Which is the party of Inclusion:

[emilynghiem]

Which party is better at practicing INCLUSION:

1. Democrats who claim to represents minority interests, such as Blacks and Women, but then exclude or attack conservative Blacks or Women with derogatory namecalling publicly in the media. (And also claim to be prochoice but support ACA mandates that exclude any other choices for health care
except what the govt regulations approve for exemption, and penalize any other choice or beliefs with taxes.)

2. Greens who practice decision making by consensus, where all objections are noted and included
in order to resolve conflicts, and who will endorse candidates from other parties if those are the closest to their principles

3. Republicans who argue for religious freedom for Constitutionalists and Christians (but not so much for Muslims); but, on the other hand, whose leaders such as Guiliani and Hutchison have stood up in defense of prochoice using conservatives arguments for limited govt and for respecting the beliefs of others

4. Libertarians who put the Constitution first before either major party and don't compromise that to win elections, but will actually compromise elections to oppose candidates who aren't Constitutional enough to represent them (which is arguably still weakening the enforcement of Constitutional principles).

5. Tea Party or Occupy or other, who have welcomed all people of all parties or views to their meetings and to participate in the political process of organizing locally to reform govt corrupted by corporate party interests.

 

[Stephanie]

They both are. the difference is in my view:

Republicans don't go around using this fact to divide and cause hate against a the Democrats, all for a political Agenda

 

[rightwinger]

Who invited Stephanie to this thread?

 

[Sonny Clark]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who invited Stephanie to this thread?

Welcome rightwinger and Stephanie:
All my threads and discussions are open to all, especially to those who disagree so we can understand why.
I don't know about you, and your concept of the "Party of Inclusion"
I can only speak for myself as someone who strives to practice what I preach.

I believe in free speech. But if you say something slanderous or false, that should be corrected
so it doesn't spread misinformation or misrepresent someone else.

 

[emilynghiem]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Dems, more than any other. Except for Whitey waving guns or Jesus we cover the board pretty well.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who invited Stephanie to this thread?

Welcome rightwinger and Stephanie:
All my threads and discussions are open to all, especially to those who disagree so we can understand why.
I don't know about you, and your concept of the "Party of Inclusion"
I can only speak for myself as someone who strives to practice what I preach.

I believe in free speech. But if you say something slanderous or false, that should be corrected
so it doesn't spread misinformation or misrepresent someone else.

I refuse to belong to any thread that Stephanie is on

She is not inclusive

I am able to include her because I am inclusive.
I don't know how else to enforce inclusion, except to practice it myself
and learn how to do what I ask of others, or else I'd be self-contradictory.

If you exclude her, isn't that you doing that?
If she excludes you, that is her choice, but you don't have to do the same back.
You can still choose to be the bigger person, and treat someone better than they treat you
instead of stooping to their level and being no better.

I don't have to agree with someone to include them in a discussion, do you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Dems, more than any other. Except for Whitey waving guns or Jesus we cover the board pretty well.

/End thread

 

[Moonglow]

They both are. the difference is in my view:

Republicans don't go around using this fact to divide and cause hate against a the Democrats, all for a political Agenda

So they do it for social disenfranchisement?

 

[emilynghiem]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

Thanks Sonny Clark: What friends or contacts do you have with which parties?
Would you be willing to ask around and start organizing or taking nominations for people who'd make
good "point people" for each party or each issue per party.

There are great people on this USMB I would recommend as consultants to help mediate or facilitate between
members who AREN'T use to sharing back and forth with people of other parties or religions.

If we form a senate of volunteers, then out of that network that CAN work together, surely
leaders and candidates will arise who CAN work within govt to make changes and reforms that represent and include
a broader scope of input into solutions, than what party politics has limited us to.

 

[Moonglow]

Who invited Stephanie to this thread?

Welcome rightwinger and Stephanie:
All my threads and discussions are open to all, especially to those who disagree so we can understand why.
I don't know about you, and your concept of the "Party of Inclusion"
I can only speak for myself as someone who strives to practice what I preach.

I believe in free speech. But if you say something slanderous or false, that should be corrected
so it doesn't spread misinformation or misrepresent someone else.

I refuse to belong to any thread that Stephanie is on

She is not inclusive

I am able to include her because I am inclusive.
I don't know how else to enforce inclusion, except to practice it myself
and learn how to do what I ask of others, or else I'd be self-contradictory.

If you exclude her, isn't that you doing that?
If she excludes you, that is her choice, but you don't have to do the same back.
You can still choose to be the bigger person, and treat someone better than they treat you
instead of stooping to their level and being no better.

I don't have to agree with someone to include them in a discussion, do you?

Yank....

 

[emilynghiem]

They both are. the difference is in my view:

Republicans don't go around using this fact to divide and cause hate against a the Democrats, all for a political Agenda

So they do it for social disenfranchisement?

Aren't both parties guilty of trying to appeal to their voter base by dissing the other?

 

[Moonglow]

They both are. the difference is in my view:

Republicans don't go around using this fact to divide and cause hate against a the Democrats, all for a political Agenda

So they do it for social disenfranchisement?

Aren't both parties guilty of trying to appeal to their voter base by dissing the other?

Why of course....if you are looking for inclusion, both parties take checks.....

 

[Sonny Clark]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

Thanks Sonny Clark: What friends or contacts do you have with which parties?
Would you be willing to ask around and start organizing or taking nominations for people who'd make
good "point people" for each party or each issue per party.

There are great people on this USMB I would recommend as consultants to help mediate or facilitate between
members who AREN'T use to sharing back and forth with people of other parties or religions.

If we form a senate of volunteers, then out of that network that CAN work together, surely
leaders and candidates will arise who CAN work within govt to make changes and reforms that represent and include
a broader scope of input into solutions, than what party politics has limited us to.

First, I've been at this since 2005. I was very active on another forum for years called e-thepeople.org. That forum shut down. But, we did have dedicated members, and those that really wanted change. Secondly, I found it very difficult to institution change when so many are head-strong about one party or the other. It seems everyone can complain and criticize, but few are willing to act on their displeasure. It's almost like everyone is waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling, and then they will more than likely jump on board. Thirdly, most are content with blaming one party or the other, and would more than likely not be interested in any organized effort to rock the boat.

I am all for change. I've been following our socioeconomic decline for three decades now, and know that without a complete 180 degree turn, we're only looking at things getting worse, much worse. In other words, the future doesn't look good, at least not from where I'm standing. I also know that division is our doom. As long as we're divided, especially along party lines, we lose. The worst enemy of those hell-bent on our destruction, is a united citizenry.

Yes, I know many of both political parties. But, the ones I know are so head strong about their party, that they would never be willing to compromise nor negotiate. For example, I have been a member of this forum for about 4 1/2 weeks, and I have already heard the words Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, and other descriptive labels used as if they were religions. The blame game is deep rooted, and it would be hard to change those that believe so strongly in one party or the other.

I am willing to try anything. Count me in. I believe that we can make things better. I believe that deep down inside, everyone would like a better country, a better government, and opportunity to prosper. I agree that we need to start somewhere, but where? It would take a lot of national attention, a lot of money, and a lot of people in a position to get the word out on popular media. I'm open for any suggestions. I'll do what I can. I'm 67 and retired, and have plenty of free time.

 

[emilynghiem]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

Thanks Sonny Clark: What friends or contacts do you have with which parties?
Would you be willing to ask around and start organizing or taking nominations for people who'd make
good "point people" for each party or each issue per party.

There are great people on this USMB I would recommend as consultants to help mediate or facilitate between
members who AREN'T use to sharing back and forth with people of other parties or religions.

If we form a senate of volunteers, then out of that network that CAN work together, surely
leaders and candidates will arise who CAN work within govt to make changes and reforms that represent and include
a broader scope of input into solutions, than what party politics has limited us to.

First, I've been at this since 2005. I was very active on another forum for years called e-thepeople.org. That forum shut down. But, we did have dedicated members, and those that really wanted change. Secondly, I found it very difficult to institution change when so many are head-strong about one party or the other. It seems everyone can complain and criticize, but few are willing to act on their displeasure. It's almost like everyone is waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling, and then they will more than likely jump on board. Thirdly, most are content with blaming one party or the other, and would more than likely not be interested in any organized effort to rock the boat.

I am all for change. I've been following our socioeconomic decline for three decades now, and know that without a complete 180 degree turn, we're only looking at things getting worse, much worse. In other words, the future doesn't look good, at least not from where I'm standing. I also know that division is our doom. As long as we're divided, especially along party lines, we lose. The worst enemy of those hell-bent on our destruction, is a united citizenry.

Yes, I know many of both political parties. But, the ones I know are so head strong about their party, that they would never be willing to compromise nor negotiate. For example, I have been a member of this forum for about 4 1/2 weeks, and I have already heard the words Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, and other descriptive labels used as if they were religions. The blame game is deep rooted, and it would be hard to change those that believe so strongly in one party or the other.

I am willing to try anything. Count me in. I believe that we can make things better. I believe that deep down inside, everyone would like a better country, a better government, and opportunity to prosper. I agree that we need to start somewhere, but where? It would take a lot of national attention, a lot of money, and a lot of people in a position to get the word out on popular media. I'm open for any suggestions. I'll do what I can. I'm 67 and retired, and have plenty of free time.

Sonny Clark please review the model below. please tell me which areas or problems
you would like to see this model for restitution to taxpayers applied to. And I will work with you to set up a working model that can apply to any other area. Let's start with someone we both care about, so let me know, okay? Thanks!

Here, take a look at some plans I compiled from several sources to present as a model for govt reform.

Earned Amnesty
Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

The idea is to build campuses creating jobs for Vets and future leaders to get TRAINED in how to
manage all levels of business and community: legal, financial, property and business ownership, media, education,
etc. as needed to run and govern your own district, city, state, etc. By setting up rotating internships and jobs training
in these areas, we can produce leaders who lead by experience and example> What have you fixed? labor issues,
vet housing and health care, turning prisons or sweatshop factories into schools with work-study programs to pay
for housing and health care on site without exploiting workers, alternatives to the death penalty or restitution for trafficking?

So before a candidate runs for Mayor or rep or Senator, you have places with paid jobs to TRAIN how to manage a district of that size. And you work your way up. All the way to Governor or President if you are trained along the border managing communities that give experience in these areas. We don't experiment on the people with untrained leaders, you learn in fixed communities first, and work your way up so you don't make mistakes at public expense.

If we get ALL parties to agree to invest in campaigns this way, then we BUILD leaders,
we don't abuse resources to tear them down in the media. we invest in solutions and train/demonstrate what leaders can do and use THAT for campaigns to hire and elect for office.

Now I contacted Allen West whose foundation is supposed to help Veterans and Minority Leaders.

How do we ask Carson and West to team up with Obama and Congresswoman Lee and other Black church and state leaders to set up a campus and credit system for MICROLENDING against debts and damages at taxpayers expense,
and invest credits toward jobs to REPAIR the damages and reform govt that was abused to commit wrongs.

How can we form legal teams to ASSESS wrongs complained about by this party or that one,
track the tax money and the wrongdoers who benefited or profited at taxpayer expense,
and set up a credit account of Federal Reserve notes or loans AGAINST the damages owed,
invest the capital or credit INTO the solution, and charge the cost back to the people who owe the money to govt for abuses.

If the wrongdoers or the party that allowed them to rip off govt and taxpayers
raises the capital to pay back the LOAN until the wrongdoers pay it back,
then the project can belong to that party.

But if they refuse responsilbity, as has been the case in Freedemen's Town where this campus model came out of,
then any citizens or sponsors who lend the money against the debts owed to the public
shoudl be able to hold the land and program as COLLATERAL until the govt gets paid back.
if the govt cannot make the wrongdoers pay it back, then TAXpayers who do the bailout should buy out
that district or program and own and manage it.

so either way there is accountability.

Can you help me write a formal letter to Allen West and other leaders to pull parties together
to review this plan for restitution to taxpayers against damages and debts,
and a financial system of credit until the amounts are paid back by the wrongdoers and backed by the party
that was responsible for how they got those deals through govt. someone had to approve the deals to go through.
We can track it by party, and if they refuse to own it, then whoever does can control the restitution plan for that problem
or complaint of abuse.

We do this for EACh report of abuse and get taxpayers paid back, credited back, or we claim
land and programs as collateral based on our money that got ripped off.

Freedmens' Town is one case.
Headwaters Redwood forest is another.
War contracts are in the billions if not trillions.
the immigration and drug/human trafficking and restitution owed
could pay for development along the border governed and managed by vets as part
of health care, VA an dprison/immigration reform.

Let me know if any of these cases strikes you as one you would want to partner on as a model.
if we can set up one model, anyone can replicate it for the damages done in their community
by abuses of govt by corporate finagling. We aren't the only ones. this has happened everywhere.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There should be only one party. The party should be "Americans for America". Everything is done for the good of all. Everyone benefits from the system equally. Everyone does their fair share to contribute to the whole. No favoritism, no elite group, no special treatment, and no working behind closed doors. An open and honest representative government, working for the good of all, equally. All representatives serve one term, a term of two years, then can never serve again. All representative must make lifetime disclosure of wealth. All legislation should be made public for at least ten days before any votes are taken on the floors of Congress. The public can go on record as approving it, or not approving it. Representatives must vote according to the majority. Absolutely nothing added to bills. No pork, no special spending, and no favoritism for pet projects. Government corruption, the taking of bribes, and showing any consideration for future benefits, would be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Campaigns would be funded by private citizens with a limit of $2,000.00 per person. Ballots would include provisions for write-ins, as well as those selected by majority support.

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

Thanks Sonny Clark: What friends or contacts do you have with which parties?
Would you be willing to ask around and start organizing or taking nominations for people who'd make
good "point people" for each party or each issue per party.

There are great people on this USMB I would recommend as consultants to help mediate or facilitate between
members who AREN'T use to sharing back and forth with people of other parties or religions.

If we form a senate of volunteers, then out of that network that CAN work together, surely
leaders and candidates will arise who CAN work within govt to make changes and reforms that represent and include
a broader scope of input into solutions, than what party politics has limited us to.

First, I've been at this since 2005. I was very active on another forum for years called e-thepeople.org. That forum shut down. But, we did have dedicated members, and those that really wanted change. Secondly, I found it very difficult to institution change when so many are head-strong about one party or the other. It seems everyone can complain and criticize, but few are willing to act on their displeasure. It's almost like everyone is waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling, and then they will more than likely jump on board. Thirdly, most are content with blaming one party or the other, and would more than likely not be interested in any organized effort to rock the boat.

I am all for change. I've been following our socioeconomic decline for three decades now, and know that without a complete 180 degree turn, we're only looking at things getting worse, much worse. In other words, the future doesn't look good, at least not from where I'm standing. I also know that division is our doom. As long as we're divided, especially along party lines, we lose. The worst enemy of those hell-bent on our destruction, is a united citizenry.

Yes, I know many of both political parties. But, the ones I know are so head strong about their party, that they would never be willing to compromise nor negotiate. For example, I have been a member of this forum for about 4 1/2 weeks, and I have already heard the words Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, and other descriptive labels used as if they were religions. The blame game is deep rooted, and it would be hard to change those that believe so strongly in one party or the other.

I am willing to try anything. Count me in. I believe that we can make things better. I believe that deep down inside, everyone would like a better country, a better government, and opportunity to prosper. I agree that we need to start somewhere, but where? It would take a lot of national attention, a lot of money, and a lot of people in a position to get the word out on popular media. I'm open for any suggestions. I'll do what I can. I'm 67 and retired, and have plenty of free time.

Sonny Clark please review the model below. please tell me which areas or problems
you would like to see this model for restitution to taxpayers applied to. And I will work with you to set up a working model that can apply to any other area. Let's start with someone we both care about, so let me know, okay? Thanks!

Here, take a look at some plans I compiled from several sources to present as a model for govt reform.

Earned Amnesty
Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

The idea is to build campuses creating jobs for Vets and future leaders to get TRAINED in how to
manage all levels of business and community: legal, financial, property and business ownership, media, education,
etc. as needed to run and govern your own district, city, state, etc. By setting up rotating internships and jobs training
in these areas, we can produce leaders who lead by experience and example> What have you fixed? labor issues,
vet housing and health care, turning prisons or sweatshop factories into schools with work-study programs to pay
for housing and health care on site without exploiting workers, alternatives to the death penalty or restitution for trafficking?

So before a candidate runs for Mayor or rep or Senator, you have places with paid jobs to TRAIN how to manage a district of that size. And you work your way up. All the way to Governor or President if you are trained along the border managing communities that give experience in these areas. We don't experiment on the people with untrained leaders, you learn in fixed communities first, and work your way up so you don't make mistakes at public expense.

If we get ALL parties to agree to invest in campaigns this way, then we BUILD leaders,
we don't abuse resources to tear them down in the media. we invest in solutions and train/demonstrate what leaders can do and use THAT for campaigns to hire and elect for office.

Now I contacted Allen West whose foundation is supposed to help Veterans and Minority Leaders.

How do we ask Carson and West to team up with Obama and Congresswoman Lee and other Black church and state leaders to set up a campus and credit system for MICROLENDING against debts and damages at taxpayers expense,
and invest credits toward jobs to REPAIR the damages and reform govt that was abused to commit wrongs.

How can we form legal teams to ASSESS wrongs complained about by this party or that one,
track the tax money and the wrongdoers who benefited or profited at taxpayer expense,
and set up a credit account of Federal Reserve notes or loans AGAINST the damages owed,
invest the capital or credit INTO the solution, and charge the cost back to the people who owe the money to govt for abuses.

If the wrongdoers or the party that allowed them to rip off govt and taxpayers
raises the capital to pay back the LOAN until the wrongdoers pay it back,
then the project can belong to that party.

But if they refuse responsilbity, as has been the case in Freedemen's Town where this campus model came out of,
then any citizens or sponsors who lend the money against the debts owed to the public
shoudl be able to hold the land and program as COLLATERAL until the govt gets paid back.
if the govt cannot make the wrongdoers pay it back, then TAXpayers who do the bailout should buy out
that district or program and own and manage it.

so either way there is accountability.

Can you help me write a formal letter to Allen West and other leaders to pull parties together
to review this plan for restitution to taxpayers against damages and debts,
and a financial system of credit until the amounts are paid back by the wrongdoers and backed by the party
that was responsible for how they got those deals through govt. someone had to approve the deals to go through.
We can track it by party, and if they refuse to own it, then whoever does can control the restitution plan for that problem
or complaint of abuse.

We do this for EACh report of abuse and get taxpayers paid back, credited back, or we claim
land and programs as collateral based on our money that got ripped off.

Freedmens' Town is one case.
Headwaters Redwood forest is another.
War contracts are in the billions if not trillions.
the immigration and drug/human trafficking and restitution owed
could pay for development along the border governed and managed by vets as part
of health care, VA an dprison/immigration reform.

Let me know if any of these cases strikes you as one you would want to partner on as a model.
if we can set up one model, anyone can replicate it for the damages done in their community
by abuses of govt by corporate finagling. We aren't the only ones. this has happened everywhere.

Very good. Yes, I will write something up and get it to you as soon as possible. I'll need a day or two to draft what I believe will address your points. All of it sounds good to me. We all know the areas of waste and abuse of tax dollars. Not only on the federal level, but state and local governments as well. My concern is how to get the waste and abuse stopped, trace accountability, and then try to force a return of assets. Remember, this is fighting the federal government, in addition to state and local governments. Some of the obvious waste can be identified with no problem. Other tax dollars will be hard to trace source and final destination.

As far as programs involving Vets, I'm all in. I'm for any program that lifts people up, and enables them to be productive self-supporting members of society. I'm very interested in community involvement through knowledgeable people already successful and producing. Also, I agree that property not currently in use, could be converted into housing, training centers, and small businesses. All in all, you have great ideas, what appears to be a workable solution, and people already onboard. You are to be commended for the work you've already done.

I will work up my thoughts and ideas, and tag them according to what you've suggested, and get them to you as soon as possible. Should I e-mail them to you? I can exchange e-mail addresses with you so that we can communicate. I'm looking forward to working with you on this project. Thanks for asking me to do it. I appreciate the opportunity to help in any way that I can.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Sonny Clark
I would not recommend one religion for all Americans. So the same for political parties.
Unless all people agree freely to unite under "Constitutionalism" as a belief that encompasses all, and even then I would expect people to form their own smaller subgroups in order to have
more direct representation and accountability. It is more effective when freely chose and when localized; or if any collective organization gets too big it loses balance and accountability.

I understand people represent themselves collectively using a wide diversity of religions, affiliations and organizational types.

Why can't we respect the same for political beliefs and parties?
Why can't we include them all, and let ppl represent themselves by party of choice
similarly to letting states represent themselves and form/fund policies democratically by their resident members.

What do you think of this idea:

What if we form an "unofficial" third house, a loose network of reps from ALL parties, coming together to make sure all interests and issues are represented from ALL sides. And the purpose of the convention or conference of parties
is to form a CONSENSUS on key issues and points. And if they can't agree, they write out why and where they have to separate. So these points or positions/platforms are documents where all parties AGREE the wording and content is fair in drawing the lines between WHERE the public agrees across all parties and people (ie where legislation can be created and passed without conflict but by consent of the mass majority of people across states and parties), and WHERE there are lines of demarcation where they cannot cross and impose on each other's limits and beliefs. So we appoint, hire and elect officials who can respect and work within those points and principles to create, reform or enforce laws to be all inclusive.

I suggest this network be set up to ADVISE the leaders in govt, especially the legislatures, House and Senate, but also the Courts and Judiciary Committee through the Senate and VP.

More conflicts could be resolved by consensus to INCLUDE diverse views and not abridge, deny or discriminate due to political or religious differences in beliefs.

I believe the VP position could be used to facilitate consensus through the Senate to include all states, but expand this to include Representation by Party.

As for the Media, since the First Lady is not an elected position, but has free reign in terms of unlimited and unrestricted campaigns that can be conducted publicly through the media as a nonprofit or educational outreach, I believe that position can be used to influence people from all parties to rise above bullying and work together instead.

If candidates, leaders and positions are too beholden to party to put the interests of America first,
it may take a neutral position to push for this change to include all parties as equal similar to how religions cannot be imposed by govt simply by majority rule or who's in office. That is not a justification to impose religious beliefs, so why do we let people impose political beliefs by party on others or on the entire nation, abusing govt courts and laws to do so.

Great idea. It's certainly worth a try. It is far better than what we have now.

Thanks Sonny Clark: What friends or contacts do you have with which parties?
Would you be willing to ask around and start organizing or taking nominations for people who'd make
good "point people" for each party or each issue per party.

There are great people on this USMB I would recommend as consultants to help mediate or facilitate between
members who AREN'T use to sharing back and forth with people of other parties or religions.

If we form a senate of volunteers, then out of that network that CAN work together, surely
leaders and candidates will arise who CAN work within govt to make changes and reforms that represent and include
a broader scope of input into solutions, than what party politics has limited us to.

First, I've been at this since 2005. I was very active on another forum for years called e-thepeople.org. That forum shut down. But, we did have dedicated members, and those that really wanted change. Secondly, I found it very difficult to institution change when so many are head-strong about one party or the other. It seems everyone can complain and criticize, but few are willing to act on their displeasure. It's almost like everyone is waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling, and then they will more than likely jump on board. Thirdly, most are content with blaming one party or the other, and would more than likely not be interested in any organized effort to rock the boat.

I am all for change. I've been following our socioeconomic decline for three decades now, and know that without a complete 180 degree turn, we're only looking at things getting worse, much worse. In other words, the future doesn't look good, at least not from where I'm standing. I also know that division is our doom. As long as we're divided, especially along party lines, we lose. The worst enemy of those hell-bent on our destruction, is a united citizenry.

Yes, I know many of both political parties. But, the ones I know are so head strong about their party, that they would never be willing to compromise nor negotiate. For example, I have been a member of this forum for about 4 1/2 weeks, and I have already heard the words Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, and other descriptive labels used as if they were religions. The blame game is deep rooted, and it would be hard to change those that believe so strongly in one party or the other.

I am willing to try anything. Count me in. I believe that we can make things better. I believe that deep down inside, everyone would like a better country, a better government, and opportunity to prosper. I agree that we need to start somewhere, but where? It would take a lot of national attention, a lot of money, and a lot of people in a position to get the word out on popular media. I'm open for any suggestions. I'll do what I can. I'm 67 and retired, and have plenty of free time.

Sonny Clark please review the model below. please tell me which areas or problems
you would like to see this model for restitution to taxpayers applied to. And I will work with you to set up a working model that can apply to any other area. Let's start with someone we both care about, so let me know, okay? Thanks!

Here, take a look at some plans I compiled from several sources to present as a model for govt reform.

Earned Amnesty
Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

The idea is to build campuses creating jobs for Vets and future leaders to get TRAINED in how to
manage all levels of business and community: legal, financial, property and business ownership, media, education,
etc. as needed to run and govern your own district, city, state, etc. By setting up rotating internships and jobs training
in these areas, we can produce leaders who lead by experience and example> What have you fixed? labor issues,
vet housing and health care, turning prisons or sweatshop factories into schools with work-study programs to pay
for housing and health care on site without exploiting workers, alternatives to the death penalty or restitution for trafficking?

So before a candidate runs for Mayor or rep or Senator, you have places with paid jobs to TRAIN how to manage a district of that size. And you work your way up. All the way to Governor or President if you are trained along the border managing communities that give experience in these areas. We don't experiment on the people with untrained leaders, you learn in fixed communities first, and work your way up so you don't make mistakes at public expense.

If we get ALL parties to agree to invest in campaigns this way, then we BUILD leaders,
we don't abuse resources to tear them down in the media. we invest in solutions and train/demonstrate what leaders can do and use THAT for campaigns to hire and elect for office.

Now I contacted Allen West whose foundation is supposed to help Veterans and Minority Leaders.

How do we ask Carson and West to team up with Obama and Congresswoman Lee and other Black church and state leaders to set up a campus and credit system for MICROLENDING against debts and damages at taxpayers expense,
and invest credits toward jobs to REPAIR the damages and reform govt that was abused to commit wrongs.

How can we form legal teams to ASSESS wrongs complained about by this party or that one,
track the tax money and the wrongdoers who benefited or profited at taxpayer expense,
and set up a credit account of Federal Reserve notes or loans AGAINST the damages owed,
invest the capital or credit INTO the solution, and charge the cost back to the people who owe the money to govt for abuses.

If the wrongdoers or the party that allowed them to rip off govt and taxpayers
raises the capital to pay back the LOAN until the wrongdoers pay it back,
then the project can belong to that party.

But if they refuse responsilbity, as has been the case in Freedemen's Town where this campus model came out of,
then any citizens or sponsors who lend the money against the debts owed to the public
shoudl be able to hold the land and program as COLLATERAL until the govt gets paid back.
if the govt cannot make the wrongdoers pay it back, then TAXpayers who do the bailout should buy out
that district or program and own and manage it.

so either way there is accountability.

Can you help me write a formal letter to Allen West and other leaders to pull parties together
to review this plan for restitution to taxpayers against damages and debts,
and a financial system of credit until the amounts are paid back by the wrongdoers and backed by the party
that was responsible for how they got those deals through govt. someone had to approve the deals to go through.
We can track it by party, and if they refuse to own it, then whoever does can control the restitution plan for that problem
or complaint of abuse.

We do this for EACh report of abuse and get taxpayers paid back, credited back, or we claim
land and programs as collateral based on our money that got ripped off.

Freedmens' Town is one case.
Headwaters Redwood forest is another.
War contracts are in the billions if not trillions.
the immigration and drug/human trafficking and restitution owed
could pay for development along the border governed and managed by vets as part
of health care, VA an dprison/immigration reform.

Let me know if any of these cases strikes you as one you would want to partner on as a model.
if we can set up one model, anyone can replicate it for the damages done in their community
by abuses of govt by corporate finagling. We aren't the only ones. this has happened everywhere.

Very good. Yes, I will write something up and get it to you as soon as possible. I'll need a day or two to draft what I believe will address your points. All of it sounds good to me. We all know the areas of waste and abuse of tax dollars. Not only on the federal level, but state and local governments as well. My concern is how to get the waste and abuse stopped, trace accountability, and then try to force a return of assets. Remember, this is fighting the federal government, in addition to state and local governments. Some of the obvious waste can be identified with no problem. Other tax dollars will be hard to trace source and final destination.

As far as programs involving Vets, I'm all in. I'm for any program that lifts people up, and enables them to be productive self-supporting members of society. I'm very interested in community involvement through knowledgeable people already successful and producing. Also, I agree that property not currently in use, could be converted into housing, training centers, and small businesses. All in all, you have great ideas, what appears to be a workable solution, and people already onboard. You are to be commended for the work you've already done.

I will work up my thoughts and ideas, and tag them according to what you've suggested, and get them to you as soon as possible. Should I e-mail them to you? I can exchange e-mail addresses with you so that we can communicate. I'm looking forward to working with you on this project. Thanks for asking me to do it. I appreciate the opportunity to help in any way that I can.

Great Sonny Clark
There are other great people on here who have asked to help and support if we can get this going.

Where to get the legal help to track and research
A. the PARTIES that have political interest in debunking and holding the OTHER parties accountable
have already dug up most of the dirt on each other.

Instead of competing to throw this dirt around, I'm saying to follow up on ALL claims of abuse.
Create JOBS for these parties to pursue restitution until the grievances are redressed.

So that will be their jobs. They will work and represent the people's interests in the areas
where they SPECIALIZE in policy, in abuses and fixes, in problems and solutions,
in specific areas of focus of that party, such as environment or law enforcement, prisons, etc.

So this will give motivation for all parties to participate in what they do best.
All the money and resources organized by the parties will be FOCUSED around solutions
that their members/leaders can create jobs fixing -- whether researching the wrongs by other groups, or investing in correcting wrongs by their own party members if they want to retain jurisdiction.

We would basically enlist the work of parties to clean up their own messes or those of the other parties they want to blame for damages and debts at taxpayer expense. The parties will do where it benefits their programs. If they are enabling abuses, this will be found out and shut down unless they fix them. The parties are the best at checking each other, if we listen to them instead of competing to drown each other out.

B. the LAW SCHOOLS
America especially Houston turns out the largest numbers of lawyers.

Why not hire law students and teams and pay them on commission
to collect and negotiate SETTLEMENTS on behalf of taxpayers to manage the debts?

We need conflict resolution, accurate assessments and solutions that are financially workable.

Why pay lawyers to help wrongdoers take the fifth and get out of answering for wrongs.

Why not STOP paying any more money into that,
and only pay commission for teams to collect reimbursements and
negotiate payment plans to manage the restitution from the wrongdoers to the taxpayers
and the projects approved as the corrections and restitution for the wrongs done, in proportion.

C. so people can get degrees, training and jobs in law
by doing the work to recoup losses currently charged to taxpayers as debts.
We make this part of the legal education, outreach and reform.

Quit abusing law, courts and process to HIDE and to defraud/obstruct people from getting due process and justice.
And start using laws, courts and process to RESTORE justice by consensual agreements on restitution for damages done.

 

[Flash]

The Dems, more than any other. Except for Whitey waving guns or Jesus we cover the board pretty well.

The Democrats are a coalition of all the filthy greedy special interest groups in the US:

Blacks (97%) who vote their race and welfare check.

Union pukes

Anti gun nuts

Environmental wackos

Welfare queens

Feminazis

Abortionist

Socialists

Queers

Illegals

Confused college idiots

etc

You are only included in the Democrat Party if you are the scum of America.