Comment: I read

(See in situ)


I read

I read the entire Essay Topic from the OP.

I read almost every response (definitely the long ones, which were serious responses).

I have a challenge to offer.

First, you may want to know that I ran for Congress in 1996, was on the ballot in California 40th district. I got on the ballot on my own dime, my own time, with the help of a co-worker who was working at the same full time (plus over time) job during the election cycle (psycho).

I can also offer to you, before I offer the challenge, an appreciation, heartfelt, for military service of the genuine, not counterfeit, kind. I do mean kind, generous, sacrifice, and not a paying job that is better than going to prison type "military service".

Genuine, generous, military service is the ultimate sacrifice as high in moral standing, in my opinion, as is parenting. There can be no parents without a POWER that keeps the bad guys from taking everything.

So, the challenge offered, with all that out of the way, is debate exercise.

This is a vital necessity for anyone seeking to fight the Liberty fight in the rigged, fraudulent, counterfeit, government apparatus.

If you do not stand on principle you will be knocked off balance.

My guess, based upon the reading I did, but this is only a guess, since there was no information concerning what exactly is the base principle (other than Liberty, which can be misunderstood easily) of the OP, my guess is that the OP's base principle is on a solid foundation, but how about testing it?

Sparing partners for Liberty?

Does that make sense?

Is it a waste of time to practice challenging a potential candidates base intentions, and challenging a potential candidates base principles, and challenging a potential candidates thinking, and challenge a potential candidates past, present, and future actions in the role of government?

To me that is the missing element, the competition, and I don't mean the counterfeit competition, I mean the genuine articles.

So...the challenge can start with standard debate questions.

Standard debate questions can be base, principles, fall back, root, where the rubber meets the road, type questions that challenge any potential challenger seeking offices which are now, in this counterfeit version of government, too POWERFUL, but none the less real positions where individual people are raised above, and given too much POWER, so obviously, there is grave error in electing (not that The People actual do any "electing") psychopaths, sociopaths, snake oil salesmen, liars, thieves, criminals, into those positions where individuals are given (or are taking) too much POWER.

Standard Debate Questions (that can uncover poor, inexperienced, and ineffective liars quickly):

1.
What is the role of government?

2.
As a hired employee of government what, in your opinion, constitutes abuse of your power?

3.
What is the device, the mechanism, employed in government, as you see it, for judging you, in case you abuse government power?

4.
List every lawful power each individual has in government as you see it.

5.
Why, in your own mind, according to your own conscience, would any individual ever take power away from any other individual?

The offering here is along the lines of constructing a competitive litmus testing type, or acid test type, challenge for any person to ask of any other person seeking political power.

The problem, it seems to me, is that no one but me, is asking these questions, and no one but me, apparently, even considers these types of questions to be important.

I think Ron Paul is an exception, and so the idea is to find out if there are any other exceptions to the rule that currently rules, which is Blind Obedience to Falsehood without Question.

Joe