http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
note that this is NOT binding on any candidate, so you have to find the actual candidates positions to determine where they actually stand.
From healthcare thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&p=3928897#p3928897
page 287 -- though line of discussion began a bit before that.
(had to cut this part becuase I exceeded 6 quotes)
Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:How does it feel to be a sellout and a sucker? You're a bought and paid for shill, you're being played, and you're happy about it.
Honestly, I would say that applies much more to you in this case than I.
Well that's an interesting claim. Perhaps you can point out exactly how that is true?
Responses:
It is a slur thrown out, like most slurs, without real meaning. I don't consider compromise to be a bad thing.Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:It makes you ineffective. The sell out bit is allowing Romney to win.Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Well if Romney wins by a slim margin, then we can thank those who voted for third parties, particularly parties like the Green party with members that otherwise would vote Obama.
How does that make me a sellout or a shill?
That doesn't even make basic sense. Do you have no concept of what the term "sellout" means? Because it has nothing to do with a secondary coincidental result, that's for sure.
Politics is not about getting your ideals the way you want, it is about working with other people to get something that is the best possible for all involved. Now you sound like Phattscotty, etc, and Nightstrike and his idea that everything is "against the constitution". The green party needs to actually show people it has worth. It has not and does not. I cannot with integrity tell people to vote for a party that is just going to ensure our government moves even further to the right.
I said before, if you truly don't care whether Romney or Obama wins, then go ahead and vote Green. You will be helping Romney, but apparently, that is OK with you. It is NOT OK with me..and that means I am most definitely not a sell out. Just because the Green Party puts forward some ideas I like doesn't mean I support them or am a sell out. Being effective is what matters, not spitting in the wind.
Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:There are other reasons, but this is far enough off topic.
Yeah, I didn't think you could back it up either.
Your jobs are and have been about supporting the status quo. I am not attacking the military, but to claim that youare opposing the system, and that I am a sell out because I am not voting for an ineffectual nominee, while your entire occupation is about supporting the system is, well hypocritical.
I believe in working within the system and changing it that way.
Getting the Federal money for the Green Party is literally working within the system. It's certainly more of an aspect of working for change than a vote for Obama is. We've seen how much Obama is willing to change the system...he's not.
First of all, the Green party is nowhere close to getting 5%.. and that is pretty sad, but is very reflective of how they operate. Telling people to vote green, now, when this upcoming race is going to be so close, when so much really does hang upon it, is irresponsible. Its not working within the system.. its pretending the system doesn't exist.
I have lost jobs because I was not willing to change data, was not willing to cheat. THAT is standing on integrity. I did not join the military, because even though I support soldiers, understand we very much need the military, I could not just go and put my life on the line for whatever cause the politicians decided was important. THAT is standing on integrity. I I have taught GED, helped do environmental programs and teach first aid because I see those all as lacks. Those are standing on integrity.
Voting for the Green party because some yahoos think that they have a chance at getting 5% nationally when they cannot even be effective in the local arena.. is not integrity.
You are deluded.Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:That could very much be said of the entire green party. They talk a good talk, but have never been effective. The reason is because they take such an extreme position and have a "take it all or leave it" attitude. They deny compromise and celebrate that as if it were some kind of gift or benefit.
The result is more and more marginalization, less and less voice, not more. They actually had chances to gain power in parts of CA, elsewhere... and utterly blew it. Yet, instead of changing, they keep on.
You keep saying things like this, and they keep being false. The Green Party is growing, not getting smaller.
It is not growing the way it could, by any means. And what I said above is very true.
No, what you said is not true. It very much IS growing, thanks in large part to the utter failure of the man you are going to be voting for again. The Green Party (and also the Libertarian Party) has a great opportunity in this election year, and the primary thing holding us back is individuals like yourself who vote for your fears instead of your values.
They needed to, should have stuck with the initial plan.. to FIRST gain a base, gain some local seats, and then poof! They will have power. If you look at ANY major change in this country.. the civil rights fights, homosexuality issues, the anti-abortion movement, rise of the radical Christain right.. that is how they did it. The green party is ignoring the pattern that works and essentially acting the toddler throwing a tantrum.
Sorry, but nothing you have said here helps. You claim the green party growing means that my words are false? How many seats does the green party hold in ANY office anywhere? How many people outside of select liberal and environmental groups have even HEARD of the Green party? They want to proclaim their ideas are good and just have everyone leap to their defense and except them.
And.. they are not actually listening to people.
You claim they are growing? A tiny bit, sure.. but nowhere near the way they should have and needed to grow to be real players nationally. And, the very sad part is that they DID have a chance. They still do, to a point, though they have become so synonymous with ineffectiveness, I suspect they will need to change their name.
The Green party doesn't listen. That is the problem. If they did, they would realize that trying to push every piece of their agenda right now is a failure... and the sad part is that becuase they take this "principled" stance, they wind up accomplishing absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the conservatives keep growing by leaps and bounds. Because, unlike the green party, they ARE effective. Sadly effective, but effective.Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:It really is too bad that they stick to their principles though. I can see why someone who would vote for Obama wouldn't care for that too much.
Principles? Failure to compromise, to listen to others, to actually talk to others and hear what they are saying is not what I call "principles".
You do realize that it's possible to hear a position with an open mind and still disagree with it, right? That's called sticking to your principles. It's not called voting for someone so that you'll get a handout.
The liberaterian party is another story.. but I have already gone into that enough in other threads.
Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, while the green party is closer to what I would like to see, it is not fully what I agree with. I don't agree on their stance on the military, for example... though I do think we should have more debate on the topics they bring up.
For me, that's the primary attraction of both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party...more discourse. This two-party dichotomy-but-not-a-dichotomy we've got going on is frankly just stupid. That I happen to agree with both of them a little more than either of the other two "normal" parties is just icing on the cake.
[/quote][/quote]Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, while the green party is closer to what I would like to see, it is not fully what I agree with. I don't agree on their stance on the military, for example... though I do think we should have more debate on the topics they bring up.
For me, that's the primary attraction of both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party...more discourse. This two-party dichotomy-but-not-a-dichotomy we've got going on is frankly just stupid. That I happen to agree with both of them a little more than either of the other two "normal" parties is just icing on the cake.
There are arguments for going more European in voting, having some system of wider voice. But there is a LOT of work that will have to happen first, a lot of things that will have to change FIRST.
One of the main things is that these people have to actually start talking and listening more... and the funny part is that when they do that, you often find the main parties themselves changing. That IS what has happened in the conservative push for the Republicans. It has been effective. To contrast, the Green party... is a joke. Actually, worse than a joke, because instead of doing what they could to actually change things, they insist on fighting windmills and patting themselves on the back for being "ethical".. while ignoring any real result of what they do.
