Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: How to govern a modern nation

Posted 10 years ago on May 9, 2013, 4:52 a.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First, scrap everything you know about government. Pretend for a sec that what you knew until now will have no influence on your design of a new democratic system.

Forget that it seems impossible, as that kind of thinking cannot lead to good change.

. Describing a new form of government so most people understand it requires a limitation on vocabulary used.

What needs to be governed in a nation? Law, justice, human needs, resource management, environmental protection, economic stability, and stuff like that. All the different aspects of modern life, or the divisions of government. That's it. It doesn't need to feel complicated.

What complicates things? Political parties complicate everything. Corporations strive to complicate everything. Corruption is too easy. Voting is fraudulent, and that's a fact.

Make things simple by taking those divisions of government and calling them Departments. Simple. They are separate, and for the most part do not affect or interfere with each other.

What is the purpose of separating Departments? These are the pillars of a nation. Each must be pure and strong. They all cannot be governed properly by one entity.

To govern Departments effectively, we must allow them to govern themselves under specific guidelines specified by the people democratically. This means we must remove political parties and the electoral process. This is really all that needs to get scrapped.

We don't need a president or prime minister. We don't need governors or senators. We don't need irresponsible parties competing for power. Aren't you sick of being cheated and lied to over and over? You can have better life without them.

It is irresponsible for people to vote. Pretty much nobody can understand the needs and problems of every Department. So what are people voting for, the prettiest known faces? The party that promises what you want and hates what you hate? So irresponsible.

You should only be politically active in the Department(s) you are most familiar with and concerned about. People who don't know much about your Department(s) should have no political influence on your decision making. Now that's responsible government.

Don't worry about departments you're not associated with, they are cared for by other citizens who are probably better off without your input.

. So now that we've broken down government into Departments, we only need to look at the governance of one. It doesn't matter which one really, as they all work the same (aside from the two unique ones: The Justice and Economics Departments). Let's call it The Department.

If there are no political parties, governors or a president, who is in power, making decisions that affect us all? How are these people put into power if we're not voting anymore?

Rather than voting, we use a method of evaluation. A leader does not have a fixed amount of time in power, but must maintain a competitive level of popularity in the Department. A leader can be replaced instantly simply by slipping in popularity.

Since leaders belong to a Department rather than a physical location, we drop geographic borders. Each Department spans the nation. So, the Departmental Constituency (people who evaluate the Department's leadership), will be in every state, for each department.

Departmental decision-making (legislation, amendments, etc.), is done publicly, with three main forces determining the outcome: Leaders, Constituents and the Political Opposition Parties. More on the new breed of Political Party in a bit, but with the real-time electronic engagement of the Departmental Constituency, leaders can lose popularity rather quickly.

A responsible government needs a strong force opposing it, keeping it in check and balance. Another name for Political Opposition Party is Activist Opposition. These are groups who organize to protest and fight for what they believe in. Green Peace is an excellent example of a hypothetical Party opposing Departments like Environment.

Any citizen can join any Party, and a Party can oppose multiple Departments. A Department can have multiple Parties opposing it.

To be a member of a Constituency (to earn the right to evaluate), however, means that you have to be employed by the public sector. By implementing Departmental Governance, every Department will offer guaranteed employment to any citizen (pay depends on attitude, behavior and comparable wages). The removal of systemic corruption and waste makes this promise possible, and what better way to stimulate the economy than putting money into the pockets of the less fortunate?

Members of Activist Opposition Parties can, but are not required to, be employed by the public sector. Technical rules apply.

. What's left to talk about but how the Department represents us on a national level, and in the international arena?

We've established that each Department spans the entire nation. In addition to this structure, we acknowledge that each community and region has unique needs and characteristics. The Department has three levels: National, Regional and Local. Each level must strive to produce a certain amount of leaders. Regional leaders represent the Local level. National-level leaders represent the regional and local leaders. This is what is referred to by a Departmental Leadership.

There will be one top-level leader for each Department. These leaders are not accountable to each other and are only required to cooperate in times of interdepartmental conflict. Technical rules apply.

How does the nation interact with other nations? Who is the one at the very top, above all departments? A figurehead without power, perhaps someone appointed by the International Affairs Department or whatever you want to call it. Someone that everyone can like, with remarkable integrity and character. Other nations will know that the figurehead is the voice of the Departments.

Any nation brave enough to switch to Departmental Governance will undoubtedly surpass other nations in terms of justice, freedom, education, health and wealth.

Our intellectuals tell us emphatically that systemic change is necessary. We have to think this far outside of the box. But what is so strange about Departmental Governance? Nothing - it's just that we're trained to avoid such thinking.

Perhaps the most important to realize is that people can understand how it works for a change. It's so simple and predictable: if there's a problem, it will be fixed or leaders will be replaced (and the next best candidates are always ready, willing and able).



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

So you are thinking of going from a Republic to a technocracy, employing technical experts who have the power to make law as they feel is best for the nation.

It is something to think about. Though I believe lobbyists would still be able to effect technocrats decisions, but the popularity clause could go a long way to checking the abuse lobbyists could engender.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Sounds about right, though I'm no expert on names and definitions. You're right that the popularity meter will be effective in finding/retaining the best person for the job.

The lobbyists... ya, corruption will be decimated by this system, but they are a powerful force.

Departmental Governance (DG) will fit with any economic system. I'm hoping to escape the money-based economy eventually, as I really see that working. DG is plug and play.

DG was invented because something called Responsible Capitalism (RC) cannot happen when corporate elite owns government. When RC is in place, we won't have to worry about lobbyists at all. RC is not an economic system, but more of a method to deprive irresponsible capitalists and allow the good entrepreneurs to thrive. I'd rather not get into RC in this thread, but message me if you want more.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago

rise up or die

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

What do you dislike about DG, or think is missing?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago

his voting record leaves much to be desired.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Sorry, I meant Departmental Governance. This post.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago

we are up against pure evil... you do know that don't you???

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

So we design evolution first, then design the strategy to attain it.

I would feel much better if say Hedges was in the top leadership of the Justice Department, and Suzuki in the Nature Department, and Wolff in the Economics Department (you know where I'm going with this).

You're right, it needs to be a well-crafted plan. Remember, systemic problems need radical changes to the system. Voting for some new party is not a solution, as the corrupt(able) system will remain.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago

no we just need to get the presidency. with the expanded powers we can throw these scumfucks en masse in gitmo forever.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Who is going to get the presidency in an intentionally divided nation? Voting doesn't work. It's only there to make you believe you have a choice. The "presidency" is just an illusion created by the top level scumfucks. They protect themselves well, are well fortified and can smell us coming. What's your strategy?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 years ago

speaking truth.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

Are there any counties that operate under this model - successfully ?

My solution is far less radical
and much closer to success
how many of our OWS issues would not be solvable if
corporations are not people & money is not speech ?

Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.

Join the NYC OWS
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

This is the first REAL step to REAL change .

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )


join us even if you are not in the NY area
check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood

We can continue,

as a movement of demands
as a movement of declarations
as a movement of marches


Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 83% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?

We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must

Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!

83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll


In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


Section 1 {A corporation is not a person and can be regulated}
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons { human beings } only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 { Money is not speech }
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, and may restrict all financing to “public financing” for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. As above, all foreign contributions are forbidden.

Section 3 { Transparency & Disclosure }
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed less than 60 days after the transaction and before the election.

Section 4 { Voter Suppression }
Federal, State and local government shall not require any new forms of id for voting, beyond what was needed to register for previously registered voters. College photo-id ( including for out-of-state students ) must be acceptable. Federal, State and local government shall permit early voting for at least the 6 days before the election day.

Section 5 { Election Day & Registration }
Federal, State and local government may make election day a holiday. Federal, State and local government must allow simultaneous registration and voting on election day.

Section 6 { Eliminate the Electoral College – one man one vote } The electoral college is abolished and the President and Vice-President will be elected by popular vote. .

Section 7 { Eliminate the Filibuster } Unless specified in the Constitution , all voting in the House and Senate shall be based on a simple majority.

Section 8 Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press .

{NOTE: sections 4, 5, 6, 7 are not required to overturn CU – just my wish list }


Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)

If they could tie the left and right into a success - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


83% of Americans ( and 76% of the Rs ) have already opposed CU in
the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
This Amendment { sections 1+2 }is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process. 4
OWS and the FORUM pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state our demands! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP, the TP, the anti-SOPA – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power and political pressure to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task that the MAJORITY want.

There are at least seventeen different Constitutional Amendments in the works.
Help us support these moves to get the money out of our political system.

Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

I don't mean to be rude, but do you mind deleting or editing out most of that post? Since it was copy-pasted anyway, a link would do the trick. But it is terribly distracting and sort of off topic.

Americans should all do what you ask, because you're right, corporations suck and anything we can do to slow them down is a step in the right direction.

My point is, as you've said, "My solution is far less radical and much closer to success". This is the point: I'm interested in serious, very radical change. Our intellectuals know and stress that radical, fundamental, systemic change is necessary for a multitude of reasons.

Are there any counties that operate under this model - successfully ? I don't think this has been tried.

You say "how many of our OWS issues would not be solvable if corporations are not people & money is not speech?" To that I say, without changing in the magnitude I'm talking about, these symptoms/issues will happen again. And we'll fix them and they will happen again and again. Activists do great things, but have you not noticed that the great victories get ruined in time? This is because the solutions are aimed at symptoms and not the root.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

so - we disagree about how to change Anerica -
can you tell me three key OWS goals that will not become att ainable with "my" approach
millions of Anericans agree with me
thousans of elected officials agree with me
OWS agress with me.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

You are doing the right thing, I said. It's just that I'm trying to explain how simple DG is here and you're popping up with 10,000 words of irrelevance, copy-pasted thousands of times. A link is good enough. Everyone with over 0 points has seen your posts. I agree with you, and it's crazy that government doesn't care what 90% of the population thinks or wants. Remember all the things FDR did in the 30's? So amazing. The capitalists were actually threatened by the socialist and communist parties, to the point where he had to change, and not even so radically. But did it last? Longer than expected, I'd say. The capitalists planned from the start to undo it, and they got really effective undoing the good things. There will always by good and bad people voted in and always lies, which will never change in this system. Anyways, not much I can do for you. I don't reside in your borders and I don't have time for fighting recurring symptoms. I do wish you all the best though.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

I like this idea. I've always liked the idea of having government officials as players on a football team, able to substitute one player for another very quickly if needed. Everybody is on the same team.

I really believe the power will be in the simplicity of the new system.

Transparency and accountability create the world with few temptations.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Thanks, and I agree. Power and quality will be in the simplicity. True transparency and accountability is necessary, and these things we do not have a shred of today. How can citizens even want to pretend that they change anything by participating in the current political process? I'm glad we have those mass petition organizations springing up everywhere!

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

Ho, Ho, good laugh. You think you know.

I recommend this book by Machiavelli titled "The Prince".

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Boring and pointless. Ancient and irrelevant. Why would you recommend it?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

It may be ancient, but certainly not boring, pointless, or irrelevant. The book is really about human nature, and dealing with it. It is a worthwhile read, and if you come to understand what Machiavelli is saying, you'll then come to see that what you are proposing, although admirable, is pure fantasy.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

I think you are misinterpreting the book. Give me an example of its significance to prove your point, understanding we are in the age of information.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

Read me reply below.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Care to sum it up? Looks really boring.

[-] 3 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

Let me try to sum it up with a few short words (always dangerous.) Machiavelli writes people, especially people in politics, are not interested in working together. They are into getting over on the other. Politics is about power, raw power. It is about doing the other guy in, before he does you in. Look at all the wars going on in the world today. What do you think that is all about? Keeping America save from terrorists? Spare me the bullshit. Oil, money, greed? maybe a little bit. But it is really about power, ultimate power, who controls the big island controls the world. That is what Machiavelli describes.
So, think. No government in power will switch to "departmental governance" simply because they would be giving away power. Nobody in power is interested in anybody's justice, freedom, education, health , or welfare. The powers only dole that stuff out enough to keep the masses pacified. So long as the masses aren't rising up and burning down towns, they don't need any more. They can be given even less.

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

I borrowed the book from the library, haven't got far into it yet, but plan to find a way to defeat these arguments.

So far it seems like he was trying to get a good wage as an adviser by proving his unparallelled understanding of human nature and the situation (before the world was fully mapped out).

Is this so hard on your mind that you can't discuss better systems, and not even just that, you have to defeat it ASAP, like you're on the other side?

We aren't talking about giving the option to politicians. We are designing a suitable if not ideal system. Can you help make it better than it has already become? Or are you what I like to call "stuck", like so many zombies out there. I think there is a lot of suppressed creativity... people don't have time to care. Busy putting bandaids on a terminally-ill patient's chicken pox.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

From what I understand Machiavelli was trying from getting his head chopped off by the guy who knocked off his old boss.....

No, I'm not against your ideal. I'm actually trying to help you (us) get there. Good thing you got the book. Maybe you'll come to see what I'm talking about. Its nice to talk about ideals, but quite honestly I've heard many such good and wonderful things. However, without laying out a path on how to come to those ideals, there is not much sense in them. I'm only pointing out the obstacles. When you (somebody) figures out how to overcome them, then you (we) got a plan.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Thanks Shule, working on it!

I understand the lesson that there is no point worrying about things you can't change. I just don't care, and I'm happy wasting time on this (much to the dismay of family/society).

It's all about timing and circumstances. Big change is coming and we'll be forced to change the way we do things, for our survival.

For example, as Richard Wolfe explains better than anyone can in his May 2013 Monthly Update, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uo3aiHBLBM, we are on a long decline in wealth and purchasing power. There is no recovery for the "middle class" coming. My kids will be worse off than me, and I will be a burden on them to make things worse, because the government isn't there for us.

I've been working on a plan to inject a poison into capitalism, currently called the 99% Conglomerate. It is designed to turn the tables on capitalists and lead us to systemic (political and economic) evolution.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

Would it be possible for a movement such as OWS to organize itself internationally along these lines? This would serve numerous purposes: it would test the theory; assuming it works, it would provide an example of the power and efficiency of such a clean line of management; and when the current systems implode, there will be an alternative in place.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

The first thing to do is name and define the Departments.

We would have to get people worldwide to choose the Departments they want to influence. We would then determine if each person falls into the Departmental Constituency or the Activist Opposition (or both).

We can take any existing activist nonprofit organizations out there and determine which Department(s) they oppose. Then match people with their interests.

We'd need a mobile app for citizen involvement that delivers news Tailored to the user (Leadership/departmental activity), connects people to the legislative court when decisions are being made/debated, and provides the evaluation tool of course. A corresponding web app is also needed.

That would be one hell of a good start, after getting financing and volunteers in order.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

I haven't given it much thought though the question has been asked before. Probably not right away. It needs to become common knowledge that this system is available, on the shelf, waiting for people who have an eye for diamonds in the rough. Unfortunately only a handful of people in the world are aware of its existence.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

The treaties of Westphalia are over 400 years old. The idea of a "nation" is an antiquated one.


[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

The treaties of Westphalia are where the modern idea of a "nation" comes from. It is the reason why governments have sovereignty and not individuals.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 10 years ago

If we all shared the loss due to inefficiency, coruption would disipate quickly. We need a fair and equal system where profits and loss are shared evenly.. We all win or we all lose..

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

That will only happen if we do the Venus Project. More specifically, leave money in the past and move on to a resource-based economy. Fairness and equality can not happen until money is history.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 10 years ago

"Fairness and equality can not happen until money is history."

Can you back this statment with logical explanation?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Hell yes. Because its true. I challenge you too, to explain how/when money created equality.

We have the technology now to provide what everyone needs and deserves, and even wants just to improve. Without money, without distributing goods and services via a market system. We can now manage the world's resources intelligently and provide equitable abundance for everyone. Am I wrong?

Money is new. It's a tool to get wealth from less greedy people. Some people are greedy, some less so. To have fairness in a money system, we would have to kill the greedy. But who has the motivation to do any killing?... The greedy and powerful, that's who.

And my last point: if money worked, it would have worked by now. But look at the state we're in.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

we are driven by a need for money through rent and debt

[-] 0 points by highlander21 (-46) 10 years ago

guns, or individual freedom

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Wait... What?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

What if technology fails, is a question I might ask someone if they proposed this, since the democracy is kind of tied to computers.

A backup plan is needed. (is there a backup plan for bitcoin?) I'm talking about total power failure. Could good decisions be made and could the democracy be retained?

People could still meet. Leaderships could still be evaluated. Legislation could still be public, and obviously modifications to citizen involvement processes would be needed.

I don't think it would be a challenge creating these contingency plans.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Anyone interested in taking this idea and making it their own? Bright young minds, mature folks not chained up and controlled, anybody pissed off and desperate for change... I need you. The world needs you.

Let us rebuild. Let's strategize. Let's use imagination, brainstorming, let's be vulnerable, thicken our skins and soften our hearts.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Anyone else care to comment?

Sounds like nobody thinks it's a bad idea.

How would you improve upon it?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Excellent post. "First, scrap everything you know about government"....thats the hardest part right there.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 years ago

Thanks! Ya, getting people to think outside the box is tricky.

I noticed your points are going in the wrong direction, shouldn't you be at -1000 by now? It was fun before watching you race for a low score!

[+] -6 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Well quit sitting on the sidelines and stinkle me dammit!! haha.

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 10 years ago

Done...I was just thinking the same thing when I saw you broke 200 (going down, not up). My screen names get banned before I can attain your lofty score!