The TYT WolfPAC Forum is Online


Click to go to the TYT WolfPAC Forum


I sent the folks at TYT the following email:

"Hi there.

I would just like to suggest a more advanced forum for the wolfpac website. With the current one, it's difficult to keep track of people's ideas and suggestions and hard to reply to people. Sometimes, responses to a certain post go unread.

For a movement like ours, a quality forum for ideas and discussion amongst the members is as vital as food and water. I am not alone in being dissatisfied with the current forum which fails to provide the features the community needs. I would recommend vBulletin if money is not a problem. Otherwise, Proboards would work just fine. Please consider my suggestion and act with all deliberate speed. If you do not have the resources or time to create and maintain such a forum, I will create the forum myself.

Thank you for reading.

Your loyal fan,


When I wrote this, I intended to wait for a response, but I realized that was not necessary.  I've gone ahead and created a functional forum for discussion.  If PAC leadership creates an official one, we will move the content from this user-created one to theirs.  Until then, I say we use this one. 

So far there is only a board for general/whatever discussion.  I will build up the structure of the forum to suit our needs very soon.  Go ahead and register and hang tight.

Do you like this post?

Showing 12 reactions

commented 2011-10-28 14:33:59 -0400 · Flag
Yeah, all discussion and changes to the members’ amendments are gonna be done here now. It’s far easier to reply to people and conduct polls.

Tell John B. Brown to start coming here too. I’ve stopped posting arguments on this website and started posted them on the new forums.
commented 2011-10-28 13:43:26 -0400 · Flag
“We have a forum, you know.”
I’m really confused now. I have three links that all seem to be about the same thing and I don’t know which is which. Is this the one-and-only? I’d rather only have to post once.
commented 2011-10-28 13:35:34 -0400 · Flag

No, I don’t think the state PACs accept donations. Just send them to the main PAC.


We have a forum, you know.
commented 2011-10-28 13:15:04 -0400 · Flag
I think it’s important to consider over-all strategy when setting out to remove money from the electoral process. I realize Cenk wants to revoke personhood and reform campaign finance; they’re both critical to restoring citizen sovereignty. I doubt it can be done simultaneously but I know it can be done sequentially.

The problems I see with an Amendment proposal featuring both concepts simultaneously is that the human mind can’t absorb that much philosophy in one sitting. We must remember that whatever we propose here will be turned into both FOX and MSNBC talking points in the most distorted light possible; and they’re really good at it. Therefore brevity and simplicity are critical to achieving universal approval. It’s going to be hard enough to pass one concept through a ratification process much less two; though we know they’re both related.

Election reform has already been legislated several times but corporate money always finds a way to work around it because the Constitution gives them Rights. For that reason I think it is critical to remove those Constitutional Rights before attempting to keep them out of the electoral process. Furthermore, it is quite possible and maybe probable, that electoral reform could be accomplished legislatively once the “tap-root” of corporate power, personhood, is uprooted. Canceling corporate personhood constitutionally not only exposes them to government prosecution, it exposes them to the imposition of terms and conditions on their charters. The People could then define how corporations would participate in politics, if at all. Media corporations would thus have their roles defined differently than political campaign corporations such as Democratic Corp., Republican Corp. or Libertarian Corp. Others, like GE, JPMorgan, Federal Reserve, SEIU, ACLU, etc would be prohibited from interfering in any way with the conduct of government, including lobbying. Corporate charters could henceforth be written to automatically dissolve a corporation when it became Too Big To Fail, for instance. If we put as much thought into the writing of corporate charters as we did in writing the Constitution, we wouldn’t have any of the problems we have today. We could turn our attention to important issues like peak oil and over-population.

But it all starts with the simple act of restoring sovereignty to the US government. Having restored sovereignty to the US government it becomes a smaller struggle to restore sovereignty to The People that live here. The key, the linchpin, the tap root of corporate hegemony lies in its power to use the Constitution against us. Ask any prosecutor how hard it is to bring corporate criminals to justice. (I wish a state or federal prosecutor would stick their necks out and post on this forum; we need your input badly.)

OWS now has the world’s attention. Our message will be known by all. The simpler we keep it the more likely the world will understand it. The more words we pile on that message, the harder it becomes to understand, the less likely the critical mass we need is going to get behind it.

Do FOX or MSNBC want to argue that corporations are people, too? They’ve shown a willingness to argue everything else, but even corporate shills know better than to argue that point. (Except Mitt, of course)

Electoral reform will be a natural by-product of de-personalization anyway; why push it now?
commented 2011-10-28 08:59:54 -0400 · Flag
Does anybody want to go back and consider this wording and/or concept for getting money out of politics and into human hands?

Section 1. Incorporated entities are not persons: and as such, they are only entitled to the rights and privileges granted to them under the terms of their individual charters.

Section 2. Incorporated entities other than those expressly chartered to promote candidates for political office shall be forbidden to engage in, interfere with, or petition legislation in the affairs of a duly constituted government, official, agency, or representative thereof.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(And do we still really need Sec. 3? )
commented 2011-10-28 08:28:23 -0400 · Flag
@ Lam

Is there a way to donate to WoldPAC North Dakota, or do you receive a share of the donations given through this site?
commented 2011-10-27 23:39:19 -0400 · Flag
Yes, I am a volunteer for outreaching and I’m also the state leader of WolfPAC North Dakota. As far as my connections with TYT and Cenk, I am just like you, an active contributor to the site.

I don’t really have an official role, but over time, it seems I’ve been moderating the process of refining and bettering the initial amendment laid out by the PAC.
commented 2011-10-27 23:11:58 -0400 · Flag
@ Lam

Just wondering if you officially deal with Cenk and TYT or are you a volunteer or basically what is your role? other than to just help facilitate the process for making the ammendment
commented 2011-10-27 19:20:24 -0400 · Flag
It’s at the top of the page, John.


I have not. If we get enough support, we might begin to use it as a rallying cry! Obviously, Cenk and TYT would have to get behind it.
commented 2011-10-27 19:19:17 -0400 · Flag
Hmmm. I wonder where it is?
commented 2011-10-27 17:35:32 -0400 · Flag
Hi Lam, it’s bubba checkin in;>)

Have you had a chance to float this one-line proposed Amendment in front of the general population at #OWS ?

I sincerely believe it could become the rallying cry and bumper-sticker of the whole movement.

Run it up the old flagpole there and see who salutes.
published this page in Blog 2011-10-27 17:21:43 -0400

We need your help,
you can signup with:

Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack


(@fuuuursure) is following @WolfPAChq on Twitter
(@DaIceCold1) is following @WolfPAChq on Twitter
(@Bogarter) is following @WolfPAChq on Twitter
(@RippedToTheTits) is following @WolfPAChq on Twitter
@_oldturk retweeted @WolfPAChq

View All