Meetup Groups meet face-to-face to pursue hobbies, network, get support, make friends, find playgroups or even change the world!
Get on the Internet to get off the Internet!
You'll get invited to our Meetups as soon as they're scheduled!
| From: | phil fuehrer |
| Sent on: | Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:09 PM |
Terry: No smearing meant at all - just what I see to be possible reservations or qualms of the "regular citizen" that might run across your group. But let me try to clarify my points: I know who you are (at least a little) - but for some schlep in Alaska (ie.- elsewhere than MN or even here if they have no idea who you are) you're not only a complete unknown, you're a complete unknown asking for $8/yr for some esoteric, ethereal or ephemeral-like good government group. The guy in Alaska is as likely to think "scam" (probably more likely) than to think "oh, that's a great idea. I'll sign up". As for the other ideas - I still see very little (if any) practical difference between the AVA, a political party or a PAC (or what these organizations could be pushed to accomplish). You want accountability and will interview candidates/officials, but so what? I'll interview with you (hypothetically) tell you one thing and do another. What are you going to do about it? Tattle on me? The answer is vote me out (or try to, or shame me, etc.) - and that's the same thing that parties, PACs and other special interest groups work to do. And, ultimately it comes down to politics and ideology anyway - your pork barrell project is, for me, integral to solving some hugely important issue. You need to have a balanced budget and no debt, I don't care if there is deficit spending as long as the deficit rises more slowly than the rate of economic growth and may even think that's better fo us than a balance budget. These are all just simple examples, but show that holding officials "accountable" is not so easy as saying it. I'm not saying don't pursue your goals - I'm only saying that if you're frustrated that it isn't catching on like a wildfire it may be that others may not see the problem you do or may believe that other groups, ways, or strategies are better ways to get to the solutions. Frankly, that's the reason you don't have my name on your comittment list - I'd rather the IP serve the role (or similar role) that the AVA proposes. Phil --- Terrance Bushard <[address removed]> wrote: > Doug, > > Communication is easy in the sense that we all know > one or more of > the world's languages. However, despite a great > amount of redundancy, > there is a high probability of ambiguity and > misinterpretation in any > communication process. As in, messages sent > commonly are not > messages received. Which is yet another way of > saying that effective > communication is difficult and it is very > frustrating when messages > sent are not messages received. > > Perhaps Phil wasn't smearing me, but that is the > message I received > by the wording of his questions. Phil, if I > misinterpreted your > message, I apologize. Perhaps, when Peter replied to > Tim's original > message yesterday, "The choice is between giving up > on the country > and the state or doing something.", I received the > message that the > leaving the IP was the equivalent of giving up on > our country and > state. If I misinterpreted the message, I apologize. > > To the point of your e-mail. > > The commonly used word, "vetting" is not in my > dictionary. I assume > it means some kind of screening process, as in > screening potential > candidates for political office for the purpose of > determining if the > "party" wants to endorse and support their > candidacy. > > The current situation is that U. S. Senators and > Representatives > have no obligation to account to the people for > their financial > management of our government, because "the people" > are not organized > for the purpose of imposing an obligation upon them > to do so. The AVA > is about imposing an obligation upon them to account > to us, on a > continual and timely basis, and in an organized > manner, through the > monthly interview process. I hope the difference is > clear. > > PAC. Political Action Committee. I think it is a > group of people > organized for the purpose of promoting a certain > political action. > They form a committee, screen politicians and > support politicians who > will promote their preferred political action. Often > times, with > financial support. AVA members are organized for the > purpose of > getting answers and explanations about the financial > management of > our government, not to give money to politicians. I > hope that is clear. > > The $8.00 per person is to finance the mission of > the AVA. BTW "they" > have already put over $30,000.00 on every Americans > credit card, > "they" are spending at a rate which will put an > additional $1,750.00 > or so, on every one's credit cards this year, and > that is before they > put the "stimulus package" on our credit cards. > $8.00 is as close to > free as I can make it, and still envision making it > happen. I hope > that is clear. > > Mission creep? I can't imagine any reason to change > the mission. > Furthermore, I think there would be serious legal > ramifications for > doing so. > > Would I maintain control of the AVA? I've tried to > get Ross Perot to > take it, but I can't get through his gate keepers. I > have no idea if > he would even be interested. I've tried to hand it > to Citizens > Against Government Waste, but can't break through > the gate keepers. I > don't think imposing an obligation to financially > account upon > politicians is in their mission statement anyway > I've talked to the > Concord Coalition. Same thing. So the answer is, at > least for the > foreseeable future, yes. Tomorrow, I will be 59 > years old. There is > no one in this world I trust to do the job more than > I trust myself. > I will maintain control until such time as I find > someone I trust > enough to hand control over to. > > Doug, I hope I have answered your questions. As you > say, "I'd like to > see it done." I hope to see your name on the sign up > list soon. > > Thank you, > > Terry Bushard > http://www.americ...
> > On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Doug Brown wrote: > > > Terry, > > > > The differences you speak of in #2 are not that > dissimilar from a > > vetting process of a political party. I don't > believe you are > > starting a Pac, but the money aspect of it does > kind of sound like > > one. Maybe a different way of stating your intent > for $8 per person? > > > > I won't speak to what organization does what, > since most get > > started for the best of reasons and then change. > By the way, what > > would make the AVA different this way? Would you > always maintain > > control of the AVA? > > > > I hope you can get 5 million people in your group, > I'd like to see > > it done. Good luck. > > > > Terry, I don't see where Phil attacked you. Where > did he smear > > you? Are you taking the constructive critisim you > espoused as > > liking and turning it into attacks on yourself? > If the idea does > > resonate with enough people, I don't think you'll > have to worry > > about too much publicity until you can galvanize 5 > million people > > into doing something all at once. > > > > Again, good luck to you Terry, I think you'll need > it. > > > > Doug Brown > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Terrance Bushard > <[address removed]> > > To: [address removed] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:15:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [independence-1] Platform convention > > > > Phil, > > > > 2) No. Political parties exist to assist in the > election of their > > candidates for political office. The AVA plan is > to organize the > > general public for the purpose of imposing an > obligation upon all > > U. S. Senators and Representatives, to account to > us, on a > > continual and timely basis, for their financial > management of our > > federal government. We would do this through a > monthly interview > > process as outlined on my web site. Notice, we > would also be > > interviewing all viable candidates for these > offices 3 times prior > > to an election. The difference should be quite > clear to all. > > > > 3) No, and I am not proposing a new PAC. I am > proposing we organize > > for the the above purpose. > > > > 4) No organization exists today, nor to my > knowledge, has ever > > existed for the stated purpose. > > > === message truncated === ____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yah...
![]()