You say people are stupid for electing corrupt leaders? ok then, who should we vote 4

[pvsi]

Sounds like Vlad Putin is the answer.

Turning to sarcasm for the lack of the answer... how about you make a suggestion? easier to just play naive isn't it?

 

[deltex1]

Your question is who is a smart leader? Your answer is that he is not in America. So you want a world dumbass in control. You are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[pvsi]

Apparently this fellow or his friend runs a site that is New World Government. I am not providing the link because I don't want to advance his agenda. But by what I see he has created about 20 different videos which are on youtube. All the ones I visited had no comments under so I don't think it is catching on thus he is now branching out to discussion boards with his message. Apparently PVSI is the name for a group which I have not figured out what it means although it is probably very obvious. Any way, is this the same guy in the video posting here? I am going to say yes because I don't believe he has any following.

If I would be primarily concerned about my ideas catching on, I would become a politician. I also do not believe this world is real, since no people here came even close to answering a simple question which is the title of this thread, after two pages of discussion.

You seem to put a lot of time into your messages. A web site, videos, going on discussion boards, for what end if not to spread your message? What else confuses me, now, is your use of PVSI as your handle. interesting since you have no use for it and it is mentioned on your web site. What I do when I read people is to look for inconsistency.

What are you suggesting about pvsi? it's the name I got before. if I can easily change it I would, but no one seems to take me seriously anyway, so what's the point. and as far as putting a lot of time and effort, people also put a lot of time and effort in watching ball games, going to churches, saving whales and a bunch of other stuff.

 

[pvsi]

I bet you this thread will sink like a rock, because none of the dingbats that are smart enough to call society stupid for electing stupid leaders, actually have an answer of WHO the smart leader is. .

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

—Thomas Jefferson
1st Inaugural Address, 1801

.

I state it pretty clearly in more than one of my speeches, and on the web site, that as a leader I do not seek to be elected. So yes, Thomas Jefferson is right.

 

[Freewill]

If I would be primarily concerned about my ideas catching on, I would become a politician. I also do not believe this world is real, since no people here came even close to answering a simple question which is the title of this thread, after two pages of discussion.

You seem to put a lot of time into your messages. A web site, videos, going on discussion boards, for what end if not to spread your message? What else confuses me, now, is your use of PVSI as your handle. interesting since you have no use for it and it is mentioned on your web site. What I do when I read people is to look for inconsistency.

What are you suggesting about pvsi? it's the name I got before. if I can easily change it I would, but no one seems to take me seriously anyway, so what's the point. and as far as putting a lot of time and effort, people also put a lot of time and effort in watching ball games, going to churches, saving whales and a bunch of other stuff.

This is what I meant, you posted this: "If I would be primarily concerned about my ideas catching on,." Stated as if you didn't really care. To me that is inconsistent with what I see in the videos and what you are doing here. That is all.

 

[Contumacious]

I bet you this thread will sink like a rock, because none of the dingbats that are smart enough to call society stupid for electing stupid leaders, actually have an answer of WHO the smart leader is. .

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

—Thomas Jefferson
1st Inaugural Address, 1801

.

I state it pretty clearly in more than one of my speeches, and on the web site, that as a leader I do not seek to be elected. So yes, Thomas Jefferson is right.

Exactly.

FREEMEN do not need governance.

We do NOT need scumbag bureaucrats telling us what firearms we can carry , what products to consume, who or what to ****, or what health insurance we need.

.

 

[pvsi]

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

—Thomas Jefferson
1st Inaugural Address, 1801

.

I state it pretty clearly in more than one of my speeches, and on the web site, that as a leader I do not seek to be elected. So yes, Thomas Jefferson is right.

Exactly.

FREEMEN do not governance.

We do NOT need scumbag bureaucrats telling us what firearms we can carry , what products to consume, who or what to ****, or what health insurance we need.

.

And as long as we can unite behind a leader with a clear plan and a clear solution, we can liberate ourselves from the politicians and their international banker manipulated government, agree?

 

[Mac1958]

.

You're not going to take greedy and corrupt people out of politics.

So, all you CAN do is minimize their opportunities to be greedy and corrupt by changing the system in which they operate.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Remove the power from those who abuse it the most.

My weekly rant!



.

 

[Iceweasel]

And as long as we can unite behind a leader with a clear plan and a clear solution, we can liberate ourselves from the politicians and their international banker manipulated government, agree?

That sounds an awful lot like a dictator.

 

[Contumacious]

I state it pretty clearly in more than one of my speeches, and on the web site, that as a leader I do not seek to be elected. So yes, Thomas Jefferson is right.

Exactly.

FREEMEN do not governance.

We do NOT need scumbag bureaucrats telling us what firearms we can carry , what products to consume, who or what to ****, or what health insurance we need.

.

And as long as we can unite behind a leader with a clear plan and a clear solution, we can liberate ourselves from the politicians and their international banker manipulated government, agree?

I prefer to say " as long as we can unite behind a set of objective principles with a clear plan and a clear solution"

.

 

[Freewill]

.

You're not going to take greedy and corrupt people out of politics.

So, all you CAN do is minimize their opportunities to be greedy and corrupt by changing the system in which they operate.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Remove the power from those who abuse it the most.

My weekly rant!



.

3. Publicly-funded elections

Who decides who gets the money?

 

[francoHFW]

Get big money out of politics, bring back the fairness doctrine to get debate on Rush and Beck- they couldn't survive facts, etc.., and vote Dem, obviously.

 

[Mac1958]

.

You're not going to take greedy and corrupt people out of politics.

So, all you CAN do is minimize their opportunities to be greedy and corrupt by changing the system in which they operate.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Remove the power from those who abuse it the most.

My weekly rant!



.

3. Publicly-funded elections

Who decides who gets the money?

Several things could be done, and I'm sure there are ideas I haven't thought of.

Most of the exposure the candidates would get would be via the media and the internet, which would save significant money right off the bat. Various types of debates, town halls, interviews, etc. I'd guess they'd get pretty creative inventing new ways to get inside the candidates' minds.

For advertising, public funds would not go to the candidates themselves, but rather to the media outlets being utilized. There would have to be a process that would efficiently whittle down the number of candidates, perhaps that could be a party responsibility.

What we have right now is a travesty and an insult to the system. Politicians are all but controlled by their donor lists, and it's perfectly reasonable to wonder how they would act if they were not so beholden to contributors. I'd also like to see elected officials not spending so much time fundraising and campaigning.

.

 

[deltex1]

Exactly.

FREEMEN do not governance.

We do NOT need scumbag bureaucrats telling us what firearms we can carry , what products to consume, who or what to ****, or what health insurance we need.

.

And as long as we can unite behind a leader with a clear plan and a clear solution, we can liberate ourselves from the politicians and their international banker manipulated government, agree?

I prefer to say " as long as we can unite behind a set of objective principles with a clear plan and a clear solution"

.

Some would say we have a set of objectives...the constitution...but you have to have a leader who believes in it.

 

[Freewill]

.

You're not going to take greedy and corrupt people out of politics.

So, all you CAN do is minimize their opportunities to be greedy and corrupt by changing the system in which they operate.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Remove the power from those who abuse it the most.

My weekly rant!



.

3. Publicly-funded elections

Who decides who gets the money?

Several things could be done, and I'm sure there are ideas I haven't thought of.

Most of the exposure the candidates would get would be via the media and the internet, which would save significant money right off the bat. Various types of debates, town halls, interviews, etc. I'd guess they'd get pretty creative inventing new ways to get inside the candidates' minds.

For advertising, public funds would not go to the candidates themselves, but rather to the media outlets being utilized. There would have to be a process that would efficiently whittle down the number of candidates, perhaps that could be a party responsibility.

What we have right now is a travesty and an insult to the system. Politicians are all but controlled by their donor lists, and it's perfectly reasonable to wonder how they would act if they were not so beholden to contributors. I'd also like to see elected officials not spending so much time fundraising and campaigning.

.

I am following what you are trying to accomplish but have a few questions.

It does not seem there is any money to be saved if the public, I assume you mean through government, pay for the election advertisements. How would these public funds be raised? Through more taxes? Right now an election only costs the public the price of running the election. In what I think is your scenario the public would then be picking up the tab.

What if I wanted to run for office. Now that I wouldn't have to worry about raising money what would stop me? How would independents be handled?

In my opinion we could just do away with lobbyists. They seem to be the problem child.

What I think really happens, instead of people being bought off, is that rich donors support those with their own agenda. In other words Obama gets a lot of money because people thought him a liberal, he didn't become liberal because he got a lot of money.

I don't know it just seems to simplistic to say fund the elections through the public.

 

[Vox]

vote for anybody but dimocraps.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I haven't voted 'for' anyone since Ross Perot.

and since gathering info in local elections is like finding gold in the street...


sorry, but I tired of voting for the lesser of Two evils since it dawned on me I was still voting for evil.

Gary JOhnson is a stand up guy and should have been the front runner fothe 2012 gop, based just on his record. But since he's not a moderate douche, he got no air time, never got asked any questions or got interviewed very much.

 

[Iceweasel]

Get big money out of politics, bring back the fairness doctrine to get debate on Rush and Beck- they couldn't survive facts, etc.., and vote Dem, obviously.

There was nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. The left can't debate facts so the demonize their opponents. America has voted Dim and we are suffering from it. Bush was getting hammered for much better numbers in unemployment, spending, gas prices, etc.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Get big money out of politics, bring back the fairness doctrine to get debate on Rush and Beck- they couldn't survive facts, etc.., and vote Dem, obviously.

The mere fact that you are a dem, should be reason enough to any thinking person not to vote for more dems

 

[Contumacious]

And as long as we can unite behind a leader with a clear plan and a clear solution, we can liberate ourselves from the politicians and their international banker manipulated government, agree?

I prefer to say " as long as we can unite behind a set of objective principles with a clear plan and a clear solution"

.

Some would say we have a set of objectives...the constitution...but you have to have a leader who believes in it.

True.

But the relationship between the federal government and WE THE PEOPLE is now an adversarial none.

The Article III Judiciary has been replaced by cabinet level bureaucrats who are nothing more than social engineers.

.