Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > Elections, Politics, and Partisanship

Elections, Politics, and Partisanship Topics relating to politics, elections, or party affiliations of interests to SOS associates

Immigration Pushed To The Forefront Again.... Thanks! To Everyone Who Has Propelled This Issue To Its' Rightful Position. Years Of Hard Work Are Paying Off.....Keep Up The Good Work!......
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-15-2009, 08:36 AM
Eagle1 Eagle1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOTAZTLAN
Posts: 406
Default

"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."

Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.

I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.

I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.

Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.

The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.


So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.

How do we find out just for our own information?

Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-15-2009, 09:08 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle1 View Post
"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."

Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.

I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.

I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.

Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.

The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.


So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.

How do we find out just for our own information?

Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.
Obviously we need to place more clarification in this section so everyone will be informed. Just for everyones information, it is not a capitol offense to have unintentionally posted something. Many of our forum guidelines are still a work in progress, and we will undoubtedly make alterations to reflect our values and agenda.
Stating ones' opinion about a candidate is acceptable, having taken into consideration all other posting rules.

"I'm supporting Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx for office and I'm doing so because" is your opinion and welcome.

"Please support Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx for office" takes on an aura of advocacy and is not the best wording for the SOS forum

It's a little more important to consider the wording in the thread titles than in the body also.
And one last thing is that prominent associates in management should take extra care when stating personal support, because potential donors or grant managers might see that as the same as organizational support or advocacy.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-19-2009, 02:26 PM
Borderwatch Borderwatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 375
Default Do not support.

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-20-2009, 07:24 AM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

You really think that much? 3%! That kind of showing would be impressive.

On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-20-2009, 07:36 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathy63 View Post
On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.
I could see why she might think that, but I think many employers might just view that as eccentric behavior given the circumstances. Plus, why would someone hiring an employee consider their failures as a positive attribute?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-20-2009, 07:46 AM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. I don't believe the resume is for prospective employers. It's sort of a social experience.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:17 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

I prefer to stick with who I will not vote for and I do not do that with everyone I disagree with, only the worst ones.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Eagle1 Eagle1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOTAZTLAN
Posts: 406
Default

A political run such as Nightingale's could lead to a job working for the Republican party or some other entity.

It will be interesting to see where this leads Nightingale to and where it all ends.

For the time being she has been able to rub elbows with Tancredo, Chuck Devore and who knows whom else.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-20-2009, 11:12 AM
Twoller Twoller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rim05 View Post
I prefer to stick with who I will not vote for and I do not do that with everyone I disagree with, only the worst ones.
Yes, I agree. And for me, if those who I will not vote for are bad enough, then maybe I will vote for their opposition. But not always. For example on the last presidential race, I did not enter a mark for any of the presidential candidates. Nobody got my vote. I firmly believe in being able to submit a "None of the Above" ballot and be counted for it too.

There are those who view this as a kind of surrender and think you should always vote for the lesser of two evils. But this can be an engineered process in which your political opposition wins by getting your support for somebody you don't really support on the thin chance that it moves you just a little closer to some political goal. This is how the "two party system" works, it poses a fake debate and tricks people into supporting one over the other on such empty promises.
__________________
The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-20-2009, 04:45 PM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

Elections to effect a change in government is kind of like a civil war. A bloodless struggle.

If it were a real war, one side would be well organized with one commander and generals who followed orders and inspired loyalty in the troops.

The other side, would have several commanders, giving conflicting orders. They would be disorganized with no loyalty to the goal of victory but following each of the conflicted commanders. Generals are non existent because each commander rules only a very small force.

We all know which side is going to win. That side will use it's overwhelming force to oppress and enslave each of the splintered factions in turn.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState 2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved