Kerry has lost my vote.

Vietnam comes to mind although I do question "good intentions"

The Green platform says what it says and is what it is. The goals stated are not intended to be forced upon us. They are an ideal spoken for, but as I said in an earlier post, party platforms are generally ignored by all but the fanatic few. These goals would be gradually pushed by a Green official, but only a willing public would cause them to be implemented. As is the way with politics, the end product would probably be somewhat like the regulated world of the 50s and part of the 60s, not as the Green Party platform now states it. On the other hand, who really knows, except for experts like Scrat?

Why is it that the Greens have been unable to elect any representatives to Congress?

Why is the sky blue?

Scrat, the document McGentrix posted http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html
is the Green Party Platform as ratified by the Green Party National Convention in June 2000
It web site address is www.GP.org It's mailing address is:
Green Party of the United States
PO Box 57065
Washington DC 20037
This is "the Green Party" and as it's web site notes it is linked with the Federated Green Party's of Europe

What you posted is the Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#6 with a mailing address of:
Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1406
Chicago Illinois 60690

As that web site states:
This platform was adopted by the delegates of the membership of the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) at their annual Green Congress, meeting in Chicago, May 26-28, 2000. It reflects the majority views of the G/GPUSA membership.

This web site also states that the platform is not binding on Green Party members at any level. It cannot be, they are not the Green Party.

The G/GPUSA is either a radical faction of the Green Party, or more likely in my opinion a group of residual Marxists attempting to run under the flag of the Green Party.

In any case your statement that the Green Party wants to seize the assets of the top 500 corporations in the US is false, and there is nothing in the Green Party platform as posted by McGentrix that either states or implies that.

Acquiunk
Acquiunk, thank you for exposing another of Scrat's little ploys to discredit those with whom he disagrees.

Are we all shocked?

BBB

Ralph Nader on National TV--Meet the Press 8/6/00

Tim Russert: Ralph Nader, good morning.

Ralph Nader: Good morning.

Russert: Let me show you some more of our latest NBC polling of our voters across the country. First independent voters, 30% say Gore, 43% Bush, 3% Buchannan, and 11% Ralph Nader. In another sample of liberal voters, Gore 61%, Bush 15%, Buchannan 2%, and Ralph Nader 15%. You may prevent Al Gore from being president of the United States.

Nader: Thats up to Al Gore, thats up to George Bush. Nobody owns these
votes. I mean, you really have to earn them. And thats what were trying to do, as we campaign in all 50 states.

Nader: ...in the area of corporate power, there are very few differences
(between democrat and republican presidential candidates). Whether its
WTO, NAFTA, whether its repealing restrictive labor laws that keep tens of
millions of workers from being able to organize trade unions in places
like Wal-Mart, whether its real public financing of public campaigns,
whether its cracking down on corporate fraud on consumers, and whether its ending corporate welfare and hundreds of billions of dollars siphoned off from middle class taxpayers in subsidies, handouts. What are the
differences? The military budget is increasing....

Russert: But on the issues that Congressman Frank pointed out, lets go
through them. Guns. Guns. Hell say that Al Gore is for licensing of all
new handguns, George Bush is not. Ralph Nader is closer to Al Gore?

Nader: Yes.

Russert: On the issue of gay rights? Where is Ralph Nader on gay rights?
Is he for gay marriage?

Nader: Way ahead of Al Gore.

Russert: Is he for gay marriage?

Nader: Yes, civil union, and equal rights, equal responsibility.

Russert: Gay adoptions?

Nader: Yes.

Russert: So are you closer to Al Gore or George Bush?

Nader: Way ahead of Al Gore. The point is, we have to have a basic policy
in this country of equal rights and equal responsibility, regardless of
race, gender, or sexual preference.

Russert: So the government should recognize gay marriages.

Nader: Yes. Its really interesting, gay people want to serve in the
military, they want to engage in civil unions, or marriage, and they want
to adopt kids. If they werent gay, people would say, well, thats really
good to do.

Russert: Abortion, closer to Al Gore or George W. Bush? Al Gore says no
restrictions on abortion, including so-called partial birth abortion.
George W. Bush says, no, we should ban all abortions.

Nader: George Bush doesnt believe it, nor do the Republicans. They would
destroy their party.

Russert: Are you closer to Al Gore or George Bush.

Nader: Well I dont like to say Im closer to one or the other. I just dont
believe the government should tell a woman that she either has to have a
child or doesnt have to have a child. Weve seen both in the world.

Russert: But if Ralph Nader wakes up the day after the election, and
George Bush is elected president of the United States, and Al Gore lost by
just a few points, and Ralph Nader gets six or seven points. And people
say, Ralph Nader, you elected a Republican President of the United States.
What do you say to yourself?

Nader: If thats the premise, then I have helped Dick Gephart become
Speaker of the House, and the Democrats will control the House. And
secondly, I will have helped expand a significant third party, the Green
party, to tell the Democrats and the Republicans that never again will
they tell the American people, who are disgusted with both parties, that
they have nowhere to go. And thats going to improve both parties, or its
going to begin to replace both parties. Thats a very important service,
especially to the 51% of Americans who dont even vote in Presidential
elections. We really want to get those nonvoters on our side.

Russert: So you want to send a wake up call to the Democratic party?
Nader: And the Republican party. Right. As long as they can control the
situation, control who gets on the debates, stop same day registration,
stop public financing of public campaigns, theyre going to turn off more
people, and their going to become more look alike parties on more and more
major issues.

Russert: You were one of the few liberals to say that you would have voted to impeach and convict Bill Clinton. Why?

Nader: Well, first, he disgraced the office, dragged the country through
it for a year. He could have owned up to it. He stole a year of journalism
from the American people. Think of all the stories about things going on
in this country that never made it on the news. And then he lied about it!
I mean whats the standard...

Russert: Do you think hell be disbarred?

Nader: I think theres a good chance of that, yeah.

Russert: Missile Defense System. Should President Clinton go forward with
that?

Nader: It doesnt work physically, quite apart from it stimulating an arms
race. The American Physics Society, made up of physicists, many of whom
consult with the Pentagon have said it wont work...

Russert: Environmental issues. Al Gore has written about them, is
passionate about them. Would a President Gore not be better on those
issues than President Bush.

Nader: Yeah, he probably would be better. But he wouldnt be much better.
He would talk a lot better then Governor Bush. But what has Gore and
Clinton done on solar energy? Theyve supported subsidies to fossil fuels
and nuclear. They havent really pushed the transformation of our county
toward energy independence. Were importing more oil than ever before. They havent spoken out on industrial hemp, let the farmers grow it. That could replace a lot of fuel...They have done very little on pesticides. And
above all, theyve given the auto companies a free ride. Eight years
without any increased fuel efficiency standards. Reagan-Bush couldnt have
done worse than that.

Russert: What do you think is the biggest issue concerning our country?

Nader: The democracy gap. Too much power, too much wealth in too few hands. Mostly global corporate hands, over our media, over our government,over our workplace-- labor has never been weaker in terms of bargaining power. Over our marketplace. I mean just look at the problems consumers have had. You sign on the dotted line when you buy insurance or deal with an HMO...Very little bargaining power.

Russert: Ralph Nader, we have to leave it there. We thank you for joining
us, and well be watching.

Nader: Thank you.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/naderontv.cfm

Actually, my statement was true, but I did not know until now that the Green Party USA--whose platform I read back in 2000 and remembered until now--was a different Green Party than that for which Nader ran as candidate in that year. Surely you can understand my confusion on that point, or are you perfect? Or did you know that there was more than one national Green Party in the US? I did not. (Nor I suspect did most people here, much less most Americans.)

That does not alter the reality that my statement, while accidentally attributed to the wrong Green Party, was factually accurate as written. I proved what I wrote was founded in reality, no fantasy, no untruth. You paint my comments as some kind of lies, and they are nothing of the kind. My recollection of the Green Party USA's platform was not only accurate, but almost verbatim from their platform.

That the Nader-ite shade of green is less strident in the wording of their platform makes them no less dangerous. And I ask again, without a capitalist system to create pockets to pick, where on Earth do the Greens think to get the capital to run their fantasy America, "Free Lunchland"?

A managed economy can still leave room for capitalism, just not the anything goes kind now at the helm.

I don't believe for one moment that Scrat intentionally lied.
I do believe it is quite uncalled for say she did.
Keep up the good work Scrat. :wink:
BBB:
Acquiunk: Thanks for the clarification!
Edgar: I think perhaps you should read Atlas again.

I read Atlas and shrugged. Rand's system of belief is a quarter correct and three quarters blind man's bluff.

I did not know there were two Green Parties. Talk about confusing! In my previous post on this thread, however, is a TV interview with Ralph Nader and Tim Russert. Does anybody know if Nader still holds the views that he asserts in that interview?

"Atlas" makes people like me (utopian anarchists) seem more like Barry Goldwater than Dennis Kuninich.

Scrat, I did not think, nor did I mean to imply that you lied. If it came out that way I apologize.

No I am not perfect, and I have an exwife who will be happy to fill you in on the details.

I do not think that the G/GPUSA is either a green party or a national party. It looks to me to be a group of 60's hold overs based in Chicago.

Green?
If the green party was right, we would all be getting on boats and floating to russia. Communisim doesn't work. It sure is a good idea, but it is against human nature. We are not geneticly superior to the soviets, and we wouldn't do a "better job" administering the commune.

From what I have seen, I would never vote for John Kerry. A little political play is acceptable, as well as a person's changing stances on some issues. I have no idea what John boy will do if elected president based on what he says. All I can assume is that johnboy will be just like he was in congress (a high horse mass. demi, ruling his subjects). If he really has changed into his new platform, he will just pander to the emotionally charged mob, waisting time and money on "feel good" causes that solve nobodys' problems. I dont know which would be worse, King John the masshole, or john "its not your fault, blame someone else" Kerry.

Bush kinda sucks too. His dumbassed idea to grant amnesty to the illegals is stupid. His medicare bill is stupid. The war on terror and the tax cuts are about the only big things I think he made the right decisions on. but they are the two biggest issues in front of us right now. I have to go with Bush, I don't think Kerry has the support to defend the country effectivly. It seems that a good chunk of the democrats (at least the ones on tv) don't find it appropriate to take up arms in defense of anything. Thus, Kerry could not defend us without alienating his supporters. hopefully I am wrong in my last assumption.

Comparing the Greens to the Soviets is like comparing the Republicans to the Nazi's.

This comparison may win points with the blindly partisan, but it is inappropriate, extreme and completely devoid of any intellectual merit.

The greens say they want to arbitrarily redistribute income. That is pure communism. There aren't any living "republicans" trying to "purify" america. Besides, I never said communism was bad, just ineffective. It is true though that some people in america aren't Greens, Democrats or republicans, but Nazi's

Edgar: That was the quarter I was talking about :wink: ; Her premonition of people who haven't earned wealth attempting to take control of it for the good of mankind. Not a good idea.

Objectivists think they create everything and that the grunts and poor are parasites. They don't recognize that all parts of society are integral to the creation of wealth. They arrogantly treat workers as cogs to their personal machines, failing to recognize that without workers their wealth becomes nonexistant. Objectivists truly believe they alone have created their wealth and so don't want others to reap benefits, except what they toss them for bones.

Good point, Edgar, you are very right.