Your Solutions on....

johnkerry.com

Do some fucking reading. The Democratic Party is filled with ideas. Let's hope they get a majority in both Houses come '06 so they can be implemented.

I think the very point of the thread is so that you can offer your rational, reasonable approach to issues which you feel are handled irrationally and unreasonably by the current Administration.

It's not a DIFFERENT standard, it's the same standard that you desire from any ADMINISTRATION, isn't it?

I also thought the Constitution was a RULE of LAW & PROTECTION of RIGHTS document. I didn't realize that it was also a strategy guide (after all Kiamet has asked for your ideas, not the rules of the game).

Kiamat holds the administration to a different standard than he holds those who would respond in this thread. It's isn't the standard I want from the administration that we're talking about here.

The Constitution is supposed to limit the actions of the government. Those limits have evolved over 2 centuries, giving rise to many established courses of conduct that have been found to be both effective and protective of individual rights. The rules of the game give rise to the strategies used in the game. In this case, those rules have evolved over time and have given us many strategies for government action.

Ignoring the time-tested methods and pretending the limits don't apply to the administration has proven to be an ineffective strategy. It has caused many Americans to question the aims of the administration, setting American against American in a time when unity is so very important. It has caused us to waste money and time in court battles and legislative action to counter the administration's unlawful behavior. We are even faced with another divisive, expensive, time-consuming impeachment process.

So, yeah, send George and Dick a copy of the Constitution. If they don't know the rules they can't really be expected to play the game effectively, can they?

Kiamat holds the administration to a different standard than he holds those who would respond in this thread. It's isn't the standard I want from the administration that we're talking about here.

The Constitution is supposed to limit the actions of the government. Those limits have evolved over 2 centuries, giving rise to many established courses of conduct that have been found to be both effective and protective of individual rights. The rules of the game give rise to the strategies used in the game. In this case, those rules have evolved over time and have given us many strategies for government action.

Ignoring the time-tested methods and pretending the limits don't apply to the administration has proven to be an ineffective strategy. It has caused many Americans to question the aims of the administration, setting American against American in a time when unity is so very important. It has caused us to waste money and time in court battles and legislative action to counter the administration's unlawful behavior. We are even faced with another divisive, expensive, time-consuming impeachment process.

So, yeah, send George and Dick a copy of the Constitution. If they don't know the rules they can't really be expected to play the game effectively, can they?

Kendra, your opinions on this are all nullified by the fact that you are a socialist. Therefore, you're completely opposed to our entire system of government no matter which party is in power...unless it's The Party.

-Kiamat Dusk

LOL. What a crock of crap.

Being a socialist doesn't make you opposed to democracy. There are democratic socialist parties all over the world. Putting your allegiance solely in a party is anti-democratic. Look what it's done to the Republicans. If George Bush were a Democrat, he'd have been impeached years ago. Republicans have given their loyalty to their party and betrayed their country.

Oh yeah, before you make the mistake of assuming stupid things, I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist who believes in democracy.

So, what kind of ideas do you have about issues with which you disagree? Are you saying you would do everything the current administration is doing but you would do it in a manner that does not violate the constitution?

1) I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Thereby saving billions which would have been spent on upgrading security in the US and providing first responders with the money they badly need. Hussein was contained. Afghanistan needed to be rid of the Taleban before we shifted focus.

2) My major foreign policy thrust would have been to accomplish a peace settlement in Israel/Palestine. I'm not saying I could have done it, but the Israel/Palestine problem is the major cause of Muslim anger at the US. Fixing that problem, or at least showing the world that the US and Europe were seriously trying to fix it would have done much to shrink the pool of jihadist recruits.

3) A secondary policy initiative would be the promotion of economic development and trade liberalization in the Middle East accompanied by development aid tied to human rights improvements and democratic liberalization. Again the goal would be to reduce anti-Americanism and the pool of available jihadis. Supporting repressive autocracies with closed economies makes no sense. Democratization and economic development in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran would do more for stability in the middle east than anything we have accomplished in Iraq.

Pro-democracy, pro-free trade and economic liberalization policies applied to our allies as well as our adversaries in the Middle East would have done much for stability in the region.

So a free trade, pro-democracy foreign policy (applied to allies as well as adversaries) accompanied by a huge push for a peaceful resolution to the Israel/Palestine problem would have been my foreign policy goals.

Our military presence in Afghanistan would have been turned over to NATO. A comprehensive plan to democratize the country along with an international "Marshal Plan" to develop its economy would have helped to eliminate the Taleban threat.

In the US I would have tightened industrial and transportation security, including chemical plants, airports/airlines, train and roads/bridges. I would have introduced a gradual plan to regularize identification documents used by the states with the goal of a defacto national ID card, which would still be technically under state control, but with the information regularized and easily shared by all levels of government.

Those are a few ideas. The goal would be to reduce the appeal of violent radical Islam while improving domestic security.

3. There is an interesting argument here. I have read that in the past our allies were those who looked most like us politically (democracies allied with democracies, etc), but today allies are made between nations with similar economic interests (ie China and US can be considered strong allies for the future). Also, economics leads and political views follow...so the idea is that if we Ally with China because of economic interests, then they are more likely to follow along onto a path toward more individual freedoms and transparent government - Economics leads.

Trade and other economic agreements are often more effective at reducing a country's negative behavior than other types of treaties. It's not an aberration that the European Union started out as an economic common market. Today we take for granted the Franco-German alliance at the heart of the European Union, but we need to remember the 4 major wars fought between the two in the century and a half before the Treaty of Rome.

Economic agreements are a great way to draw rogue nations into the world community. It legitimizes international standards and, despite all attempts to prevent it, allows the spread of ideas, especially those tied to higher standards of living, into closed societies.

LOL. What a crock of crap.

Being a socialist doesn't make you opposed to democracy. There are democratic socialist parties all over the world. Putting your allegiance solely in a party is anti-democratic. Look what it's done to the Republicans. If George Bush were a Democrat, he'd have been impeached years ago. Republicans have given their loyalty to their party and betrayed their country.

Oh yeah, before you make the mistake of assuming stupid things, I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist who believes in democracy.

Since 9/11 I have been snapping my fingers vigerously and hooting like an owl to avoid elephants trampling my family. Since 9/11, I am happy to hoot that no elephants have trampled my family.

Hoot hoot. *snap snap*

Kendra, your opinions on this are all nullified by the fact that you are a socialist. Therefore, you're completely opposed to our entire system of government no matter which party is in power...unless it's The Party.

-Kiamat Dusk

johkerry.com is a member of the SL forums?

I think the reason for the thread was to solicit ideas from the community. If you'd like to bring some of John Kerry's ideas into the thread then please do.

Trade and other economic agreements are often more effective at reducing a country's negative behavior than other types of treaties. It's not an aberration that the European Union started out as an economic common market. Today we take for granted the Franco-German alliance at the heart of the European Union, but we need to remember the 4 major wars fought between the two in the century and a half before the Treaty of Rome.

Economic agreements are a great way to draw rogue nations into the world community. It legitimizes international standards and, despite all attempts to prevent it, allows the spread of ideas, especially those tied to higher standards of living, into closed societies.

2) My major foreign policy thrust would have been to accomplish a peace settlement in Israel/Palestine. I'm not saying I could have done it, but the Israel/Palestine problem is the major cause of Muslim anger at the US. Fixing that problem, or at least showing the world that the US and Europe were seriously trying to fix it would have done much to shrink the pool of jihadist recruits.

3) A secondary policy initiative would be the promotion of economic development and trade liberalization in the Middle East accompanied by development aid tied to human rights improvements and democratic liberalization. Again the goal would be to reduce anti-Americanism and the pool of available jihadis. Supporting repressive autocracies with closed economies makes no sense. Democratization and economic development in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran would do more for stability in the middle east than anything we have accomplished in Iraq.

Or is that you're simply afraid to read solid ideas on how to fix the mess this country has become under your lunatic President.

Not at all. I support the Democratic Party's platform for this country for the most part.

LOL What platform? The democrats haven't been able to successfully put forward a platform that the American public can grasp since 2000.

Briana Dawson

please refer to johnkerry.com for all of Kendra's views

Oh ya, he had a real obvious platform when he ran, didn't he? If I recall it was "Do you want more of the same, or something better?"

I think one of the best parts of John Kerry's campaign was when John Edwards said during the debate with Cheney that the Kerry/Edwards administration would never tell a lie to the public and would have a policy of honesty. Thats laughable.

Briana Dawson

They also let us know that Dick Cheney's daughter, Lynn, is gay. I was very impressed.

Also, did you know John Kerry was in Vietnam?

The only one here making assumptions is you. You've assumed that I meant that post to be taken seriously. Furthermore you've assumed that Kendra isn't capable of making her own responses.

-Kiamat Dusk

http://www.swiftvets.com/swiftvetsandpows/

Yea, the Lynn bashing was absolutely tasteless. Especially coming from a party that claims to care so much about diversity.

Briana Dawson