PLAYER57832 wrote:It makes you ineffective. The sell out bit is allowing Romney to win.Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.