Just a thought. If we see John Kerry as our President rather than George W. Bush, why not just take advantage of the government implemented global society shift and just take the view that John Kerry is our President. Maybe it can be an individual matter that we can use as a ground for further communication.
Desert Flower
Full Version: GROUP THINK FOR A GLOBAL SOCIETY
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
In what way, Dessert Flower ? Interesting concept- do you have any particulars?
Bushco has no interest in "reaching out".
Bushco stole the last two elections.
Bushco is illegitimate.
Bush is not my President.
I think you have accidentally found the concept of "Parliamentary opposition".
If Kerry does not succeed in turning the election, he needs to assert himself as the "opposition government" leader and do everything in his power to stop the further subversion of the Constitution and reversal of the social policies that we hold in trust.
I urge Kerry to lead an OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Opposition
Parliamentary opposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Parliamentary Opposition is a form of political opposition to a designated government, particularly in a Westminster-based parliamentary system.
In non-proportionally representative assemblies, where the tendency to gravitate into two major parties or party groupings operates strongly, Government and Opposition roles can go to the two main groupings serially in alternation. In this context, the opposition forms a recognised, even semi-official "government-in-waiting". Its "opposing" can degenerate into a charade pending the eventual exchange of roles and (re-)occupation of the Treasury benches.
The more proportional a representative system, the greater the likelihood of multiple political parties appearing in the parliamentary debating chamber. Such systems can foster multiple "opposition" parties which may have little in common and minimal desire to form a united bloc opposed to the government of the day.
Some well-organised democracies, dominated long-term by a single faction, reduce their parliamentary opposition to tokenism. Singapore exemplifies a case of a numerically weak opposition; South Africa under the apartheid regime maintained a long-term imbalance in the parliament. In some cases tame 'opposition' parties are created by the governing groups in order to create an impression of democratic debate.
By their very presence in the debating chamber, parliamentary oppositions recognise the legitimacy of the system of politics, and thus may share many of the views of the government. The Opposition in such cases can justly claim the title of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Often one must go to the extra-parliamentary oppositions to find radical or fundamental alternatives to the status quo.
The title of "Official Opposition" usually goes to the largest of the parties sitting in Opposition with it's leader being given the title Leader of the Opposition.
[edit]
See also
Loyal opposition
Official Opposition (Australia)
Official Opposition (Canada)
Official Opposition (India)
Official Opposition (Ireland)
Official Opposition (New Zealand)
Official Opposition (UK)
Bushco stole the last two elections.
Bushco is illegitimate.
Bush is not my President.
I think you have accidentally found the concept of "Parliamentary opposition".
If Kerry does not succeed in turning the election, he needs to assert himself as the "opposition government" leader and do everything in his power to stop the further subversion of the Constitution and reversal of the social policies that we hold in trust.
I urge Kerry to lead an OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Opposition
Parliamentary opposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Parliamentary Opposition is a form of political opposition to a designated government, particularly in a Westminster-based parliamentary system.
In non-proportionally representative assemblies, where the tendency to gravitate into two major parties or party groupings operates strongly, Government and Opposition roles can go to the two main groupings serially in alternation. In this context, the opposition forms a recognised, even semi-official "government-in-waiting". Its "opposing" can degenerate into a charade pending the eventual exchange of roles and (re-)occupation of the Treasury benches.
The more proportional a representative system, the greater the likelihood of multiple political parties appearing in the parliamentary debating chamber. Such systems can foster multiple "opposition" parties which may have little in common and minimal desire to form a united bloc opposed to the government of the day.
Some well-organised democracies, dominated long-term by a single faction, reduce their parliamentary opposition to tokenism. Singapore exemplifies a case of a numerically weak opposition; South Africa under the apartheid regime maintained a long-term imbalance in the parliament. In some cases tame 'opposition' parties are created by the governing groups in order to create an impression of democratic debate.
By their very presence in the debating chamber, parliamentary oppositions recognise the legitimacy of the system of politics, and thus may share many of the views of the government. The Opposition in such cases can justly claim the title of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Often one must go to the extra-parliamentary oppositions to find radical or fundamental alternatives to the status quo.
The title of "Official Opposition" usually goes to the largest of the parties sitting in Opposition with it's leader being given the title Leader of the Opposition.
[edit]
See also
Loyal opposition
Official Opposition (Australia)
Official Opposition (Canada)
Official Opposition (India)
Official Opposition (Ireland)
Official Opposition (New Zealand)
Official Opposition (UK)
QUOTE(PaineInTheArse @ Dec 16 2004, 10:02 AM)
Bushco has no interest in "reaching out".
Bushco stole the last two elections.
Bushco is illegitimate.
Bush is not my President.
I think you have accidentally found the concept of "Parliamentary opposition".
If Kerry does not succeed in turning the election, he needs to assert himself as the "opposition government" leader and do everything in his power to stop the further subversion of the Constitution and reversal of the social policies that we hold in trust.
I urge Kerry to lead an OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Opposition
Parliamentary opposition sounds like an alternative. If you are married to an abuser (bush ) you have to leave the relationship.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Parliamentary Opposition is a form of political opposition to a designated government, particularly in a Westminster-based parliamentary system.
In non-proportionally representative assemblies, where the tendency to gravitate into two major parties or party groupings operates strongly, Government and Opposition roles can go to the two main groupings serially in alternation. In this context, the opposition forms a recognised, even semi-official "government-in-waiting". Its "opposing" can degenerate into a charade pending the eventual exchange of roles and (re-)occupation of the Treasury benches.
The more proportional a representative system, the greater the likelihood of multiple political parties appearing in the parliamentary debating chamber. Such systems can foster multiple "opposition" parties which may have little in common and minimal desire to form a united bloc opposed to the government of the day.
Some well-organised democracies, dominated long-term by a single faction, reduce their parliamentary opposition to tokenism. Singapore exemplifies a case of a numerically weak opposition; South Africa under the apartheid regime maintained a long-term imbalance in the parliament. In some cases tame 'opposition' parties are created by the governing groups in order to create an impression of democratic debate.
By their very presence in the debating chamber, parliamentary oppositions recognise the legitimacy of the system of politics, and thus may share many of the views of the government. The Opposition in such cases can justly claim the title of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Often one must go to the extra-parliamentary oppositions to find radical or fundamental alternatives to the status quo.
The title of "Official Opposition" usually goes to the largest of the parties sitting in Opposition with it's leader being given the title Leader of the Opposition.
[edit]
See also
Loyal opposition
Official Opposition (Australia)
Official Opposition (Canada)
Official Opposition (India)
Official Opposition (Ireland)
Official Opposition (New Zealand)
Official Opposition (UK)
Bushco stole the last two elections.
Bushco is illegitimate.
Bush is not my President.
I think you have accidentally found the concept of "Parliamentary opposition".
If Kerry does not succeed in turning the election, he needs to assert himself as the "opposition government" leader and do everything in his power to stop the further subversion of the Constitution and reversal of the social policies that we hold in trust.
I urge Kerry to lead an OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Opposition
Parliamentary opposition sounds like an alternative. If you are married to an abuser (bush ) you have to leave the relationship.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Parliamentary Opposition is a form of political opposition to a designated government, particularly in a Westminster-based parliamentary system.
In non-proportionally representative assemblies, where the tendency to gravitate into two major parties or party groupings operates strongly, Government and Opposition roles can go to the two main groupings serially in alternation. In this context, the opposition forms a recognised, even semi-official "government-in-waiting". Its "opposing" can degenerate into a charade pending the eventual exchange of roles and (re-)occupation of the Treasury benches.
The more proportional a representative system, the greater the likelihood of multiple political parties appearing in the parliamentary debating chamber. Such systems can foster multiple "opposition" parties which may have little in common and minimal desire to form a united bloc opposed to the government of the day.
Some well-organised democracies, dominated long-term by a single faction, reduce their parliamentary opposition to tokenism. Singapore exemplifies a case of a numerically weak opposition; South Africa under the apartheid regime maintained a long-term imbalance in the parliament. In some cases tame 'opposition' parties are created by the governing groups in order to create an impression of democratic debate.
By their very presence in the debating chamber, parliamentary oppositions recognise the legitimacy of the system of politics, and thus may share many of the views of the government. The Opposition in such cases can justly claim the title of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Often one must go to the extra-parliamentary oppositions to find radical or fundamental alternatives to the status quo.
The title of "Official Opposition" usually goes to the largest of the parties sitting in Opposition with it's leader being given the title Leader of the Opposition.
[edit]
See also
Loyal opposition
Official Opposition (Australia)
Official Opposition (Canada)
Official Opposition (India)
Official Opposition (Ireland)
Official Opposition (New Zealand)
Official Opposition (UK)
Sounds like a plan to me. If you are married to an abuser (bush) you have to leave the relationship.
PitA- while this scenario works in a Parliamentary system, how exactly can it work in our form of Representative Democracy?
Should Kerry speak out on all issues, despite the fact that we have a minority leader?
I think this is a good concept, I am just looking for practical ways to implement it under our system. Do we begin to change the system by having a spokesman from the losing party?
(obviously 59M voted for Kerry- so "losing" by not much)
I think this idea has the potential to reinvigorate our democracy and I would be interested in some ideas about implementation. It certainly might weaken the domination of the bully pulpit.
Thoughts, anyone ?
Should Kerry speak out on all issues, despite the fact that we have a minority leader?
I think this is a good concept, I am just looking for practical ways to implement it under our system. Do we begin to change the system by having a spokesman from the losing party?
(obviously 59M voted for Kerry- so "losing" by not much)
I think this idea has the potential to reinvigorate our democracy and I would be interested in some ideas about implementation. It certainly might weaken the domination of the bully pulpit.
Thoughts, anyone ?
QUOTE(Desert Flower @ Nov 14 2004, 05:18 PM)
Just a thought. If we see John Kerry as our President rather than George W. Bush, why not just take advantage of the government implemented global society shift and just take the view that John Kerry is our President. Maybe it can be an individual matter that we can use as a ground for further communication.
Desert Flower
Desert Flower
We can act to save our environment regardless of who is in the White House. I am going to be contacting municipal and state govts to find out if they can implement their own, "Kyoto" Treaty for our communities. You know, States' rights and all that? Bush may not give a damn for this planet, but those of us who do can certainly do something about it. And to answer your question, Al Gore is my President, and as far as I am concerned there is no one more informed or experienced to lead on this issue than he is.
QUOTE(Pie @ Dec 16 2004, 09:45 PM)
I think this is a good concept, I am just looking for practical ways to implement it under our system. Do we begin to change the system by having a spokesman from the losing party?
(obviously 59M voted for Kerry- so "losing" by not much)
I think this idea has the potential to reinvigorate our democracy and I would be interested in some ideas about implementation. It certainly might weaken the domination of the bully pulpit.
(obviously 59M voted for Kerry- so "losing" by not much)
I think this idea has the potential to reinvigorate our democracy and I would be interested in some ideas about implementation. It certainly might weaken the domination of the bully pulpit.
The United States needs a political leader who is also a political philosopher. The first JFK was a leader who inspired people with his vision and lifted hearts and minds to a deeper understanding of what it means to be human.
John Kerry should keep the role of leadership that 59 million people recognized on November 2nd.
I would like to see John Kerry continue to give voice to these world-changing ideas:
Energy Independence:
Cheap, abundant, clean energy for the entire world - independent of corporate/political monopolies.
Our Energy Challenge
Monetary Reform:
Zero Interest Financing - Finance energy independence with interest-free loans. The interest-free loans would not be borrowed from financial institutions, foreign governments or private investors. The United States government would borrow the money from itself.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.