourself, do you have a better idea? Do you have a solution?

    More importantly, ask yourself, are you the problem?

    • USWeapon says:


      An interesting reply. It seems that you are disheartened that the group here asks so many questions and maintains a skeptical tone in analyzing what is before them. I, on the other hand, am quite proud that they do so. If there is one thing that I have preached on this site, it is that we should all be skeptical of what it is that we see before us and ask questions to get a better understanding.

      What I also see, based on the number of hits on the link I added at the bottom to the GOOOH website, that a good portion of them apparently took the time to go over and browse the GOOOH information. However, they remain skeptical, and that should say something, because the folks that regularly read this site have been preached to continuously to not dismiss anything and to formulate questions based on facts and logic. It seems to me that they are doing just that. I would feel sorry for anyone who simply accepted GOOOH as the answer without doing extensive probing and questioning. I don’t know Tim Cox personally, so I don’t know whether to trust this organization or not, for example. The point is that no matter the position, the content, or the persuasion of any article on this site should be taken without being challenged. IF GOOOH cannot stand up to the challenge from these readers, I doubt the idea would last more than a second on the national political stage.

      Is GOOOH the answer? Who knows. I gave LOI the opportunity to offer this in guest commentary so that it could be introduced to the couple of thousand people who come to read this site. It might be the answer and it might not. What I do know is that your logic is faulty, and I hope that you will forgive my using such a basic example in order to show you where your thinking went astray:

      I know the economy is screwed up. I do not have the first clue in having an answer to how to fix that problem. But I know that the answer is not raising the tax paid on unicorns in South Dakota. I do not have to have a better answer in order to know that the unicorn tax is simply not going to work.

      The flaw here is that you believe that in the absence of a better answer to today’s problems, we should be forced to pursue this answer. I don’t have to have a better answer to know that this one won’t work (And for the record “this one won’t work” is generic, not directed at GOOOH. I have not read enough yet to form an opinion).

      You stated, “More importantly, ask yourself, are you the problem?”

      And here is your answer. No, I am not the problem. Those asking questions are not the problem. The problem is that in an effort to “do something”, our country for 250 years has made BAD decisions. We have used flawed reasoning such as “if you don’t have a better answer, then you cannot question this one” to shout down intelligent discourse. We have not used a solid philosophical and ethical base to determine the best course forward for this country. We have allowed emotion and faulty reasoning to cloud the discussion and, thus, take us down the wrong paths again and again.

      So While I am sure that I run the risk of insulting you, which is certainly not my intention, I have to ask you whether you have considered that perhaps the problem is not those who are questioning what they read, but instead….. you.

    • Thomas,

      Some good points, and thank you. As US said, I also like the questions being asked. I asked everyone to give this some thought, not to join GOOOH. Let me throw out that as it is set up, GOOOH could be taken over from the inside. Their questionair is about forcing candidates to clearly state their positions and abide by them. That is change we could all believe.

    • Alan F. says:

      “Alan F seems to argue GOOOH can’t succeed because it isn’t large enough. No kidding. You don’t start with a million people.” I reread what I posted and I do not see the simplistic answer you’ve come out with. I actually live inside the system president Obama so covets. Comprehend this shining fact and you’ll also have access to a perspective you nor those around you enjoy. I’ll answer any question about the risk/reward of a multiparty system as will no doubt the other Canadians on this board and do it from experience rather than imagination.

      Sweeping change has to come from a single unifying source. Your last election showed you that “another 4 years of George Bush” was just that singularity. The Republicans would have had to bring forth Jesus Christ himself and even then he’d have to carry the stigma of being “another 4 years of George Bush” but I’m certain the lord could pull it off if any. We in Canada had Brian Mulroney (landslide majority victory in a true 4 party race) alienate “the people” for the sake of his legacy and that in turn annihilated his party! There is a very great chance president Obama will do the same for the sake of HIS legacy.

      As for your movement, until President Obama gaffs on such a scale as to alienate the majority, your group will do naught but harm the Republicans. That’s no slight on your organization but the reality of your current political climate. You’ve already got Dems sharpening their pitch off of Obama’s tunnel vision and their “only I can carry your voice to the president” is a great line to play from. A great number of voters are in absolute gobsmacking love with the idea of president Obama hearing THEIR voice. The GOP is in need of working the Democrats addiction to spending and time for an INTERVENTION without distraction or deviation.

      We’ve already seen all this from the stealthiest socialist of all time, Pierre Elliot Trudea. Not a one of us up here isn’t certain he was a bastard and a half spending us into oblivion but he was the master at making himself OUR bastard and the world’s at just the right time. You’re damned lucky Barry is not at that level of gamesmanship… yet!

    • SFC Dick says:

      wow, did I write 600 words?

      I’d like to thank the academy, the blog and myself.

      To tell ya the truth, just between you and me, it felt more like 230, 240 tops.

  12. USWeapon says:


    A couple of questions that I have as I begin to research this group:

    1. What Constitutional roadblocks exist that would prohibit this system, which seems logical enough, from being enacted in the United States. For example, in his letter above, Tim says:
    “Because GOOOH is a process for selecting representatives (not an agenda-based party platform) we expect a very liberal candidate to be selected in San Francisco and a very conservative one in Colorado Springs — but it will be up to the GOOOH members in each district to decide.”
    This could be quite problematic given that it sounds as though in order to decide on the Congressional Representation, a person would have to be a member. This would be in direct violation of the Constitution.

    2. If the answer to number one would be that the intent is to change the way Representatives are chosen according to the Constitution, we would obviously need an amendment. What is the likelihood that an amendment could happen given that it would have to get through a group that would be sealing their own doom by passing such a measure?

    3. Given that the Constitution also states clearly the method for removing a member of Congress and the acceptable reasons for doing so, what contract between a GOOOH candidate and the people would be enforceable? Attempting to enforce such a contract would come down to a legal battle in which the Supreme Court would instantly rule it unconstitutional.

    That is all for now. I am not trying to be too difficult. I just figure if you have read the book and kept abreast on the site, you may have seen this issues addressed satisfactorily already and can share with us.

    • US Weapons,
      1. Why would the selection process be unconstitutional? Wouldn’t it be similar to a primary or caucus? GOOOH might actually have to become a political party, but the national platform would be to help each district elect the representative they choose. No national agenda, issues, etc. Then the GOOOH candidate would participate in the November election.

      3. I don’t think the contract would be unconstitutional, just unenforceable. I sign a contract not to lie. You vote for me. I lie and don’t resign. Breach of contract. But what’s the “consideration” in the contract? Your vote, my representation. Maybe that makes the contract illegal, because I’m “buying” your vote by agreeing to vote a certain way, and any court would throw it out. I agree the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional if it ever got there. So maybe it’s all three!

      • USWeapon says:


        For #1, your response makes sense. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intent. It seemed to me that the candidates from GOOOH were being assumed the representative, and that is a frivolous mistake on my part, as assuming anything is ill-fated. If they were being done as a primary then that would make sense. At that point they simply become another candidate in the general election. In which case the question would be whether they would have the ability to get on the ballot. It seems as though most state systems for ballot eligibility make it awful difficult to do so. I know that the Libertarians have had to use considerable time and resources just to get on the ballot in many places.

        For #2, I think you worded it better, perhaps it would not be unconstitutional. But it very well may be unenforceable. A large part of the equation would, in fact, be the consideration. I don’t have the easy answer here, but it is a question that bears ferreting out the answer to.

        • You do have to donate $100 to be part of the Candidate Selection Sessions. Could there be election law issues with that? I agree getting on the ballot is a challenge.

          I do like the idea of the 100 questions. And GOOOH does have a way to ask the members in your district for permission to change your answer/vote if they agree with your reasons for changing it. The National Security issue Ray raised would complicate this. Even if it’s not an enforceable contract, it puts the elected official on the spot during re-election. We all know how hard it is to get a straight answer from a politician, even to a simple question. At least with the 100 questions, they answered yes or no. During re-election, if they can justify their vote and the people are satisfied with that, fine.

          • Thanks for the help Todd, good answers. As for enforcement, if a candidate sign a contract with a company, and reneges, that company can file a lawsuit and take them to court. Would be a interesting test case. You can bet the Dem/Rep’s would not be helpful.

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      As for #1: How political parties, loosely applied to GOOOH here, select their candidates for the general election is an internal matter. The two major parties choose to use primary elections. GOOOH chooses to use a different method. There is no Constitutional problem here.

      For #3: I had the same questions a few months back when I first started learning about GOOOH. I haven’t seen a specific answer to this question but have arrived at a possible answer on my own. If the goal of the movement succeeds the all or most of the House members would be GOOOH members. If one of the Representatives breaks their contract to vote iaw their questionnaire then the House can evict that member. The Constitution gives the House the power to approve its own membership.

      Something to keep in mind here is that GOOOH does not hold positions on the issues. It simply provides a candidate selection process that is completely run by constituents of that district and then supports the selected candidates with ballot access and general election funding. No special interest funds are allowed. I believe the idea has merit. There are some unresolved problems but there always are with a new concept. These things can be worked out.

      As for the Senate issue, control of one house of Congress is all you really need. The Senate will have to play ball if it hopes to accomplish anything.

      Gotta go for now. I have looked into this rather extensively and should be able to answer other questions later.

  13. Black Flag says:

    I’m here, but exhausted.

    I haven’t read much of the post, nor responses.

    Stay tuned.

    • USWeapon says:

      No need to go crazy tonight. Get some sleep. It is 2:00am here and I am preparing to go read and go to sleep. I think I am going to like this no writing on Saturday night thing! Bed before 4:30!

  14. ThomasP says:

    Now we’re getting somewhere; these are a couple of reasonable responses. Skepticism and questions are wonderful. Facts and logic are what is needed, not accusations and rocks. I was disheartened by the latter.

    Let’s start with the basics. This is a new, non-partisan party. They should be able to choose their reps however they desire, just as the Repubs and Dems do. Their is no suggestion that this is the only way to choose reps, nor does the group propose that Repubs and Dems will go away. There are no Constitutional issues here that I can see. The question on the table is can this group identify candidates without special interest money or a party as they are defined today. Can they enforce accountability? These are things we should all want.

    Next, there was no suggestion that you shouldn’t question the site or the logic. Reread what I wrote. There were several points in my message, but the main one was don’t simply throw rocks, whine, or rant if you don’t have a better idea. I don’t suggest you MUST have a better solution before you can challenge an existing one, but I do challenge every American to step forward and offer one.

    Your unicorn example is silly if not rediculous. Unicorns are mythical, new ideas are real – and they prove to be sucessful every day. I get what you were trying to say, but come up with something real. If you are smart enough to be able to predict which new ideas will work and which won’t, perhaps you can help me with my stock portfolio. You can have an opinion, but no way can you compare any new idea or concept to a unicorn. You lose credibility when you do.

    For the record, what was most disheartening was SFC and Irenic’s responses.

    Maybe its late, but now I’m concerned with anyone who would need to be “preaching to the members”, telling them what they need to do, but maybe I’m reading too much into that comment.

    To get back on track, perhaps you could summarize the specific concerns with GOOOH that this thread has identified. I’m a big fan, obviously, and have been looking for the flaws for awhile. I pass them on the team, and have watched as the system evolves to address those that are valid. They listen, and they respond. I like that; the politicians in Washington do not.

    • USWeapon says:

      You could substitute horses in for unicorns if having a real animal there makes the point not ridiculous for you. I am not too worried about losing credibility because I used a unicorn instead of a horse. You got my point, so I submit that the unicorn example worked just fine. Failing to use my sense of humor would make this far too much like…. any other political site. Let’s not let my fun nature get in the way of important concepts. Unicorn or not, my concept was credible. I did not claim that I am smart enough to predict anything. I merely stated that if I see a plan that I know won’t work, there is no reason to follow that plan just because I don’t have a better one. I have not claimed that GOOOH won’t work.

      I understand being disheartened by some responses. As the one running this site I cannot tell you how many times I am disheartened by some of the things I read here. But I know both of those two to be logical thinkers and willing to hear your alternative point of view. All you have to do is give it to them.

      I will attribute your comment about preaching to it being late. I merely meant to point out that a common mantra on this site is to look for logic, reason, and use good judgement to evaluate things without emotion or partisan bias. I don’t get to “tell” anyone what to do here. If you choose to stick around a while you will certainly see that they teach me far more than I do them. I do not pretend that I have the power to tell them what to do. That was a minor misunderstanding in your interpretation. And perhaps the word preach was a mistake in talking to someone who was not familiar with how the discourse here generally goes.

      I only have one rule for this site. Debates must be held with respect. No name calling or personal attacks of any kind. Attack the position, not the person. Outside of enforcing that one rule, I hold very little power over this group. You will do fine n this regard, I think, as you have thus far attacked those particular folks positions, and not them personally. Thank you for that.

    • The problem is that eventually ALL political parties become corrupt. The two we have in the limelight now are prime examples.

      My point is to remove all political parties from the scene. Make the individual candidate run on his or her own record and ideas and ideals. That would give the voter enough information to decide. What we have now is a political control system that no matter who we vote for will still follow what their respective party dictates, ie they can say anything and do what ever the party dictates when they get elected.

      I believe that the political makeup in D.C. is now such that we are all under the control of only one political philosophy and direction regardless which party is the majority. No one in D.C. is listening to “We The People” – look at what happened when almost a million people held the national tax day tea party protest . . . we were totally ignored by all of our elected officials!

      I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a few suggestions.

      Other than supporting this GOOOH, do you?

      • G.A.

        I do not see how GOOOH could follow the path all other parties have taken, unless like the constitution, it is subverted. I agree NO parties would be the best thing, with term limits (8 yrs my Preference).

    • SFC Dick says:

      ThomasP, sir

      you wrote

      “For the record, what was most disheartening was SFC and Irenic’s responses”

      To which I reply, No Way!

      Irenic was no where near as pesimistic as I.

      No sarcasim, sardonic wit,

      ThomasP, sir

      I would have you read my response, nearer the bottom and reconsider.

  15. Good Morning to All! Having read all the posts and checked out the GOOOH site, there are a few things that I have come up with that may foster some additional thought, at least on my part. The one thing that stood out to me yesterday was the statement that said that the GOOH members choice would be of the same political ideologies of the voters in their district. A Liberal (San Fran) or a conservative (Colorado Springs) sounds much like the same broken thinking that has our government broken today. A Liberal Nancy Pelosi or a liberal Joe Shmoe are still idealogically the same. The only difference is that Joe doesn’t have a tattoo of an a$$ on his forehead. Both liberals will still legislate the same, irregardless of any party affilliation. This stuck with me all day yesterday.

    Our government is broken, and at least there is some movement that is attempting to fix it. But, if the elected ones continue to legislate based on liberal or conservative ideologies vs. legislating based on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the government will remain broken. Changing the selection process is a good idea, but most likely will change nothing.



    • USWeapon says:

      However, G, if a liberal thinker is truly representative of the district that they represent, isn’t that exactly what should be happening. I don’t think the idea of the GOOOH movement is to change the course of politics, but instead to change the situation of lobbyist control and career politicians being tied to their party. If each candidate is truly acting in accord with the wishes of their constituency, then the legislative branch is working as it was designed to do. That does not mean, however, that the government working the way it is supposed to will necessarily yield the results that we may like. Indeed, if the liberal mindset is the majority in this country (which I am still not convinced of, despite claims to the contrary by the left), then the country will move in that direction through government.

      • USW, I applaud the GOOOH movement for it’s principles. I also think that any GOOH choice would be so out financed in an election that they would have no chance at winning. If the goal is to remove the lobbyists from the system, wouldn’t the lobbyists heavily finance those that they can lobby with?

        • Most organizations support those who already have some alignment with their values.

          The mining guys support those who want jobs over wilderness for example. The support even more if the politician acutally believes in “mining jobs” not just general jobs.

          The money people support everyone because there is no well defined “priniciple” like jobs or capitalism to protect or support. It is more about, leave me alone or make rules that help me but not him/her. I think you can put pharma in this group as well.

          And, why do we want lobbyists removed? I have my lobblyists, don’t you? Yes, G-Man I am being a little sarcastic. The lobbyist is not the problem, they are only a symptom. We need to treat the disease itself.

          Hope all is well this PM

      • SFC Dick says:


        see, now I feel bad for trying to advance my agenda through sacasm and wit. I feel I must adress something in a serious, constructive way.

        You posted
        “If each candidate is truly acting in accord with the wishes of their constituency, then the legislative branch is working as it was designed to do.”

        I think that is already being done, that is why politicians get re elected.

        The problem is, each group of constituents continue to push illegal laws and restraints on other groups of constituents, empowering a government well past its intended role.

        I applaud those who get involved, but I will continue to cry wolf, or scream the sky is falling because I find all the remedies put forth do not adress the principals of liberty I had guarenteed me in the constitution “All rights, liberties and those not specificaly forbiden…”

        No ONE is recognizing that across the board. It is all about, “we have to change that thing that I don’t like” but no one is forming a committee or group that says “Hey, we realy screwed this up, time to step back and realize that we are not allowed, good intentioned as we are, to push all this legislation to control that dude”

        no, it’s all about

        “oh, I don’t like this, lets change the system, because, like I said, I don’t like this, now. I was ok with things 5 years ago, but now, NO. so big change is coming, all you freedom loving types hop aboard, lets get it back to when only restrictive legislation that I liked was getting passed”

  16. To all, sorry for being late to respond. Had a thing to do.

    A little help please. What would be the one (or ten)most important questions you would ask a candidate? If we have enough debate and reach consensus, I will try to have them added to the questionair.

  17. Lets stir the pot a bit with some more questions. We have had extensive debate on abortion, can it be resolved with four questions?


    Will you vote for or against requiring that birth control pills be made available, for free, to all teenage girls?

    Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make abortion legal at all times?

    you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make an abortion legal for only the first three months after conception excluding cases of rape, incest or serious risk to the mother’s life?

    you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make abortion
    illegal at all times, from the moment of conception, except under
    specific circumstances such as rape, severe birth defects, incest, or threats to the mother’s life? This would include making “the Pill” and the newer “morning-after pill” illegal.

    My position,

    Yes, yes, yes

    • LOI

      Better re-read you questions. You did not answer them so I can not vote for you yet.

      • Non-issue, I am un-electable, speak my mind to bluntly. But not to dodge.

        1. Will you vote for limiting the time that any person or family can receive welfare to twenty-four months or less in any five year period? Yes, or re-instate Clinton’s 96 reform that was working except in states that did not apply it.
        2. Will you vote for or against a law that requires all legislation be limited to one subject?
        Yes, they also have giving the Pres. a line item veto, which I would support.
        3. Will you vote for or against defining marriage as the union between any two people (of legal age)?
        Against. Call it civil unions with same rights, etc.
        Marriage is a cultural issue, our culture is devolving.
        4. Will you vote for or against the legalization of marijuana? For, non-smoker, no drugs, realize what this would do on cancer and many other issues, but feel we should be free to make our own choices.
        5. Will you vote for or against the teaching of religion in public schools, as an elective? For, as an elective. More local control of education.
        6. As long as the federal government remains involved in the education system, will you vote for or against giving vouchers to students so that they can attend the school of their choice (including home schooling)? Absolutely.
        7. Will you vote for or against supporting the Kyoto Protocol (as written)? Nowayinhell!! This is less to do with reducing greenhouse gasses than economic warfare.
        8. Will you vote for or against removing the worst 3 percent of judges each year.—–Yes
        9. Will you vote for or against electing our president with a popular vote, replacing the Electoral College? For
        10. Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACLU? Against, would also look to bring lawsuits against them.

        • SFC Dick says:

          LOI, buddy

          I hope you have not taken my stand so far as personal. I think involvement is key and I admire your willingness to suffer the slng and arrows of this board.

          on the abortion question, off the cuff I would have to answer some where along the lines of “not the governments bussiness” I can see swine flu, maybe, a greater public health threat from an epidemic, but I can’t see the involvement of buying the pill for kids or a controll on medicine. I can not find anything that I can take a morally defensible stand on in the abortion argument. Those that would argue right now “you can’t take a moral stand on abortion’ are small thinkers. I think you get what I’m saying. I would also not regulate a doctor if a patient was diagnosed with terminal cancer and said , “hey doc, load me a syringe of something so when the time comes I can pop myself”. See there, suicide. That is between that dude and God, and that dude aint gonna have to ask anyone on a ruiling on that because PDQ he is gonna find out first hand how God feels about that.

          • SFC,

            The point is that when a person is elected, how often do we really know where they stand on an issue? Obama was portrayed as being “moderate” on abortion, Palin as an extremist. The sheeple who voted for him did not know he advocates partial birth abortion. If we had an honest MSM, it would not matter, but in today’s world, we need a change in either the political parties, or the news media, or both.

    • I would vote against all of them. To explain, on the first question, parents need to actually parent, teenage girls can’t remember to clean up there own mess, much less take a pill everyday.

      On the other questions, I have no direct stance on abortion, but think it should be an individual choice, not legislated by government. Most stances against abortion are religious based, should we then force that opinion on an athiest?


      • amazed1 says:

        G-Man…..Not picking on you but I have a question…I have heard it said several times that most people are against abortion because of religion. That statement classes people into a certain group…what if, they are religious but are against abortion on demand because they believe it is murder? I have several friends who won’t even claim to believe in a god that believe that abortion is wrong because they believe it is taking a life, their moral code forbids it. A moral code is all that seperates most of us from criminals. The question is….is it all right to force our moral code on someone else? Is it ok for someone to force their lack of morals on another?

        • The answer to your questions are in my post. Individual choice does neither.

        • I would like to add that my experiences with the subject of abortion are very limited. Other than seeing news of protests and reading different views, I’m rather dumb on the issue. Everyone has different views, for different reasons, I respect those views, even if I may not agree. Hope that clarifies some things!



    • Since I have always held a certain view on abortions, let me restate them here; An abortion should ONLY be performed for the following reasons – To save the life of the mother and/or infant – In the case of forcible rape – In the case of an incest pregnancy. Having an abortion for any other reason is just unacceptible to me since I have always held the view that life begins at conception.

      Giving out birth control pills to a teenager does nothing but act like waving a red flag at a raging bull. Try educating children as to what will happen when puberty hits – aka the hormone dump – rather than hid it like we have done in the past and still do to this day.

      I could go on for pages and pages on this subject, but this would be very off topic and this thread is not the place for it today.

      Final thought – I want the government out of my bedroom, my thoughts and my wallet. Parents should raise children, not government.

      • SFC Dick says:

        Hey Buddy

        I sometimes think that those of us who have worked for the feds in service of arms should have some designator or something visible on all our posts.

        big and bold for all the world to see, a warning and bona fides of sorts.

        I find a great majority of us find no use for the very government we served, as its enforces; no use for them when it comes time to take descisions on our and our famlies lives.

        I think it should prove as a warning to some, they see the arguments being made and they might pause for a bit.

        Hey, all those dudes don’t feel comfortable with the government being there to HELP them in that role, as a matter of fact, they seem pretty much to be saying “keep the government out of my life’

        hmmm…..maybe government heath care, motor companies, banks etc are not a good idea.

  18. Before one can evaluate the current GOOOH one has to determine the Goal.

    Is it to increase accountability?
    Is it to organize like minded people to elect like minded people?
    Is it to provide non-partisan (idependent) selection process for candidates?

    What I see right now is a hybrid, which means it can not work for any of these goals.

    Also, if the people in the organization are not like minded then what purpose does a contract serve? If certain members don’t get the answers they like are they going to join the lawsuit to enforce voting against their principles?

    Constitutional issues are legal issues regarding laws passed by the legislative or enforced by the administrative. The Supremes would be ruling on whether the contract could be enforced in light of legislation passed by congress and whether congress is authorized to pass such laws. My guess is it would be unenforcable, as are all existing pledges signed by candidates for various other special interest groups. Remember the “I won’t run for re-eletction more than twice” pledges in 94?

    Good Morning LOI
    I am glad you put this out for everyone. I had looked at GOOOH earlier per your suggestion. I think as folks explore this post is a good place to keep kicking ideas around with the group that hangs here.

    As I ask above I think we need a clear understanding of the goal or goals first. If you’ve noticed, comments here indicate a mixed view of what those goals are. Some are discussing a third party and others accountability. That means either they didn’t read GOOOH’s statement or there is confusion between the mission statement and the proposed details.

    I admit I am not sure which as I haven’t looked at the site in a couple of weeks. I promise you I will before reaching any conlusions. At this point I am just trying to focus folks on the primary question. Then we can all be comparing apples to apples, or unicorns to unicorns.

    I’m Happy Today and Hope You All Are as Well

    • Good Morning(barely)to you sir,

      Before one can evaluate the current GOOOH one has to determine the Goal.

      Is it to increase accountability? Yes, questions are to force a candidate to define themselves on most key issues.
      To hold them accountable for those and require term limits.

      Is it to organize like minded people to elect like minded people? I think not, but may have that effect.

      Is it to provide non-partisan (idependent) selection process for candidates? Yes, liberal or conservative or other. The two party system is much of what is wrong with our government.

      What we have for a government is working, but less and less well each year. Something needs to be done to fix that.

      Could GOOOH be taken over by the Very Damn Little Government party? The un-official Stand Up for America party.

      Could GOOOH be taken over by the Tax Tea Party?

      Or, something else?

      Out of time, may check back this evening.
      Happy, sunny Sunday all.

  19. Alan F. says:

    After consideration:

    1. And send them into the arms of what? Another welfare system behind the current one? Will NEVER happen with the “guilt” card to play upon.

    2. Will never happen as those in power would need to act in a selfless manner EVERY TIME THEY DO SOMETHING. “Were’s mine?” is a huge part of any democratic system.

    3. Ah gay “marriage”. Its only a word.

    4. This one is sheer idiocy. It can be grown by anyone and at a much higher grade than the government would be making available so bye-bye tax revenue. Ease of use and cost make it infinitely easier to get kids into than booze while preloaded into a 00 cellulose cap for piping brings portability to an unheard level for the little darlings. I could shred a “pro-weed” stance while in a coma having started my run at a PhD in “better living through chemistry” at the ripe old age of 12 and managing to clean out a dozen or so wasted years later… at least I think they were wasted… things are a little fuzzy.

    5. Will never happen as then you’ll need to include classes in EACH of the religions which places an enormous burden on the already stretched budget. Or were you looking at a conglomerate class covering religion in general? In a “general” class you’ll lose infinitely more than you think to gain.

    6. Your voucher program is the only thing showing at the very least a portion of the education system working as it was meant to… the private part.(snicker) Home schooling is a tough call in that if its attached to religious studies, which most seem to be, you have to include every religion and not just the christian ones. Have fun with that.

    7. Kyoto Protocol??? As far as don’t pee in the bath water, sure. As far as CO2 is the bane of our existence in concentrations 60 times less than we’ve seen in the past where life didn’t merely exist but flourished, this should be a test for passing along your genes.

    8. Never happen as the judiciary is an exclusive club and what you’re going to do is tell the Supreme Court their actions adversely effect their own. (obviously written by someone emoting rather than thinking)

    9. The most successful breeding program wins?

    10. Who does “Guilt Groups” better than America? No one!

  20. Black Flag says:

    The real question is whether or not we would be better off with representatives who have successfully created jobs in the real world?

    Business world is not the Political world.

    You cannot run a government like a business because government does not need to account to the marketplace in the same manner as a business.

    A business must provide a product that is valuable to the consumer, who voluntarily chooses to buy or not.

    Government has no such concerns.

    It may seem to be an insignificant difference – but is absolutely the core between politics and business.

    One, obtains is funds by earning it

    The other obtains is funds by seizing it

    Consider Bloomberg who can manage a multi-billion empire and watch how he works New York. Ouch.

    You cannot remove Politicians from politics. Do you not see a contraction in the GOOOH philosophy here?

  21. amazed1 says:

    I had gone to the Goooh site a few weeks back….one of our posters mentioned it and I was interested to see exactly what Goooh was preposing. I thought accountability for our elected officials was a good idea. But, like alot of others I had questions concerning the ability to enforce the contract. In order for a contract to be legal, it must be within the conforms of the law….thus legal. It must also be binding on both parties. I am just not sure how the law would look at a contract that makes a person uphold and adhere to a specific way of thinking. This appears to be uncharter ground. What kept hitting me about this was slavery… can get a person to agree and even sign a contract to be your slave…..but it is illegal therefore not binding. In away is this not holding a person’s intellect to a type of slavery? There has got to be a better way of requiring that our elected uphold and are accountable to the the people who elect them. I commend Goooh and others like them trying to fix the problems with our elected officials I think a law review of the contract needs to be done. I am all for anything that actually gives the power back to the people, I think the answer maybe in the masses…….make everyone angry and their won’t be a politician alive willing to show his face in DC

    • Amazeded1,

      If you look at abortion for example, and a candidate fills out their questionair, and is elected, they are held accountable for voting as they said they would. So if pro or anti, and elected, they cannot flip flop. No slavery, just accountability.

      • Amazed is getting at the issue of “coersion” in the contract. If I have no choice but to sign the contract to get any type of support, then there is some form of coersion.

        The contract also eliminates the flexibility of applying reason to problems or new information as they arise, thus enslaving the candidates thoughts to the contract. Not sure this would all hold water but that is the general nature of the argument.

        • Morning again JAC, hope yours is good.

          GOOOH allows an official to change their position by contacting their electoral base with what they feel they must change position on, and if those GOOOH members vote to allow, they may then change their position. I think there is a limit on how many times they can do this, but there is a little wiggle room.

          The big question is how we set up the VDLG party. When we elect you President, how do we count on you not to do a Bush number, and increase the size of government.

      • amazed1 says:

        LOI. I understand the precept….I am just not sure the contract can be upheld. I firmly believe in accountability…..I am just not sure a contract is going to be binding on both parties. Maybe slavery was not a good word…..just couldn’t think of another one that explains placing a persons thoughts and ability to reason in a box and making that person follow something even if the circumstances change.

        • Amazed1,
          I also am not sure it can be enforced. So, a swing and miss is better than not even stepping into the batters box. And if a GOOOH’er is ever elected, and breaks contract, it should be entertaining.

  22. JayDickB says:

    I don’t see much chance for GOOOH to progress with its current approach.

    Not long ago, we had a debate about term limits. Someone above said they are part of the Goooh contract (I couldn’t find it).

    Many on this site argued strongly against term limits. Their arguments have merit, but I think are outweighed by opposing arguments.

    Goooh seems to be trying to rid us of corrupt, career politicians and maybe political parties, objectives I support. Seems to me that term limits would help to eliminate career politicians and probably reduce corruption. They might even help the GOOOH movement progress, because there wouldn’t be as many incumbants to fight. I don’t think it would be possible to eliminate political parties. Extreme violence would have to be done to the first amendment. I kind of like the idea of free speech.

    For GOOOH to progress, they will have to break their agenda into small pieces and pursue them a few at a time. Term limits could be one of those pieces, maybe even an early piece.

    • What agenda??

      I thought they were just about accountability and getting independents a chance to get elected?

      See, why I think the Goals are not clear?

  23. Naten53 says:

    I think all of the questions about the GOOOH party presented here is a good showing of what the problems will be with a VDLG party. The biggest question here seems to be how do you start a 3rd party that is capable to attract the masses?

    The problem of starting a party is how the Democrats and Republican parties have a set agenda, for the most part people know what they are going to get already on the hot topics. A new party will have to set it’s own ideals. How do you get people from all over the country to agree on these basic rules when here at this site there is so many different and valid opinions?

    It seems to me that each district selecting their own representative with the issues that are important to them and not to the party should be the best way to vote.

    Is the GOOOH approach a good way to change the course of this country? Getting independent thinkers in the government rather than party loyalty seems to be a majority opinion at this site.

    Those of you that are asking if there problems with the way GOOOH works, is it not the same for the democrats and the republicans? Is that not the reason most of us are tired with the current representatives and looking for an alternative that is more like you?

    I am not supporting GOOOH but it sounds like there are good ideas to start a third party, and good questions that the third party must define and defend.

    • Naten53,

      You ask an interesting question about attracting the masses. I guess the new party would have to understand what unites most Americans. For me, I can’t think of ONE thing that unites ALL Americans. If the new party can figure about four things that most Americans can agree on, they might have a chance. As it is now, we’re too divided.

      • ThomasP says:

        GOOOH has four main objectives (from the web page):
        – to sever the ties with special interest money
        – to break the stranglehold the two parties have on our government
        – to fire the career politicians
        – to put accountability into the process

        I wholeheartedly agree with all four, and can’t imagine what’s not to like. If nothing else, imagine the pressure we can put on the two parties by rallying around a system like GOOOH. Could we get the career politicians to fill out the questionnaire and publicly commit to voting that way? Would be nice to see them have a little competition for once.

        I also find the conversation about whether or not GOOOH can actually hold their representatives accountable and force them to resign if they violate their promise interesting. At least it is an attempt. The issue to me is not whether or not it is legally valid, it is whether or not a representative will sign his name saying he/she will vote one way and then doing just the opposite. It would be pretty hard to do that more than once and get away with it.

        I’m glad to see the dialogue, and appreciate the moderator’s earlier response to mine – it was very well said, even though I still don’t like unicorns

  24. SFC Dick says:

    Alrighty then, as opposed to answering the specific questions asked of me, a distraction of the bigger picture, I will address the bigger picture. I know I appear the nay bob, but hey, whatchya gonna do?

    Why GOOOH will not work.

    I have posted about this type of thing on threads in the past and the post is passed over with nary a response. I find that most telling, but hey, who wants to hear some anonymous poster tell everyone that “you caused this problem, you are the problem and until you drastically and fundamentally change what you demand from government, nothing will change”.

    I might as well get into an argument about religion and who’s got the real God stuff down pat, because the solution is going to require several generations to become so self aware, honest and humble that it is right on par with whatever major catastrophe one must suffer before they examine and change their fundamental belief system. That aint gonna happen.

    But, what the hell, I’ve got some time on my hand, so here goes.

    What’s the problem? I know that sounds simple but, yeh, no. That in itself is a pretty weighty type thingy there. I’d bet everyone who is still reading along here, the true masochists among us, that there are a couple of groups that see the problem differently. I see the problem as a government that is too powerful and controlling. As I see that to be the basic problem I will address that.

    When I say the government is too powerful I mean things like this.

    Eminent domain laws. Eminent domain is probably good and needed but when the government use it to forcibly relocate families for a shopping mall then something is wrong.

    But…some folks know better, what is better for the community is a shopping mall. It’s for your own good.

    Federal land usage. I’m a lil’ sketchy on this whole thing except to say under what authority does the government have to take/manage/restrict any land?

    What the heck, I’ll make my stand on this one. I’ll prove my point on one, ONE lil thingy as innocuous as federal land usage.

    Now we will start getting into the eye poking stuff. Bet you thought I was gonna come out guns blazing on dope laws, yeh? Stay tuned, I want to start on some of the more subtle hypocrisy first.

    I just read a letter on the opinion pages of the local paper back home. I read what the people feel strongly enough to write/post about, it’s my thermometer of sorts. It lets me gauge on how ready and willing people are to make the tough changes. Well, it aint looking good for change. Anyway this good, law abiding, church going ( fill in whatever here, a good solid citizen ) type wrote “why do I have to use a seat belt and strap myself in a 2,000 lb vehicle and it’s ok for you guys to ride motor cycles without a helmet?”. To that dude I say “go stand in that crowd over there, there’s plenty of ya, you won’t be lonely”.

    Who wants dirt bikes, all hopped up, loud, running around on federal lands? They tear stuff up, they pollute, they are dangerous and it’s my land too and I want it preserved.

    Put your hands down, no one wants that, and if you raised your hand in support you are a complete moron. I just said they tear up stuff, pollute and oh yeh, cause forest fires. See, I forgot forest fires.

    Now, who wants that, a show of hands.

    Really, you folks with your hands up are this close to me sending you over to stand in that crowd; this close except everything I just said, every argument I just made is a lie. The people that use those arguments to ban motorcycles might or might not know they are lies, but I don’t care about their motives and neither should you.

    The proper response is “it doesn’t matter if I want dirt bikes or not, it is the peoples land and if the people choose to ride dirt bikes it’s N-O-M-G-D business”.

    I’m refraining from using the whole thing, I abbreviate now, “NOMGD business” out of a respect as not to offend. See, right there, civics 101, I want to forward a cause, so I SELF REGULATE my profanity as not to alienate those that I want to persuade. I must persuade because I have no more moral authority to compel you by government and the use of force, any more than should any one, ON ANY THING.( ok, you folks that just said “but you think it’s ok to have laws against murder” go stand over in that crowd. This is big boy discussion time now, time for the grown ups to talk)

    That little scenario right there is an ongoing debate in itself, one that will never be satisfactory solved for those involved. I won’t debate it here, but obviously I have enough FACTS to prove those statements as lies or I wouldn’t have come out with that as my #2 big example, would I?

    The big point is, people manipulate government to control other people. It is that simple. Do I have a right to haul donkey, tearing around on my YZ 426, wrecking and hurting myself on public lands? I don’t see why not. I don’t see a constitutional guarantee to “Off Roading” but it’s kinda’ implied. Trust me on that. BTW, your “right’ to control others actions through the political system is pretty much drilled down in that very constitution, some where there’s a thing about “ the rights of the minority shall not be infringed upon by the majority”, or something like that.

    Oh, “SIGH”………. I’ll just address this once.

    I know there is no constitutional guarantee to ride off road bikes, no guaranteed “FREEDOM” or “RIGHT” but remember that lil’ 10th amendment thing, it says “just cause we didn’t spell it out as a right don’t mean he don’t have it. Not all the future rights and all that good stuff are laid out here, unless specifically forbidden it has to be assumed” or something like that.

    Ok, test time, who now is going to change a previously held opinion against banning/regulating/taxing/controlling Off roading? Hands please.

    Just as I thought.

    You wanna know how I know that anyone still reading, both of you, didn’t change your position? Because you still “know” it’s bad for the environment, it’s loud, it’s, well, bad and you are going to stick to your guns on this because you “KNOW” you are morally right.

    You will say “They tear up a fragile ecosystem”

    I am such a liar, didn’t I just say I wasn’t going to get into this here? Ha, a ploy.

    I ask “Tear up what, the dessert floor?, the wind will fill any tire tracks made on the open ranges. Tear up as in gullies? Do you mean riding through the same creek bed , eroded through the millennium, is going to be torn up? The next rain will smooth out any ruts. Do you mean tear up the trails? The same trails that you are able to walk on because someone or something has moved so many times through that same spot that the movement itself has altered the scenery enough to produce a visible path? The ruts made in dry ground will fill naturally, very quickly, the ruts made on a wetted ground will take more time, but a good rain, or more motorcycles coming down the trail when the ground is dry will smooth the rut’.

    Hmmm…all this talk about ruts.

    Nature creates many ruts, why is another natural being, human, deemed bad for making ruts. Is the rain bad or destructive, is the tree that falls, uprooted, bad because of the subsequent ruts?

    Na, we know that.

    The rut, that’s a rallying point. I can point to a rut, we can all say “BAD” and now we have something to push our agenda. It had been forest fires, come on, you know it was; so all the manufacturers came out with spark arrestors. Funny thing that, a spark arrestor. These are internal combustion engines, spark arrestors were developed for steam engines. Steam engines with big coal furnaces that would sometimes shoot sparks through their smoke stacks. Does anyone here have a spark arrestor on the family Buick? Nope, sparks do not come out of internal combustion engines. The manufacturers knew this, but in an attempt to save their livelihood they put spark arrestors on all but closed circuit motorcycles.

    I guess Honda and Yamaha etc found out there is no sense arguing with idiots, I guess they also found out there is no sense trying to compromise with them either.

    The forest fire took a back seat to ruts and the “destruction of a fragile ecosystem’.

    Ah, jeeze, fragile ecosystem?!

    I guess the law suit against God for Mount Saint Helens is still in the works, and btw, God seemed to know what he was doing as now there is a different, but very vibrant ecosystem surrounding Mount Saint Helens; I suspect it is just as fragile though.

    See, I could go on about anything.

    seat belt laws…….

    “Seat belts save lives”

    So what, so does a vigorous exercise regimen, are ya gonna mandate that?

    “They save medical costs in a spiraling out of control health care system”

    So what, when did the government figure it was ok for me to have to pay for some dope who just got racked up?

    “they save the children!”

    So what, some children grow up to be real wieners, have ya noticed that?

    Have ya noticed that since all these seat belt and safer cars and reduced speed limit laws went into effect these last 30 or so years, there are a lot more idiot adults running around?

    Maybe you ( I might as well say you, the government only does what you tell it to do) are the cause of the upsurge in stupid that we see so much of these days. Maybe a good old fashioned mutli car pile up, the kind we had back in the day, was a good thing.

    I am serious as a heart attack here.

    The nanny state has made it almost impossible for the stupid to be thinned from the herd. I remember back in high school one or two dudes a year dying from big THINGS, drag racing on blind county roads or down crowded city streets. Big stupid late night reckless boating accidents took a couple too. There is still enough stupid going around that they continue to find ways to kill themselves, but then what happens? You jump up, morally outraged and push legislation that attempts to fix the problem through regulations and laws when in fact there was no problem to start with. For all you humanists out there we used to call that ‘Mother Nature” or “Darwinism” me and my Catholic buddies called it ‘all a part of God’s master plan”.

    So now, since I have identified you as the problem, is it any wonder that I say “you going GOOOH is not going to change a thing?”.

    If all things come to a screeching halt and somehow, some way GOOOH achieves its goal; it is still you running government and you making laws.

    Until you change, and I mean big time change, you will continue to get the same results.

    Uh, what?

    What’s that you say?

    Oh, the other guy?

    The other guy is the problem?

    Great, until you come out with a plan to keep the other guy out of the political process, well, it’s all more of the same. That other guy is going to be a GOOOH candidate and he is going to be backed by many other guys and they are going to continuing to ruin America for the only two of us, you and I, that really get it.

    • SFC Dick,
      I’ll take the bait and respond to the part of your post about dirt bikes on Federal Lands. While your claim that any damage they do will be quickly undone by nature might be true in some areas, many times the damage is not readily apparent. When vegetation is destroyed along the edge of a dry river bed, during the next heavy rains erosion in those areas can increase and spread rapidly. And while that may be part of the natural process, man has the ability to greatly alter the course of that process. One or two dirt bikes probably has a small overall impact. But many dirt bikes over time can have a big impact.

      There are also Federal Lands that contain eco-systems other than deserts. Where I live, the Federal Lands are heavily forested rolling hills with wetlands in the low areas. There are miles of ‘illegal’ atv trails thru these forests and wetlands, and the damage done by just a few atv’s can take decades to heal in the wetlands. I could take you on a few short hikes and show you big mud holes right thru the middle of wetlands that are still a mess after several years.

      This may not bother you, but what gives an atv’er the right to trash the MY portion of the Federal Lands? I’m not saying stop all motorized use of Federal Lands, and there are many atv trails in these forests. But once they get in the forest SOME OF THE ATV’ers go where ever they please, destroying hiking trails and habitat that others would like to enjoy in a ‘natural-not-trashed-by-man’ state.

      Do hikers have any rights, or just dirt bikers and atv’ers?

      • SFC Dick says:

        disclaimer, the argument style and use of “you” pertains to no one in particular. It is a technique.

        Todd, sir

        I respond in the most eloquent and correct way.

        I’m right you’re wrong. Toe-matoe Ta-matoe, I’m rubber you’re glue.

        There, I win.

        So anyway, ya know how in those cheesy kung fu movies there is always some old dude asking his students…

        “Which is more powerful wind, rain, or sun?”

        Then you see some brash young hot rod jumps up, quickly and says “BLAH…blah blah blah”

        Of course another sits in quiet contemplation. One might protest “but master, there is no correct answer’ and, well, there would be a big fight scene coming soon anyway so no use trying to make any sense out of that whole mess.

        Personally, I prefer “which is more powerful wind, rain, or sun” to “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around….”

        I think the former is much more effective and the later is just plain lazy. I think the later was probably written by some psychology 101 student late for class, for some reason it stuck.

        The question “which is more powerful …” will require you to try to reason in the abstract.

        In this abstract you will find that you will be forced to judge the truth of something, the weight of importance of something, and all the while the “rightness” of something.

        If you are a bright boy, and intellectually honest, you realize that you have begun to make moral choices but that in doing so you have also begun to be intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and everything is done by moral equivocation.
        So, after much thought, years maybe, or a few moments, you realize you cannot put more importance on the color blue than on the sound of a young girl singing.

        Problem is, at this point you are also supposed to become so self aware that now you are forever humbled.

        We don’t like to be humbled, we don’t like to be wrong, especially….ESPECIALLY when we know we are right.

        In my little theater of the stupid I would say “ok you, go stand with that group over there, there’s many just like you , you won’t be alone.”

        I should have also said ‘you will not suffer the uncomforted possibility of having to prove a point past “I know it’s wrong” you will find much mutual agreement and the group itself is “self empowering’.

        But because it is sooooo obvious, no need to say so.

        That group is the group that knows common truths, or masters of the obvious, or, well, I haven’t been able to come up with some brilliant biting bit on that one yet.

        Seat belt folks are folks that know the common truths that seat belts save lives.

        No ATV folks are folks that know the common truths that ATVs tear up natural lands and fragile ecosystems.

        As these are common truths it is obvious to everyone.

        But, here is the rub.

        Seat belt folks do not want to be bothered that maybe 1 life is lost because a dude was forced to buckle up because, IT”S OBVIOUS WHAT OUR ARGUMENT IS TO THAT.

        No ATV folks do not want to be bothered with a bigger, more obvious hypocrisy, and that is “who gets to decide the degree, or the line” because that means they are now in a philosophical argument that cannot be won. It can only be judged by degree, and since they know the common truths, they get to judge the degree by hyperbole, extreme on the opposition and common sense on the side of right. Right being them of course.

        For example, “ATVs tear up the place”, well, so do you when you walk.

        “that’s stupid, there’s a big difference”

        sure is, the degree that you get to place importance on.

        I’m guessing that degree will follow pretty much right along with them as the trod through the mud, in danner boots, dragging a self supporting hammock, down the trail leaving mud ruts and big foot prints. I am also most confident that it is obvious to everyone that those foot prints are nowhere near as damaging as four 2 foot deep tire tracks. What is probably less obvious is those mud boot holes along the path are much more “visible and semi permanent” than the tire tracks made by an ATV going down the trail when everything is dry, hard packed, and maybe even a bed of leaves is on the ground.

        It is obvious that we can’t allow huge bulldozers, back hoes, and such out here to tear up this natural wonder land. It’s obvious, but using that “all permissive” argument the ATV folks use, it follows.

        Of course we just drove out here on an 8 lane super highway of massive poured concrete over bull dozed and back hoed land;

        But, don’t be stupid, that land wasn’t a natural wonder land like this, plus, don’t be stupid, we need super highways.

        Now is the time to make the counter argument.

        So, Dick, how are we supposed to have commerce, you want to shut down super highways, what do you propose we do now?

        Uh, no

        I was showing that using moral equivocation is all fine and good, unless you want to be honest.

        So there’s that argument.

        I believe I laid out pretty much what I thought was the basis for me thinking I have a right to that area and why people do not have a right to regulate me from it.

        Of course to get stuck on the ATV issue is to miss the bigger point, or ignore it, so there’s that.

        So in closing.

        I believe the whole no atv argument to be mute as it is based in moral equivocation.

        Further, I believe it points to a larger problem of the majority legislating to the minority which I believe is morally repugnant and evil.

        Therefore, I will not respond to the individual questions asked.

        “Oh, let me get this straight hero, big man, big argument man. You get asked a couple of tough questions, which you can’t answer. You can’t defend your position, because you are wrong. So you say you won’t answer them, because you’re wrong. How does your kung fu feel now Big argument guy, dude? Paper tiger”

        Yeh, ok you, there’s a group of people standing right over there, go stand with that crowd, you’ll fit right in.

      • SFC Dick says:

        Todd, sir.

        I’ll do it. I’ll respond to your powerful argument.

        you can either ( this is the easy way and you get imeiate results) take the words like “wetlands” and “mud holes”
        and go back to my original postand plug them in, some where around here

        “the ruts made on a wetted ground will take more time”


        why are you calling a swamp a wetland? when was the term wetland introduced as a part of the national lexicon?

        eveybody knows what a swamp is.

        sometimes it takes “scientists” or “eco-experts”to point out a wetland to us.

        Heck, some dudes had wetlands in their back yards, for as long as they lived there but it wsn’t until the feral government pointed it out to them did they realize what hey had. of course what they had now was about 100 acres of land that was taken from them, but, not really taken, just regulated out of any use, for the good of the planet.

        Some smart ass might ask “whatya nuts? are you saying some one made a mud hole in the swamp”

        but not me.

        “Do hikers have any rights”

        NO. If you want to “hike” join the Army, go to Afghanistan where your “hike” will be of some use, but whatever, just get off my trails. “Yo pansies, pay a fee or buy a usage sticker or liscense, support the area, free-loaders!”

        “or just dirt bikers”

        Yes. because we are skilled and cool, was Steve McQueen put on a poster “hiking” or on a “4wheeler”? NO.

        “and atv’ers”

        NO.because tear up the tails that the true riders use. ATVer are hill billy low class clutzes, these brain doners got 3 wheelers banned.

    • SFC Dick – please see reply @ comment # 27.

  25. ThomasP says:

    Thanks to USWeapon for the original post. I’m sold on GOOOH and the plan to get rid of every one of the career politicians, to start over. I don’t know if they can succeed or not, but I’m in.

    For those who are interested, I see they are building a GOOOH tour for the summer. I’ve seen the founder tell the story in person, and I challenge every one of you to do the same and then say you aren’t on board.

    Here’s the plans for the next six weeks according to the Web site.

    Monday, June 1 6:30pm Houston, TX
    Tuesday, June 9 6:00pm GOOOH Austin Meetup
    Sunday, June 14 12:00pm Cincinnati, OH – Flag Day Rally
    Thursday, June 18 7:00pm Houston, TX – location TBD
    Saturday, June 20 10:00am The Woodlands
    Saturday, June 20 3:00pm Clear Lake, TX – South Shore Harbor
    Friday, June 26 6:00pm Ashville, NC
    Saturday, June 27 6:00pm Richmond, VA
    Monday, June 29 6:30pm Raleigh, NC
    Tuesday, June 30 6:30pm Greenville, Spartanburg, SC
    Thursday, July 2
    Saturday, July 4 9:00am Washington, DC
    Tuesday, July 14 6:30pm Hold for Lake Forest, CA
    Wednesday, July 15 6:30pm Hold for Bakersfield, CA
    Thursday, July 16, 6:30 Hold for San Francisco – Castro Valley
    Sunday, July 19 6:30 Kingsville, OH
    Tuesday, July 21 6:30pm Manchester, NH

    I hear Founder Tim C is entertaining all invitations to visit your locale and tell the GOOOH story (at his expense).

  26. GOOOH is a pardigm changing idea whose time has come. It places responsibility right where it belongs, with the people.

    All should investigate and evaluate GOOOH. No one should make their decision w/o understanding the GOOOH system.

    American citizenship carries a particpative obligation as well as a priviledge. It is not a spectator sport.

    Particpation in a mock slection session is key to understanding GOOOH.

  27. I completely concur with Mr. Andrew @ 26. I was personally cynical and distrusting of the concept from the beginning, until I actually experienced the process through the tutelage of Tim Cox. I highly recommend others do the same before posting their uninformed opinions. Perhaps asking questions of those who know the process would be a consideration.

    @ 24 24.SFC Dick said on June 2, 2009 at 10:35 am
    > Why GOOOH will not work. “I see the problem as a government that is too powerful and controlling.”

    Dick – I must admit that I found your post the most entertaining. However, without a suggestion for solution – you have just joined that other group over there (they call themselves the Philosopher Kings). Perhaps you and they can work on the finer points of where to draw that line between your nose and mine (my freedom ends where your nose begins).

    This is not to say that I disagree with most of what you have written – although I might make a few clarifications.
    1) I believe you may have meant to say the ninth amendment when you mentioned the tenth (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

    2) You said: >”I know there is no constitutional guarantee to ride off road bikes.”
    My point of information is that the constitution does NOT grant or guarantee our rights. They either exist or not. The constitution “limits” the actions of the collective (government). I make this point as it is critical to understand in order to address your objection to GOOOH as the solution.

    Now to your basic argument where you say: > “I see the problem as a government that is too powerful and controlling.”

    Bingo!!! I agree with you on that statement. I also agree with you regarding the micro level problem of individuals wanting government to represent their narrow view, often because they have not thought through the problem logically (as you most pointedly have done in post number 24. And I say to that – it is why we need GOOOH or something like it.

    On a macro level – I believe the problem is that the American political process has been hijacked by two political parties that have no principle. They are bought and paid for by the special interests who realize to get what they want they need to control the two parties. The parties then control their anointed candidates (with very few exceptions).

    Here comes GOOOH – admittedly an imperfect solution to a complicated and growing problem, a cancerous government. The micro issue of individual ignorance is addressed for those who choose to participate because it allows the philosopher kings (I am probably also in that group) to pontificate within their small group – what I will refer to as a sphere of influence. When people must defend their answers to the GOOOH questions, it allows for the distinction to be made between what that individual would choose for his own behavior and the freedoms he might like to maintain which would allow for you or me to behave differently (without throwing us in jail or taking away our personal property).

    On the macro level (in my definition), the issue of control of the process by the political parties power is diffused (no eliminated – but significantly reduced) in as much as we the people are able to promote our GOOOH candidates to success on election day.

    Does this totally solve the problem? No – but, IMHO, it is a step in the right direction. We need to work on the questions asked in the GOOOH process, although they do tend to serve a purpose of providing an education to people in the small groups as to why their answer has no constitutional or moral backing.

    My vision – were the GOOOH process to succeed is that we would eventually end up with what our founders suggested, which is small congressional districts of 30,000 people or so – not the nearly 700,000 we see today. The smaller districts would mean access to our congress critters and it would be nearly impossible for a special interest group to buy off over 3,000 congress persons (we would have nearly 6,000 citizen legisltors under this scenario). This group could also move our Senate back under the control of our locally elected state house representatives as our founders intended – rather than a bunch of elitists that are positioned by powerful interests and elected at large.

    Of course I am getting ahead of myself with this scenario. I would suggest GOOOH would have some other positive outcomes, not the least of which would be the suspension of ownerous rules and laws that block access to the political process by third parties. Hopefully it would end the argument that if I vote based on principle I will be allowing the greater of two evils to prevail. We must quit thinking like that as it simply plays into the hands to the Party powerful who orchestrate the two candidates you must select between.

    My 2 cents…

  28. esp to Thomas P, DH Andrew, and Fred C:
    thank you so much for great points and brevity. esp brevity.
    just read ALL of what’s posted above. a lot of editing.
    may i just ask, so we don’t miss anything, MORE BREVITY?

    also, what in the world is not to like in GOOOH??? we have a mess there, just north of Appomatox, where the last and most real crisis was finally resolved.
    ladies and gentlemen, it is time to sweep the place clean and start over. and if i can’t join the positive thinkers and shakers and ready-to-movers forming in support of Tim C and ANYONE with with the resolve to put his and her life and fortune on the line, maybe i deserve (or maybe YOU deserve) to go and diddle with the, yes, the Philosopher Kings. (shudder.)

    count me in too. jim degraff.

  29. I attended a GOOOH meeting Wednesday Night in Buffalo. I went in skeptical but came out understanding that the plan developed by Tim Cox is brilliant and could work.
    I have met a lot of people that are fed up and frustrated with the current political situation. Tim outlines a very simple method allowing all of us to become involved instead of just complaining and then voting for the lesser of two evils.
    Does it mean you have to get off of the couch and actually do something Yes.
    Can it work? I believe so.
    Will it be bashed by the current main stream media and political machines? Absolutely.

    Just as in 1776, One third of the colonists were loyal to England, one third didn’t care one way or the other, and one third risked everything they had to give us what we have.
    Today, 2010 One third will vote the way the Republican and Democrat party leaders tell them to vote. One third won’t vote at all, and one third will vote for what they think is the lesser of two evils.
    What we end up with is just more of the same.
    GOOOH is trying to excite the latter one third to get off the couch and do something different in an attempt to get back to a government of the people.

  30. I was just directed to this site on 29jan2010. I finished reading through all the comments a while ago. I am dismayed by all the “naysayers”, some of who were at least apologetic about being so.

    Several things come to mind in these comments:
    1. Do you have a better idea? I have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades. Einstein told us doing the same thing over and over and expecting better results is the definition of insanity. To do NOTHING different seems insane to me. It seems to me many are saying: “Well, this idea is no good, so let’s do nothing”.
    2. Confucius said: “Those who say it can’t be done, need to get out of the way of those trying to do it.” Thank God our founding fathers had that attitude about the British Government’s abuses, despite the Tories objections of “No, let’s leave it just like it is.”
    3. Several people kept calling this a “3d party”. From what I am reading, there is NO party, and NO platform, only issues that the potential candidate has to address with the voters in his district. As Tim Cox has tried to point out, this is truly a “Peoples” choice, not a backroom wheeling and dealing party funded guy/gal. I have NEVER voted for a “party” platform. I always voted on the issues of the day, but was truly disappointed for 4 years after that, every time, regardless of who won.
    4. Why just the House? I think Tim Cox gave good reasons for that. In fact, the Senate should be like it started out, elected by the States, not the People.
    Many had legitimate questions that could be flaws in Tim’s system, but I truly believe that we have to start somewhere away from “parties”, and this is the most exciting thing I’ve seen to date. Despite some flaws, it could be the thing that ties all the independents, TeaParty guys/gals, centrists, undecideds, confused, etc. all together into a force that can cause some REAL change.
    Give it a chance. Thanks.

  31. Frances Lewis says:

    Needless to say, if our forefathers had taken the defeatist attitude that is exhibited in many of the above comments we would now be referring to oursleves as subjects rather than free men and women.
    When I was a child one of my favorite stories was The Little Engine That Could. It’s pages were ragged and well worn. Sadly it would appear that many of my fellow free men and women never got past Humpty Dumpty.
    If your do not have the courage or conviction to stand up for your country, then please step aside, and let those who do step ahead.
    We are trillions of dollars in debt and our government is doing little to curtail it. It is easy to stand by and comment on other actions but it another matter to have the fortitude to take it.
    At leaset the members of GOOOH will be able to look at themselves in the mirror and know they tried to change the course of history instead of sitting around on their computers and blathering about why Humpty can’t ever be put back together again.

    • One of the people at the meeting was a naturalized citizen. He gave a very emotional scolding to the rest of us that if we don’t do anything to change the system, we are going to loose everything.
      Tim then stated that after doing these meetings, it is always the US Citizens that were born in other countries that “GET IT”. They know what it is like not to have what we have learned to take for granted.

      The more I think of Tims Plan, the more ingenious it becomes.

  32. Sorry to all who have posted in the months following that I have not responded. Did not think people would continue this discussion
    after so long.

    As for GOOOH, I still like the ideal. I wonder how it would do if it was getting as much attention as the Tea Party? And I wonder if either is a better approach to our problem, of an out-of-control government.

    The “naysayers, defeatist attitude’s”, I take their remarks in a different way. I am not advocating GOOOH, nor asking anyone to join. I posted this for all who wanted to give it their consideration. If they didn’t ask some hard questions, then they would not have given it much thought. To follow blindly someone who talks a good line has led us to where we are today.

    Our host has an open mic at least once a week. If you are interested, post a comment on GOOOH and lets hear where everyone is at in their thinking today.

    Thanks for reading and responding to my article, although I feel this was my weakest one. Self reliance is my personal favorite.

  33. I am very trobled by the state of our country.Everyone must be accountable for thier actions! My gratest grandfather Abraham Lincoln would be pissed off if he were here today! Thankyou all for our decision to do and to be true americans to clean this mess up.For the children. We are all Gods kids. Take God out and the nation will collapse. Mr.Cox I wish to be a helper and STAND WITH YOU IN DOING SO!!!!

    • Marty, If you have not already done so, Please join our GOOOH volunteer team. Start at The JOIN button is at bottom of first page.

      Work your way into your specific state and congressional district via the US map on home page.

      We welcome you in whatever state you reside.


  34. Bryan Assata says:

    Did you know? ~ GOOOH uses JP Morgan CHASE as the bank that holds all donations, and is in their new financial system? If GOOOH is “for the people, by the people”…then why do they place their funds in a HUGE corporate bank that was involved in the Bernie Madoff and ENRON scandals? This is in DIRECT contradiction to their platform!

  35. “This is in DIRECT contradiction to their platform!”

    Bryan, I am not sure what your underlying problem is, but let’s start by correcting your stated & exposed error. GOOOH does not have “a platform” We The People particpating in the GOOOH selection sessions will define the platform of the candidate who emerges from the process.

    • I agree. There is no platform, and why should it even be considered.
      We have been indoctrinated into thinking our political system is built on a two party system.
      We have a Three Tier system. Legislative – Executive – Judicial.
      The Legislative was designed so that the House of Representatives represents we the people, not the parties.
      The Senate was intended to insure that the House stays true to the Constitution.
      The Judicial insures that everyone stays true to the Constitution including the lower courts.
      The Executive Branch enforces the laws. They don’t make law.
      Bottom Line: GOOOH is a way for the House of Representatives to be populated with a citizen legislature that is all.
      The citizen representatives represent their districts. If their district is in San Fransisco then that representative will reflect their view. Will they be different than the views of a rep from Montana or Arkansas? Maybe maybe not.
      The point is the people are in power, not a bunch of faceless “Party” leaders beholdin to the groups that give them money.

      • Bryan Assata says:

        “If you are tired of career politicians, GOOOH is for you. If you believe MONEY has corrupted Washington, GOOOH is for you. If you believe politicians have too much power, GOOOH is for you. If you are weary of the death grip the two parties have on our government, and are ready to return control of our government to the people, then GOOOH is for you.”

        Yes….I’m tired of career politicians…
        And YES, I do believe MONEY has corrupted Washington…..which is WHY using a bank like JPM CHASE is direct contradiction….

        The Government used 25 Billion dollars to bail them out, so then you’re going to use JPM as your bank to do what? Give them more money and power? It seems like this issue has been swept under the rug, and you’d be suprised at how many people who can look at the big picture agree that your views are hypocritical to your actions.

        Yes, I do believe that the two parties have a death grip on our government……but instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, then I would have to choose the lesser of three?

        • Bryan, whose side are you on? You must be a member of one of the parties because you are acting exactly as they would.

          No solution is perfect. By damming the selection of a national bank, you are in effect supporting the current system. No solution is perfect. Get off your soap box and move on.

          • Bryan Assata says:

            I am on “the people’s” side. Skirting the issue doesn’t make you right or just……it makes you look like another career politician.

        • Bryan, I recommend you focus on the core issue. GOOOH addresses the core problem for several key reason that you describe. Who would you have GOOOH use for nationwide banking, The Next to Last Bank of Slippery Rock?

          iin GOOOH, we have a well thought out 7 viable method for making a positive difference in Novembr 2010. I hope you will contribute via constructive dialogue rather than seeking splinter sidebar distractions.

          Yes, I recognize and respect your right to free speech. Be prepared for others to excercise our rights of selective attention.

          • Bryan Assata says:

            I urge everyone to exercise their rights of free speech. Your CORE problem is a direct contradiction of your stance.

            This is constructive dialogue, because I’m asking a simle question that never seems to be answered. If you can’t answer a simple question, instead of skirting the issue, then how are you or anyone going to make any kind of “progress” in Washington?

%d bloggers like this: