Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bill,Thanks. Nicely done. I have voted in agreement. I don't know exactly what co-sponsoring entails, but I would be happy to do so.With regards to Susan's well reasoned and insightful feedback, I would submit that these can perhaps be incremental follow on actions, as mentioned in the alternatives section of this proposal, to this overall general statement of position. Each one, or group of related suggestions, can be submitted formally as a proposal for agreement seeking and at last, a vote.I am in the camp of expediency on a statement of general proportions, followed by any proposal(s) of specific actions after they have been debated on their merits.Peace Out;TLL
This resonates for me more than the religious angle. It would explain the US reluctance to condemn that action as it contributes to the effort to relieve Western Europe of it's dependence on Russian natural gas, as does the US shale fracking effort. This issue is causing all of the grief and anxiety, death and destruction, in the Eastern Ukraine. We live in the age of the decline of fossil fuel that can be economically recovered, (based on the energy budget – not money). This dwindling resource, (cheap & abundant energy), which is the cornerstone of current quality and quantity of human life for all industrialized nations, will, in my humble opinion, be the root cause for much extreme global mayhem for many coming decades. Read On:http://nsnbc.me/2014/07/10/war-natural-gas-israeli-invasion-gazas-offshore-gas-fields/
I've come up with the following new text for our statement. What do you think? The Green Party of Colorado calls for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. We call upon the leadership on both side of the conflict to come together and forge a truce that wIll end all hostilities. We also demand the leaders of the world withhold all aid but humanitarian aid from both countries until they have come to a mutual and lasting peace agreement. Many of the the party's Ten Key Values can provide useful guidance: nonviolence, respect for diversity, decentralization, personal and global responsibility, economic justice, and future focus and sustainability.
Now this one, while less pointed, seems to be a call for actual progress. Thanks Bill for responding to the input during agreement seeking.Peace Out;TLL
They aren't calling out religion at all. See more: http://www.gp.org/newsroom/press-releases/details/4/721Could we retool our statement so it aligns more closely with national's?
Best compromise proposal I've seen yet on this proposal.
I will stand aside.While I believe the proposal aligns with our platform of non-violence, as specifically written it seems to be more broad than that and have an agenda of religious expression in addition to alignment of non-violent principals. In the current state of today's world, geopolitically speaking, it hardly stands to gain any one any measurable progress toward a lasting peace by taking sides in a debate regarding the global acceptance of a secular denunciation as religion being the root of all violence, without acknowledging any other contributing secular causes, such as greed and Empirical expansion, which so often hides behind the skirts of the most convenient religion of the day. I read this proposal as being specific to local religion and ideology, and derisive to a broader sentiment regarding militaristic & violent resolution to all geopolitical conflicts regarding autonomy and sovereignty. In short, there are many, many more concrete non-relligious factors contributing to the violence in the region to call out just that one specifically and still have a proposal that resonates as being fully appreciative of the broader situation and causal factors.
Ditto-Ditto-Ditto. Great time, great experience with like minded folks. Thanks for the acceptance into the tribe. Thanks for the honesty, transparency, civility, and commitment to a more excellent way forward. Hubbah-hubbah-hubbah
Being relatively new to the party, I don't operate under any notion of having an opinion of mine carry great weight. But it seems that in cases of date shifting of nominating events, there ought to be in the bylaws, provisions for managing that relative to the overall general election timeline. In other words, I would not typically favor amending the bylaws to cope with an impermanent calendar revision for an electoral event, but rather, would like to see any amendments to bylaws that would be incorporated be such that they provide flexibility with respect to a modified electoral convention date in relationship to the rather fixed general election date(s), that doesn't invoke changing our reasonable and previously well-considered lead-times and vetting processes. An exception or a clause stating the time distance from our nominating convention to the general election would be more preferable by my way of thinking. But either way, whatever we need to do to put the proposal to a vote, we should do ASAP.
