It seems to me that the best place to start building an American Agenda is at the beginning. It has been suggested that plans of action be established to set the Agenda in motion. However, I think more basic than plans of action is agreement about the principles that will guide the development of these plans. What are the plans designed to accomplish? Principles must be such that universal agreement can be clearly established. Some guiding principles are obvious while others need to be mentioned so there is no confusion about why plans are being proposed and what is to be accomplished. Statements of principle can give us a consistent and efficient manner in which to evaluate proposals and plans. Principles are designed to reduce disagreement. I submit these initial principles for your consideration.
- GOAL PRINCIPLES:
- PLAN OF ACTION DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES
Please remove the word "Centrist". 'Centrist' is much to narrow and ambiguous a concept to capture a consensus majprity. Stick with 'crucial issues'.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net"Centrist Crucial Issues" changed to "Crucial Issues"
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Now he actually believes his screwy "Plan" has actually been chiseled in stone and adopted by god-knows-who and nobody can alter it.
Well, if that is the case, I make a motion to reconsider.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Personally I think they are both honest, well informed, and certainly well meaning. That I can not say for all those present.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I think it is okay for people to object. In fact, objections are necessary to find common ground. David, in the grand scheme of things, I think we reach a better collective conscienciousness when we deal with objections than we do when we simply agree outright.
Do you really want to reconsider because Pete objects here?
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
The Principles were establshed and accepted on the original thread, they provide a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the ctieria for the task involved - while 7 votes isn't much anywhere else, its a landslide here - why change it ??
I'd be lying if I didn't admit my pride in my work has something to do with my objection, that doesn't change the fact that if you have something that people understood and voted for - why change it ..
The point I'm rying to make Phil is - as hopefully more and more people are drawn to this thread THEY NEED AN INTRODUCTION THAT IS AS COMPREHENSIVE AS POSSIBLE - yours would do it for me for John for PG etc but a newbie will need a better grounding ..
I've said my piece - I assume what's best for UNITY08 will ultimately be adopted ..
Pete (popo) Evans
ps I rold you guys I was opinionated, stubborn - and just a wee bit arrogant - but I know my business, my srengths and weaknesses, I give way to no man when I feel I'm right ..
I will agree that we loosely found common ground about principles. As is the case with all the items where we found concensus, I didn't think that meant we could not refine our thoughts. That is the purpose here about Principles. I think that if there are principles mentioned here that you find unacceptable then we probably haven't been as clear as we might like to think. In retrospect, I would suggest that part of the reason we are proceeding with the wiki is that the American Agenda structure is still emerging. I am not suggesting that we change anything already agreed upon, just that there will be additions to consider. Of course new additions will require agreement.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I think Steve is doing something "structral" as well from another posting about the wiki.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
People, such as POPO-----are trying to bring our cause forward.
This is not your desire. Be a gentleman, go away.
jake jacobson
CFO----PBC
Unity '08