Post your vision of progressive [America]
Since we're into the debate over foreign policy and whether or not it is what "America" meaning the people really want, post your vision (progressive foreign policy). Canadians, UKs, input your vision for your respective countries.
What do you want the US (or other) global vision to be and how do you think it should be carried out?
I think we'll have some different visions than that spouted by our leaders (policy makers).
Myself, desiring "peace on earth" and other sappy stuff like that, I would desire Canada to have first a stronger stance although there are some people worried about economic backlash from opting out of involvement.
We would try to help the voice of oppressed nations through underground networks. From these voices we would be able to better infiltrate the propaganda networks of supreme leaders such as Khomeini of Iran, and help support the democratic movement there for example.
What do you want the US (or other) global vision to be and how do you think it should be carried out?
I think we'll have some different visions than that spouted by our leaders (policy makers).
Myself, desiring "peace on earth" and other sappy stuff like that, I would desire Canada to have first a stronger stance although there are some people worried about economic backlash from opting out of involvement.
We would try to help the voice of oppressed nations through underground networks. From these voices we would be able to better infiltrate the propaganda networks of supreme leaders such as Khomeini of Iran, and help support the democratic movement there for example.
Comments
Yes, yes. This is my vision: for people everywhere to see past the lines on the maps and join hands in a brotherhood of man. Someone cue the Lennon tape, damnit!
True, it was in terrible taste to boo your anthem and don't really like the separatists either ...at least you're being positive..... unlike ColanderOfDeath!!
Look if you're just going to jerk around, go post your stupid crap elsewhere.
Look, I am trying to gain a sense of the disparity between Paul Wolfowitz and the conquer-campaign and with real Americans..!!!!!!!!
Presidential campaigns should last for 2 months maximum....the way it is now only leaves the race open to those who can afford to run an 18 month campaign/buy the Presidency. Dump the electoral college system for the Presidential race. He (she maybe in future
Fix campaign reform and get big corporate and trade union money out of the electoral process.
A progressive America ain't even going to get off the ground until this medieval electoral time capsule is updated.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Things aren't going to get any better until the electoral system is amended to give us proportional representation, meaning *all* the people getting a say in the running of the country, rather than half of the pathetic 40%-50% who bother to vote. Most people who don't vote are either too lazy or feel their vote doesn't count for anything... is that indicative of a system thats in need of fixing or what?
Its more indicative of ambivalence and ignorance to me. Everyone has the right to vote, whether they choose to or not is another matter.
I'm not sure which direction the US should shift with regards to foreign policy, though. Perhaps try and not piss off so many other countries in the future? Seriously, though, I suppose we can choose between being the world's policemen and being more isolationist. Neither of those is very appealing though, a good balance would be the best but also the hardest to maintain. But I'm really not sure which way we should lean.
And then we need REAL campaign finance reform. I do not see how a 2 month campaign limit would work when we have such set election cycles. Those kinds of limits only work well in systems when elections can occur in the middle of an incumbent's term (parliamentarian systems with a no confidence vote for the most part). How would you outlaw campaigning in the US before the September of the election year???? So to tackle the money issue, you have to directly address the money.
Lastly, I would put severe penalties and sanctions on teh Recording Industry Corporations and Microsoft. Enough said.
I don't feel like going into debate, but we can have everything we have now -- except better and cheaper -- with a really low tax rate. If the internet can be handled privately, almost anything can be.
Should dump back benchers, all they do is pick their nose. Put them to the bloody grind stone, do some work for their districts!
Stronger government policy, harder hitting ministers, not these old geizers like the defense minister "Yes Mr.Powell, yes we really do value you Mr.powell" *suck suck suck suck*
DUMP THE SENATE. They cost billions a year and do not make a significant impact on the progression of rights of Canadians and other issues.
More rigorous parliamentary debating rules and any other inexpensive options to give parliament a greater semblance of accountability. Currently, question period is an exercise in rhetoric and red herring.
Abolishment or reform of the Senate. This is essentially the Prime Minister's board of directors. In fact, Senator Michael Kirby is also on the board of directors of Scotiabank. He is more accountable to major financial institutions and doubtless other corporate friends than to the Canadian public.
More money for defense. Proper helicopters, transports, camouflage, etc.
Less economic development loans to companies which will clearly not develop the economy.
Like DMB said, the gun registry is a bumfundle.
That leads me to another source of reform.
We need to somehow adress our system's inability to have multiple parties. Not that I think this would solve much, but it would be nice to have many choices--to break up the current choices into let's say four that would allow americans to more accurately associate themselves to a party that they agree with on almost all issues... IF anything, it might help voter turn out.