Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

We need some famous icons so we can start the debates... for our initial strike must be with famous faces... so I don't care if they are 90, an actor or a athlete... give us some icons for some good old American arguing on streaming video!!!... I'll give them the copy to argue against each other if I must!!!!! Let's Roll!!!! The Democrats are already talking the talk but saying nothing... so let's start sending some policy messages to the people.... ICONS COME FORWARD!!!
-G

What happened to questions for the Founders?

Keep them coming!

I'm working on the right chord for the people! A special kinda slingshot just for the two headed beast... something that gets em both right between the eyes!

One of the great things about capitalism is that once things get bad enough the American people vote for change! So if the American people are confident in our drive to bring livable wages back to jobs in America and fire up the made in America label campaign - and we are fixed on national health insurance for all... I think then, the money could be considered hard earned red blooded American money that I would be proud to use for our cause!

harsh words are needed....
Earn Snyder on July 9, 2024 - 2:09pm

Feel free to use whatever words you feel will express your truth. I would be ashamed to know those who would think these civil words are extreme and scarey. If they are such people .. they should be ashamed as well.

Whatever happened to the "Home of the brave and land of the free" or is that just for baseball games.

Forgive my hardcore words like "slavery", "war", and "treason"... I know these words are extremes and scare many... I'm sorry we are at a point of extremes in this fight to tell the truth... Let me say, as a united platform gets stronger so will my words... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

for the right and left!
Earn Snyder on July 9, 2024 - 1:57pm

On that we agree. Congress tried and failed to get this one by us. The good work by a lot of good people (congress not included).

No wonder your going crazy! First of all the problem is that these issues have been combined into the same legislation... we are working now to force these things into seperate legislation! So they must act on each one individually at the demand of the people... so when we now talk of these things we debate them as individual things:
1) Permanent Immigration
2) Hiring of foreign nationals
3) Non-manned border security
We are moving forward... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

I work for the American people and jobs. I do not work for slave driven corporations who are destroying our nation and everything it stands for. Those who oppose unions during this critical time are the same who would accept slavery if they could, as congressmen who would combine legislation to create gridlock to stop needed reforms is a failure to represent the people who elected them. So it is clear, a non-union stance at this critical point in history would be fundamentally wrong. So to support international slavery would be fatal mistake for Unity08.

Response to: Unions history or future?
Earn Snyder on July 9, 2024 - 1:41pm

Earn, you possess a very unique talent. That is the ablility to think in reverse. Again, you have it backwards.

If unions didn't support the democratic party and if the democratic party didn't support a pro-immigration, amnesty, non-border security policy, THEN farm producers would have to raise the wages of workers to harvest the fields.

Unions are the only thing standing between us and imported foreign nationals to pick the crops that illegal aliens will be prohibted from doing... so you clearly understand... new immigration legislation proposes to permit foreign slaves to now be shipped in and work on U.S. soil ... so it is clear that without labor union to make those jobs pay a living wage we will see a war... and the modern day plantation owners may just win this war because this time they have both political parties in their back pocket and have made it easy to be a slave owner today, as millions of Americans are slave owners holding the stock of corporations who participate in such violations of the very fabric this nation was found on... and you say unions are a part of history and not the future? www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

Response to: Good money/bad money....
Earn Snyder on July 9, 2024 - 1:06pm

Give it up Earn, Unions are yesteryear. While necessary in the early labor movement, they became corrupt, greedy, and caused american manufacturing to deteriorate. The're nearly extinct now except for public service unions .. and their expiration is our next agenda.

One of the great things about capitalism is that once things start to effect the pocket book reforms happen quick! So if the American people are confident in our drive to bring unions and jobs back to American, begin a made in America label campaign, and are fixed on national health insurance for all... I think then, the money could be considered hard earned red blooded American money that I would be proud to use for our cause! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

Campaign contributions are fine as long as the party you give money has clear policy... it is this problem that allows them to take money for bad things, because they never had any real policy when they took the money, ran for office and got elected, allowing them to implement favors once in office... so it is my feeling that clear and specific plaforms would be a better agent for success rathter than no money. Although I once opposed contributions, I now say yes if our policy house is in order... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

SATXRich,

I am accused sometimes of making rather tortured distinctions, and plead guilty - sort of...

For instance, as I understand it we are currently a 527 organization - I think I saw that in one of Glenn's or pehaps a moderator's post. I think this is appropriate, recognize and respect the rationale underlying 527s; essentially these are provided to allow folks to freely associate and share their views (educate?) under the Constitutional protections afforded individual citizens by the First Amendment. I believe that this sort of activity should be encouraged rather than stifled, and that there is no compelling government interest in regulating these in the normal course of operations.

Now, the distinction. A candidate and/or his/her campaign is not an individual private American citizen - ergo these protections don't apply. This is an individual who has intentionally placed himself into a public role, seeks access to the public purse, aspires to a position of public power - and does so knowingly recognizing that their are rules, requirements and restrictions on his activities within this sphere of activities. We have the right to regulate where the money comes from, how it is spent, what the time-frames are. We could (heaven forbid!) - insist that campaign communications contain no proveable falsehoods. One of the compelling arguments in support of publicly funded campaigns is the fact that the taxpayers funding the campaign activities gives us an even more compelling to dictate the scope and nature (not the content) of the activities.

The right to participate at the candidate level derives from We the People through the Constitution and our elected Representatives, and the right to regulate these activities (in federal races) in every aspect derives from Article 1, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. This is why I become so enraged when the Supreme's question the right of Congrss to put inplace limits and requirements on candidates and campaigns. Aaaargh!!!

That said, and easing off my soap-box, I recognize and agree that 527s have been badly abused by both parties, and would be thrilled to see them regulated harshly when and if they stray and become directly involved in express advocacy for or against candidates or specific measures, if only there were some entity with the teeth to do so. It is important for all in our movement to recognize just how weak and inefective the FEC is, and what a stooge and flak it is for the major parties and the staus quo. Which lead once again to my contention that we must expand our focus to Congrssional and state legislative races.

Once and if we actually get into the business of selecting or directly supporting or opposing candidates or measures, we will rightly need to form a SPAC, GPAC or both to engage in this sort of activity. The mechanics and the PR aspects of keeping these entities properly segregated will be an onerous task that I'm certain the Founders both recognize and dread.

Mark,

You misunderstand my position though I can see why based on the way I phrased my post.

I do want to know if we are doing any or all of the things we said.

HOWEVER, I do think it hypocritical if we think that the speech of our members and supporters can be supported with no cash limits but we want to say other folks should be limited.

My position is

1) full disclosure there should be no secret supporters
2) no foreign money
3) no caps other than what the current law require

Bingo! All interests are special interests of one sort or another and free political speech requires resources. Imagine the Federalist Papers being unable to be published because of spending caps.

Money is NOT political speech but constraining the use of dollars in support of anyones position is a limit on effective speech.

Unity08 just needs to be consistent.

vry

RET

I would first like to echo Bill's July 6 post and perhaps take issue with SATXRrich's of the same date. We are starting a (hopefully peaceful) revolutionary movement here and the idea that we would refuse such support as might be offered from some wealthy/generous individual, business or foundation eludes me. It makes us seem in my view almost as elitist as the radical elements in both major parties. We need the support of $5, $50, $500 and $5,000 supporters, and will get it if we honestly and effectively pursue the initiative as it has been developed thus far.

We must of course be absolutely transparent, publish for public inspection every contribution and refuse any contributions from supporters of whatever type who won't disclose their information. And certainly the prohibition of lobbyist contributions is a no-brainer...

I would also echo a sentiment that I caught somewehere on one of our threads recently (can't remember which now - I get lost in the maze): We are ourselves a special interest group. Our special interest happens to lie in good responsive and responsible government. If Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Chamber of Commerce or the U.S. Coalition of Thinking Christians decided that they too see value in our effort and choose to put their money behind us, we should tell them "No?" I don't see it...

Doug Bailey posted this, here: http://unity08.com/node/208

Question: Will Unity08 have a platform?
We think it should have an agenda but not a platform – with all items on the agenda the subject of robust debate on the web site. Each candidate for the Unity08 nomination would be asked and expected to address that agenda with his/her own platform. The items on the agenda would be issues that surveys of the participants indicate they believe to be crucial to the future safety and well-being of the country (rather than, for example, issues that may be important and worthy of debate but not crucial to the future of America).

And, this is posted in the FAQs: http://unity08.com/faq

Question: What candidate are you doing this for? No one. We're doing this because the current system is broken and we owe it to ourselves and our children to fix it.

While I am heartened to find Unity 08 taking flight, I am concerned that it seems to need wings. On the website, in the section about "Beliefs" I am in total agreement and have been hoping us moderates could get it together and form some kind of coalition to make a difference. But what we don't need are just more talking heads and endless blogs on which to vent. I'm hoping for more - a real platform we can stand on (in the middle of this road) and some leaders we can support and trust to do the right thing on all fronts. What exactly is the proposed platform and who are the candidates/leaders for Unity 08?

I would like to say equal speech and if someone throws out a few million they should give me the same for rebuttal. Free Speech is great but so is "One Man, One Vote" even if it isn't PC.
Talk may be cheap but not during campaigns. It is just the content that is cheap then.

You said you're not like all the other parties. Prove it.

I have no problem with RETs 2,3, and 5. We are a special interest group and I think an individual can contribute anything the law allows. I would perfer there were no caps on personal donations and I think that would be constitutionally correct.

But if U08 is going to distinguish itself with any of it, the conmcil should say so. I'm still on board anyway.

Founders,

A great many of us are concerned about the influence of money, lobbyists and special interests in politics.

Is Unity08 going to lead by example by:

1. Not accpeting donations greater than $500
2. No donations from corporations or foundations.
3. No donations from Lobbyists
4. No donations from special interest groups
5. Disclosing where all its money comes from

?

vry,

RET

vry,

RET