You apparently want a government that is in the best interests of the American people and the American nation, instead of one that serves the interests of the corporate puppet masters.
Best wishes for the effort. I certainly support the idea. But, if you'll excuse my cynicism, I expect it to founder once the puppet masters start pulling their strings.
minor quibble: Reagan didn't crush the USSR. He and his neocon cronies claimed credit for it but without any basis for that claim.
aha--you mean the already existing nationalist party?
yeah . . . NOT related to it. at first glance they look like harcore conservatives. the party my friend and I started (and it's still on the ground) is moderate. looks like we need a name change.
upon further looking into--they are more hardcore conservative than perhaps even Ahmednijad. jesus.
Instead, our party would make a compromise—we’ll raise the taxes, but only by so much, and only for so many years.
What if they still say "No, not gonna raise them?" I mean, don't both sides have to be willing to compromise?
As such—we are not going to make slanderous claims against opponents. We aim to present our ideas—and to let the best idea, or man, win. We want to make politics more about having good ideas than about having a better looking face.
So what are you gonna do when the other side(s) don't stop slinging and your standing there with mud all over your face and no votes?
We have to become a partner in world affairs...
...as long as we don't lose our position of power.
Not only that, but most politicians are considered lying, thieving, and uncaring when it comes to their constituents. While we are in the age of federal power, and while we must accept that on the federal level we can no longer argue for state advantages and privileges, we have to reduce the size of this behemoth and make it more accessible to the public.
Seems alright in theory, but during your introduction/transition, the government will still be filled with liars and I don't see them going anywhere so how do you get in?
The final general area of interest is the improvement of America.
America is pretty damn good the way it is. How are we going to become a partner to the world if we're going to shit on them by making ourselves even more better?
These are my initial thoughts after one read through, not a whole lot of thinking went into this, moslty just reaction.
This does require a change in the political landscape. It relies on people being sick and tired of the crappy campaigns. It relies on people being willing to sit down and actually think. not just go for the best-looking guy, but the guy who has the best ideas. It also requires people (especially the gov't) to realize that compromise is necessary--I don't think anyone is happy with the rate at which our government works.
we're already losing power--our relative power. As China and India become more powerful, and if the EU ever decides to really do something, even if we haven't lost our actual power, we've a lot less relative power. My personal prediction--we're going ot end up in the concert of europe all over again, with the balance of power--just globally, instead of in europe.
As to improvement of america--that's our domestic area. mainly its education.
And if they keep on throwing mud, and we don't throw back, who would you vote for?
thanks for actually putting up some criticisms. can't wait for the full thing.
abe:if we don't improve the nation (esp education) just to not piss of others, how do we prevent loss of power? many nations would like nothing more than for the US to fall to the wayside--almost total loss of power. People pick on the most powerful, they complain about the most powerful. While we're still in the business of pissing of those who don't like us to begin with, we may as well improve a bunch of the stuff we do wrong here.
This does require a change in the political landscape. It relies on people being sick and tired of the crappy campaigns. It relies on people being willing to sit down and actually think. not just go for the best-looking guy, but the guy who has the best ideas. It also requires people (especially the gov't) to realize that compromise is necessary
emphasis added
Do you really think this is something the general public will do? I don't. WRT the gov't people realizing the necessity of comprimise, I don't think they are going to give anyhting up as greedy as they seem.
I don't think anyone is happy with the rate at which our government works.
I'm content, I don't really know how happy I am but I don't feel very unhappy.
we're already losing power--our relative power.
Yeah, I don't really know much about that.
As to improvement of america--that's our domestic area. mainly its education.
and healthcare...but that's just gonna piss off the terrorists et al even more, are we really going to become more partner-like or are we going to leave them behind?
And if they keep on throwing mud, and we don't throw back, who would you vote for?
It depends on how dirty you got. At the least, you should defend yourself.
Thanks for sharing though, it certainly is a good idea.
I heard that kuresu and his friend have never even voted. They have not set up any oversight for all the millions of dollars in campaign funds raised, have not agreed to any campaign spending provisions or opened their finances to examination. Neither one has served his country or ever held a real job, they have lived off unknown sources of income and have spoken out against religious beliefs.
She has spent more money on my brother and cousins (mom's side of family) and me than any other aunt/uncle.
Kuresu has accused our allies of thinking that they are the center of the universe, insulting them, yet says the we must build alliances.
kuresu writes:
I wonder if they still think they're the center of europe?
*********************************************
Starting a political party takes more than ideals. You probably need to spend a few years working in the arena, finding out what is involved in vetting a speech or building a platform, in organizing, in learning what to say, how to say it and most importantly, when to say it.
It looks like I found my next column--a further disertation on "being partners with the world".
Put briefly--we need partners to help us accomplish our foreign policy goals. Naturally, you don't ally with those whose only goal is to destroy you.
as to the mud-slinging: defense is good--but you do not insult or attack your opponent, you destroy his ideas. That's one thing that really pissed me off about hte last pres. election--one accused the integrity of the other's military record, and the other turns around and does the same thing. Instead of solely defending the integrity of thier own record.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
