The Greens .... are they at it "again" ??

[gully]

Many Greens have decided it's best to vote for a reasonable Democrat over Shrub, however some apparently are intent on damaging the chance to beat Bush and co. once again.

http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html

There at it again folks, should 'WE' Democrats be concerned this time?

While the issues raised at the website are valid, I find the comparisons ridiculous.

It's pretty easy in hind site to say one opposes an action when you've never had to cast a vote 'on the record' for anything.

I really don't know how much time/energy Democrats should spend on this? Especially given the fact that the Greens don't have a major presidential candidate???

*I want to add that I respect the need to have choices and I respect the right for people to vote for whom ever they so chose.* Though, I don't personally consider wasted votes anything but ... wasted votes.

Example #1. Democrats and the war in Afghanistan. The site claims 'Democrats' supported the war in Afghanistan, and in the same breath mention that 'Democrats' were critical of the War? They consider themselves officially 'opposed' though they were not in a position to cast a friggin vote. In other words they were 'critical.' :eyes:

Thoughts on this???? Do we battle the Repubs and Greens, or wait and see what the GP does with the Presidential race?

I would ask why the site rips Clinton/Gore more then Shrub and co?

[Mairead]

1. Trying to do a little shite-stirring, hmmmmmm?

[JohnKleeb]

2. well if you know who gets the nod

I dont think the greens will run someone, just a hunch.

[TheYellowDog]

48. Kucinich has no chance

So the Greens will probably run someone.

[Terwilliger]

63. If you're the best representation of Democrats

then I'll be GLAD to leave the party

[gully]

65. Ta Ta...

:hi: :nopity:

[bitchkitty]

124. T, it's not his fault

that Kucinich has no chance. What is it about reality that you can't accept that simple truth? I like Kucinich, I wish the rest of the country liked him as well as I do, but they don't. But that doesn't mean I'm going to kick and scream and throw out the baby with the bathwater. ABB.

[tinanator]

172. is this what you call "no chance"?

http://tinyurl.com/n3xm

Id say a bunch of people have no chance, but Kucinich aint on that list. Nice of you to speak for others though you may want to be more accurate?

[bitchkitty]

175. I wasn't speaking for others sweetie,

I was stating what I perceive as fact. I wish to God that I could be wrong because I think Kucinich is one of the finer human beings on this planet. In any other country he would be President, but this isn't any other country.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. I'll kiss your ass any way you want it if I'm wrong.

Also, what specifically did you want me to read at Newsday? Your link sent me to the main page.

[tinanator]

236. the presidential poll right at the top right

sorry i didnt link to the results. Take it and see!

[pruner]

246. that's what I call an unscientific poll

the results of which are meaningless are not likely based in fact.

[tinanator]

251. i feel the same

about everything i see on tv.

[JohnKleeb]

185. kit they dont know who he is

Reality changes day by day. After 9/11 Bush was the teflon don. The rest of the country doesnt know the presidential candiates. It is still early.

[gully]

6. I think the Greens are stirrin the ol' shit myself...

But, I've been known to stir my own.

:evilgrin:

[Julien Sorel]

3. It's just election propaganda.

I despise the Greens as narcissistic, emotional children, but they have the right to put out their propaganda the same as any other political party would.

[gully]

5. True. But should we treat them like any other opposition party? N/M

:shrug:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

8. Gosh, did you read where the site says Dems 'SUPPORTED' the Afghan war ?

Oppose/Support. Tell me where they put Democrats again?

I don't hate anyone... Really...

Well, with the exception of Shrub and anyone who helps him along. :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

12. and, what...you dont think they Supported it?

do you think its ok to excuse the Democratic party because 1 or 2 out of hundreds employs a progressive position?

[gully]

20. You think it's ok to LIE and say Democrats supported a war ignoring those

that didn't. I gave only one example, there are many slanted positions on that site.

And, in all fairness this is 'politics' as was noted earlier. I just refuse to ignore it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

32. I'm not the dumb one here...

If you don't 'get it' I can't help you.

[Terwilliger]

36. Please try

I'm trying to help you

You still haven't refuted anything

[gully]

40. You still haven't proven anything. n/t

[GreenInNC]

10. Greens will run a candidate

We will run a candidate. In more than half the states we have to run one to preserve ballot access for the next four years. In California if we don't run a candidate for Pres, then no one can run as a Green for the next four years and everyone who is registered Green becomes an independent.

We are only playing by the rules that the Republicans and Democrats have made.

I think the Dems should be more worried about the 7.5 million Dems who voted for Bush than the 2.5 million of all groups that voted for Nader.

[Terwilliger]

14. oh they're worried...that's why they're trying to purge the left

they'd rather have the Dem Bush voters :eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

15. You nailed it exactly on the head.

Now, would trying to attract those 2.5 million who voted for Nadir help, or hurt, the chances of re-capturing the 7.5 million who voted Republican?

[Terwilliger]

19. Then you can't blame Nader

because your people couldnt control your right-wing flock, and they're the ones who pushed it over the top for Bush

OH YEAH! MAYBE YOU COULD BLAME DEMS WHO ACTUALLY VOTED FOR BUSH!

[Julien Sorel]

25. Brilliant logic!

Two people stole from me, but I can only blame one of them!!!!!!

[Terwilliger]

28. no wonder you people keep losing

you keep beliving in your own superiority

[Julien Sorel]

30. LOL

That's the third or 4th time you've slunk off like that.

They'll distend eventually ;-)

[Terwilliger]

31. slunk?

How am I slinking away when you're just posturing and declaring your superiority?

What am I arguing for?

You're sure of what you're sure of...fine.

Now, can you refute anything the website claims?

[Julien Sorel]

38. You slunk off with

an ad-hominem instead of an argument. You've done it before.

Pointing out the utter illogic of your argument isn't 'posturing' to most people, but whatever floats your boat.

What am I arguing for?

How should I know? The one thing you should have figured out a long time ago is that I have little faith in the logical workings of the typical Green mind. Why ask me, then, to tell you what you are arguing for?

Now, can you refute anything the website claims?

It's opinion; few opinions can be 'refuted.' For example, the site's position on the Minimum Wage:

Increase to $10 per Hour
In the 2000 platform, the Green Party called for increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. This is comparable, in inflation adjusted dollars, to the minimum wage in 1967.

My opinion on the minimum wage is different than the Green opinion. I can certainly argue my opinion, but it wouldn't 'refute' the Green position. I 'refuted' your implication that I can 'blame' either the Greens or the Republicans for 2000 by pointing out it was illogical; whoever put that piece of propaganda on the site was a little too bright to make it so easy.

That last is rather elementary by the way; I'm a little surprised to have to point out something like that.

[Terwilliger]

44. Sorry, your logic seems faulty

It's opinion; few opinions can be 'refuted.' For example, the site's position on the Minimum Wage:

Increase to $10 per Hour
In the 2000 platform, the Green Party called for increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. This is comparable, in inflation adjusted dollars, to the minimum wage in 1967.

Excuse me, what the hell are you talking about? The Greens want to up the minimum wage to $10/hr...how is that opinion? Because your argument is weak?

My opinion on the minimum wage is different than the Green opinion.

Nobody asked you for your opinion. I asked you to refute what was said. Now, I grant that this is a simple graphic, so if I need to explian anything to you, I'll do my best.

The Greens support a minimum wage increase to $10/hr...Republicans support no increase in minimum wage...Democrats support a minimum wage increase, but (apparently) only a small one. (probably just to keep people believing they actually want to increase it)

I 'refuted' your implication that I can 'blame' either the Greens or the Republicans for 2000 by pointing out it was illogical

Non-sequitur? Where did this come from? How is that part of your current argument about "Green opinions"? How is it illogical to suggest that you (and most other partisan Dems I've seen here at DU) can't get away from the fact that you always seem to blame everything except yourselves for your own problems.

That last is rather elementary by the way; I'm a little surprised to have to point out something like that.

I think your reasoning is elementary :eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

50. I'm almost speechless here.

I admit I had a low opinion of you, but it was apparently too high.


Excuse me, what the hell are you talking about? The Greens want to up the minimum wage to $10/hr...how is that opinion? Because your argument is weak?

How can I refute the Greens want to change the minimum wage to $10 an hour? They apparently do; I can't refute that fact. The point of this website is to demonstrate that Green positions are superior to Democratic and Republican positions. I can argue that the Green position isn't the best thing for the economy, but it's just an argument, the same as the original statement was just an argument. Are you really this dumb, or are you doing it to cover up for your prior embarrassment?

Nobody asked you for your opinion. I asked you to refute what was said. Now, I grant that this is a simple graphic, so if I need to explian anything to you, I'll do my best.

Please. Perhaps you could do a credible job of explaining water-based finger painting to a room full of 5 year olds, but that's about as much as I'd expect from you at this point.

Non-sequitur? Where did this come from? How is that part of your current argument about "Green opinions"? How is it illogical to suggest that you (and most other partisan Dems I've seen here at DU) can't get away from the fact that you always seem to blame everything except yourselves for your own problems.


It came from your own post. I can understand why you want to forget it now, but here it is:

Then you can't blame Nader


because your people couldnt control your right-wing flock, and they're the ones who pushed it over the top for Bush

OH YEAH! MAYBE YOU COULD BLAME DEMS WHO ACTUALLY VOTED FOR BUSH!

It's a classic either/or fallacy. I pointed it out once, which prompted your little snit about 'superiority' or some such nonsense, twice, in another post, and now this time. Get it yet, or must I break down and use one-syllable words for you?


I have to give you some credit for at least trying; maybe they are about 1/4 of the way down. But who knows; the trend might reverse itself.

[Terwilliger]

57. unbelievably weak

you act and react...can't stand a point? come up with an irrelevant one! can't refute anything? talk about something else :eyes: You're almost as bad as gully.

[Julien Sorel]

72. LOL

See? I told you the trend could reverse itself.

[Terwilliger]

75. your trend for obfuscation and lies?

you're right

[Julien Sorel]

77. ;-)

I think I'll leave it at this. It's rather obvious who's doing the obfuscating here, and as for the lies, well...

[Terwilliger]

87. as for the lies

you know all about them

[gully]

78. HEY!

What's that s'pose to mean? ;)

[gully]

39. Can you prove what the website claims?

Prove it's true!

Sure you can find Democrats on all sides of every issue as can I. I am sure there are Greens who vary on the issues also, the site is irresponsible rubbish.

[gully]

33. Gosh, I think I'll work on 'attracting' Bush voters instead

there greater in number :eyes:

Thunk!

[ShaneGR]

16. LOL

That's just a completely false statement. Your existence as a party in California does NOT depend on having a Presidential candidate Where do you people find this garbage?

[Terwilliger]

21. Remember kids...if you like knowledge, don't listen to helmet-head

he lived in a city and he didn't even know who the mayor was

[gully]

22. We go after Bush daily, and Bush voters still loyal to the Republicans...

are not ignored.

[fujiyama]

114. I am so sick

of this crap of "democrats should be angry at those 7.5 dems that voted for Bush" nonsense.

I am as angry at those people as I am at the greenies, because they all enabled Bush! All the "swing voting", "independents" as well.

You know why those democrats voted for Bush though??? Please tell me! I'd love to know!

Oh yeah, it's because they thought HE WAS TOO LIBERAL! Yes, those dems that voted for Bush are conservatives dems, and if the party wanted their vote they could have chased them! Yes, chased them even farther to the right! Fuck those dems! Those aren't democrats as far as I'm concerned. Just like the greens! Those people are narsistic whiny babies, as Billy mentioned.

Greens can play this game and get nowhere. It won't effect most greens anyways because the green members are usually quite wealthy. Nader's doing great under Bush tax cuts. Bankruptcy overhall won't effect Nader. Neither will this stupid Iraq war which would not have occured under Al Gore's watch..

What the hell was everyone's problem with Al Gore? I sometimes think all the "independent" minded people are simply undecided fools, willing to vote based on that candidate which isn't "mean".

The green people should be smarter than this. They may have had some sort of say in a Gore admin. Was the political point made by greens worth what we got? Was it worth John Ashcroft?, the assult on the enviornment?

Yes, dems haven't done enough to oppose Bush's policies, and no I won't excuse them, but there is no other hope this following election. We've got a preview. 2 and 1/2 years has been bad enough. The next two will be worse, but another 4 years! And greens can't say they didn't "expect it to be this bad". Bush's record was that as a nasty, right wing fanatic, right from the start. If greens simply abandon the democratic party, the party will veer even farther to the right for the dems are liklier to give up the left vote than the dumb ass, centrist swing voter. The two party system, will farther diminish. We must stop that, and the only way to do so is from within.

[SammyWinstonJack]

209. Damn! Well said

:bounce:

[bearfartinthewoods]

168. errr....wouldn't that require a shift to the right?

to go after 7.5 million Dems who voted for Bush we're going to gave to do some shifting.

[Terwilliger]

169. *BZZZZZZZZZZZZT* Sorry! You've already tried that

the party was significantly to the right when they voted for Bush anyway

[ShaneGR]

7. Greens? What greens? I like vegetables... they taste good

Lets eat.

[gully]

9. YUMMM.... Let's do.

;)

[ShaneGR]

13. Ok, lets try the House Salad

Romaine lettuce, tomatoes, onions, olives, Nader meat, and blue-cheese dressing.

Yummy!

[gully]

24. He he...

;)

[noiretextatique]

11. black box voting, voter purges, and other forms of disenfranchisement

should be of more concern to democrats than greens. the voter purges are what really killed gore in 2000, and hint: the party responsible is not the green party.

[Terwilliger]

17. sure it is

because that's what they beieve, and if I've learned nothing else here at DU for 2 years, beliefs might as well be written in stone

[David Zephyr]

18. To Say the Least.

I couldn't agree more.

[gully]

26. Didn't say Greens were responsible, just said there an opposition party.

And they are right?

[noiretextatique]

35. read my lips: the REAL ISSUE FOR 2004

on edit: this is not addressed to you specifically, gully...this a general rant on this issue.

WILL BE THE SAME AS IT WAS FOR 2000: ELIGIBLE VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTING, AND VOTES BEING COUNTED.

the greens, the reformers, the socialists, the natural law party...and so on, have just as much right to participate in the process and vote for whomever the choose, as do democrats and republicans. those people who continue to argue against participation are nothing by fascists.

what's important is making sure all those who are eligible to vote, and who want to vote can do so...and of course, making sure the votes are properly recorded and counted. exit polling would be great also. this is what happens in participatory democracy...YOU don't get to decide who participates, or how.

if all the voters get to vote, and all the votes are counted, democrats will likely win in 2004, and they did in 2000.
unfortunately, in 2000, there were enough voters in florida who were purged illegally to have put gore over the top...something dedicated green-whiners routinely forget in their zeal to blame.

in summary: it's the fucking republicans, stupid!!!!

[gully]

41. Your right it's the Republicans...

Now if the Greens would only correct that pesky website ;)

[w4rma]

23. Greens will go the way of the Reform Party, Bull Moose Party, & hopefully

the Republican Party :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

29. or, quite possibly, the Democratic party

you better be concerned about that, Rick

[w4rma]

34. Is that what you want to see, Terwilliger? (n/t)

[noiretextatique]

37. can we all agree: the republican party should go the way of the dinosaur?

instead of either the greens of the democrats? seems like a fucking no brainer to me :argh:

[Terwilliger]

42. nice long discussion there, Rick

yeah, sure...Remember Carlos has already told you: Nader wants to destroy the Democratic party...I worship Nader..IE, therefore, in lieu...etc. etc. etc.

I think the Democratic party is in serious danger of destroying itself. All the history up to this point is bad enough...now you folks are pinning your hopes on a field that doesn't look that good, hoping the country will dislike Bush *just* enough for your guy to win.

What happens if he doesn't? What happens if everybody rallies round the Dem flag and you lose anyway? Are you going to look to focus the blame somewhewre else yet again?

You should see the two polls I've run (yesterday and today) Shows a group of people willing to stick to the notion that the election was stolen, yet not do anything about for "political" reasons. Yeah...and I dont want to hear any bitching about the next one.

[gully]

43. OPPOSITION IS OPPOSITION, no matter the cloak...

Greens = opposition

Republicans = opposition

Simple really.

[Terwilliger]

45. if the Greens and Republicans are both in opposition to Democrats

that must mean Democrats are in the "center"

No wonder you people keep losing

[gully]

47. Hmmmm, when did the Greens win any major election?

Who's the loser again?

BTW, we won the last presidential election remember?

[Terwilliger]

55. here's news for ya gully...Gore did NOT win the last election

if he did, Democrats would be traitors

[gully]

119. Huh? I think the sex, drugs and rock n roll is foggin' your brain

man...

Come back when you 'come down' ok?

[Terwilliger]

191. Excuse me....is Al Gore in the White House?

Is the Democratic party claiming that George Bush stole the election?

I think you should "get over it" gully...Kerry wants you to.

[gully]

193. I'm over it...but am not supporting Kerry for the record...N/T

[w4rma]

56. "you people". Interesting. So whose side are you on Terwilliger? (n/t)

[Terwilliger]

60. Im on the side of whats right

you people are waiting to squeak by and claim you actually differ from the other side

[gully]

66. Oh, your right, we're 'wrong' ... complex argument

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

74. not complex at all

and you STILL dont grasp it

[gully]

79. You make as much sense as George Bush.

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

88. hey that's pretty good then

he's president now, ya know

[gully]

93. nuf said! n/t

[Terwilliger]

105. yep...nuf said

[w4rma]

112. I'm on the side of what's right. So where does that put "you people"?

To be specific, I'm on the side of what *I* think is right. And *I* don't think your "you people" and "side of whats right" rhetoric, that I'm copying to make this point, is right.

[Terwilliger]

163. but obviously you think "your people" are right

so, whether you frame it that way or not, that's exactly what you're doing

[Speed8098]

170. Dem history bad??

I think the Democratic party is in serious danger of destroying itself. All the history up to this point is bad enough...

Do you mean the history of fixing the economy of the previous re:puke:
that was in office?

What history are you talking about, specifically?

[Terwilliger]

171. the history of losing in the last 10 years

or, hadnt you noticed that?

[Iverson]

174. It's a mix, of course.

The Democratic Party not only has many proud accomplishments in it history, it has also been running away hard from that history. That is, it no longer wishes to be the party that serves the poor, minorities, women, labor, and otherwise its traditional consitutencies.

Your point about Clinton is a good one both on its merits and for my point above. Clinton did great on "the economy," but "the economy" has so little to do with people anymore that it's not funny. The rising tide hasn't lifted all boats for a while now.

[gully]

178. Clinton helped 'people' too believe it or not...

When Clinton was in office people had help with

Child Care (via funding) I have many friends who are now with out 'help'...

Head Start Funding (children are people too are they not)

After School programs

He hired more police/fire/first responders-thus helping people.
*Some seem angry that there are tougher drug laws. Try living in a drug cesspool, and tell me he did the wrong thing by strengthening drug laws? Who are you trying to help with your compassion, the dealers? Or, the kids who grow up and play in the areas where drugs are rampant?* I know many poor who are thankful to Clinton for taking dealers off 'their' streets.

He moved us into the 20th century via supplying the internet to every school.

He created 6 million new jobs-for 'people' in his first two years alone.

He reduced the deficit for our 'children.'

Signed the Brady Bill into law.

Signed FMLA which allowed me to be home with my child after her birth.

Had a 'direct student loan program' which no longer exists.

Lowered poverty, unemployment, crime....

I could provide links, snips and a book on Clintons accomplishments, but the mans not running for office, so I won't spend the time.

I have to wonder where people live that they are so insulated from reality? I have lived below poverty level much of my life as a child, in the inner city. I grew up in the 'system' and have many friends/family who were/are in 'the system.' Welfare is another form of slavery folks. Clinton attempted to balance that by helping people get off the system. He compromised. But, as a person who was a sceptic in the beginning, I saw the postive side of welfare reform. I saw people go from generations of hopelessness and low esteem, to people who worked and were proud. I know there are exceptions to that rule, and I think moms should be able to get 'support' from the Government. But, if you have jobs for people, and help with childcare there's a balance.

The difference between Clintons version of welfare reform and George Bush's is Clinton had a job for those who getting out of the system. Bush doesn't. Clinton helped the working poor with programs (child care assistance etc.) Bush doesn't. Are the differences becoming clear. Do you see how Clinton helped 'real' people?

[Iverson]

189. gully gee

A careful reading will assist you to address the points I actually made (if such is your desire), and not something akin to them.

Giving both credit and criticism where it is due had ought to be good enough. Pretending that one is arguing whether or not children are people, and so forth, is sheerest sophistry.

"Are the differences becoming clear."

Back at ya.

[gully]

192. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

You said~"it no longer wishes to be the party that serves the poor, minorities, women, labor, and otherwise its traditional consitutencies.

I think the Dems continue to serve 'the groups you noted above,' but in different ways, KWIM? That was my point. I agree to a certain extent with what you said, but our country has changed with the times.

Bill Clinton (when he campaigned) said he'd bring the US into the 20th century. The face of the Democratic Party is changing with the times :shrug:

Sorry if I'm a bit 'punchy.' I've been insulted here so much that I've lost all clarity. ;)

I would like to see a return to 'our' roots, and I hope that will happen in the next election. But, I also believe in 'balance.'

[gully]

179. More ways Clinton helped 'people'...

The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity


Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.


More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.


Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.


Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.


Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.


Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.


Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.


100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.


Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.


Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.

Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.


Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.


Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.


Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.


Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.


Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.


Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.


Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.


Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.


Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.


More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.


I'll let the record speak for itself.

[mkregel]

46. Ignore em...keep the eyes straight ahead

and REPEAT


ANYONE BUT BUSH

ANYONE BUT BUSH

Things can and will get worse if we don't

[TheYellowDog]

49. All the more reason to cooperate with

the Republicans, and work together to tighten ballot access laws. The way to fight the Greens is to raise petition signature requirements, and make them get hundreds of thousands of signatures to even get on a congressional ballot. If they are going to attempt to cost us another election, we can hit em where it hurts. :)

[noiretextatique]

53. great: cooperate with the party that stole the election?!?!

to keep other parties off the ballot?!? on this lovely note, i am going to go have a drink :argh:

at least this way there won't be anyone to blame (except democrats)when republicans steal another election :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

61. they didnt steal the election!

that would mean that Democrats betrayed the people who voted for them and are traitors...so, no, the election was fair and square :eyes:

[quaker bill]

51. 500 votes

I like the Green party concept and was involved in getting the party started in FLA. I even did a short speech at their first statewide gathering. There are alot of good concepts in the movement.

Why have I not been involved since?

Just as the right wingnuts, the Greens stand for ideological purity. The are intolerant of compromise and thus have a very low political IQ.

Any fruitcake that can still stand and say it makes no difference if the Republican or Democrat wins the Presidency is simply blind. Ideological purity will do this to you.

This is the reason that the working poor making near minimum wage will vote Republican. While there are a thousand ways that this is not in their best interest, the right sells them on the notion of ideological purity "American Values", "Family Values", "the Right Values", "Christian Values"......

About 500 votes made the difference in FLA and thus the USA. Nader got a lot more than this in FLA (10,000+). If even the smallest portion of Naderites voted for Gore instead, we would have much less damage to clean up now. It will take years to undo the damage Bush has done.

One of the largest differences between Gore and Bush was on the environment. This is one of the Greens key issues and why I as an environmental scientist was led to speak at their first gathering.

Ideological purity (environmental puritanism) is the crutch of a weak mind and the nemesis of us all.

[TheYellowDog]

52. I agree,

you should read my post above yours and how we should shut the greens out. Just clamp down on ballot access laws and essentially drive them out of existence.

[Terwilliger]

54. now, drop the label "Democrat" and you can do what you want

[charlie]

62. Ha! You agree Green are ideological purists

That's rich. You vowed to sit out the election if Kucinich got the nomination in another thread.

[quaker bill]

73. I would not go that far

Greens have gotten some innovators elected in some local races down here. They have gotten some good local laws enacted on environmental and anti-discrimination issues.

They are simply not ready for prime time. As Bioregionalists they should stick with local races.

Some limit to ballot access for minor parties for national races like President would seem appropriate. In Fla in 2000 we had 10 choices for President. The only time I can recall this ever happening here. Thus the butterfly ballots and over-voting fiasco.

Did Republicans have something to do with this confusion - - Katherine Harris ran the process, you tell me.

[gully]

58. You nailed it Quaker Bill...

Just as the right wingnuts, the Greens stand for ideological purity. The are intolerant of compromise and thus have a very low political IQ.

That's it!

Totally off topic: Are you a Quaker? I'm reading about Quakerism now.

[quaker bill]

71. Yes

I am a Quaker.

[noiretextatique]

59. centrism is also an ideological stance

and their are many "purists" who advocate it. frankly...this argument is just as ridiculous as any other painted with a broad brush.

[gully]

64. Centrists as a rule are flexible...

For example, I don't agree with Dean's position on Gun control but I support him today. I will compromise some of my ideals for pragmatism. Some Greens (including Granny D, feel the same.) But the 'fundies' remain inflexible.

[Terwilliger]

68. centrists, as a rule, don't believe in anything

except compromise and muddle

[quaker bill]

69. Correct,

That was my point. Political IQ does not prevent you from having strong ideals to work toward. Nor does it prevent you from working hard at them. It just means that you choose your battles and steadfastly refuse to shoot yourself in the foot in the name of purity.

[Terwilliger]

76. purity of what?

so, it's ok for Democrats NOT to believe in anything so that they can claim that they're all about truth and light while Republicans are bad people who will destroy the country?

Uh huh.

You do realize Quakers aren't members of political parties, right?

[quaker bill]

81. That would be incorrect

As a former clerk of an FGC/FUM affiliated Monthly Meeting, husband to the past Secretary of a Yearly Meeting in the Religious Society of Friends, as former Clerk of Worship and Ministry, and current Clerk of Care and Counsel, I can tell you on substantial authority that Quakers are members of political parties. Membership in a political party violates no Testimony of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

Ideals are good. Blind devotion to ideological purity numbs the mind. It is also inconsistent with the notion "continuing relevation" something most quakers hold dear.

[noiretextatique]

89. blind devotion to ideological purity

is that similar to the DLC's devotion to winning over swing voters at the expense of the base? arguably the strategy might have paid off at one time, but it seems devotion to that strategy could cost democrats the next election...it seems it cost some in the mid-terms. as i mentioned previously, moderates and centrists are not immune from ideological purity. it is not just a position of so-called extremists of the left or right of the spectrum.

[quaker bill]

101. Yes, similar but not same.

I take your point. Any ideology has it's purists. Of the crowd so far, I support Dean and Kucinich the most.

The DLC's attack on Dean has a whiff of ideological purity about it. But remember, Dean was a one time member and is more of a centrist than most folks realize.

I see the DLC as more simply weak and risk-adverse. (they have lost 2 in a row). Dean took a major political risk standing against the war. This scares them. (what other risks might he take??? they must be asking themselves) They want control and he is not giving it.

It is why I like him.

Dennis on the other hand just stands up there and tells it like it is, or at least the way he sees it. I like him too.

To the extent that the centrists are ideological purists, they are of no service to the party. To the extent that they have ideals and are willing to fight for them fine. We need to remember that the goal is regime change and in the final analysis, be willing to compromise a bit to get it done.

[noiretextatique]

108. i agree, quaker bill

this is the intra-party change that needs to continue. with that, and paying attention to black box voting, and disenfranchisement schemes, i don't think democrats have much to worry about from the greens. they got only 2.74% of the vote in 2000, and if eligible voters hadn't been illegally denied their right to vote in florida, gore would have easily won...with nader in the race. i expect a repeat in 2004...the key will be voting and vote counting. greens will only make a difference if republicans cheat...which is a given as far as i'm concerned. i hope more of us get focused on those doing the cheating (like all those working on black box voting) vs. those who are participating in the process.

[Terwilliger]

90. Blind acceptance of powers that foment hatred, plague, and death

should be of great concern to anyone who claims to live in service to his fellow man

[quaker bill]

102. Couldn't agree more.

But I am more than willing to bend on a few fine points to see that the "powers that foment hatred, plague, and death" come in second in 2004.

[Terwilliger]

107. sorry babe, but Democrats have instituted some seriously FUCKED UP policy

and to support them makes me think the Quakers are a bunch of murdering god-pods also

Is that true? Do you support murderers?

[quaker bill]

110. I can criticize democrats too.

and have.

Sorry if I have offended your ideological purity.

I like the green movement. So much so that I and a handfull of Quakers and American Friends Service Committee volunteers helped get them organized and established as a political party in Florida.

I am an ecologist and make my living enforcing environmental law against developers and other environmental rapists.

I cannot excuse, justify, or countenance, all the past policies of the Democratic party. For instance, Deans support of the death penalty gives me great pause.

I also knew that when Bush v Gore came down that we would be bombing the heck out of people of color within a year. Told lots of friends at the time who can attest.

Better is not always best, and best is not always better.

But there is no doubt, we can do better than this.

[Terwilliger]

198. I envy you your clarity of purpose

Good luck.

[noiretextatique]

85. some greens, some centrists

are you getting a clue...YET? geez.

[gully]

94. Perhaps when you being to post in complete sentences, I'll get a clue. n/t

[noiretextatique]

98. here's the fucking clue

if there are green like granny d who support dean's position on gun control and centrists like you who do also...then :wtf: are you whining about? are the centrists who don't support dean's position are problemmatic for you as the greens who don't? that's the fucking clue.

[gully]

100. does saying fuck make your point more credible? nah?

And, neither does your lack of coherence.

if there are green like granny d who support dean's position on gun control and centrists like you who do also...then :wtf: are you whining about? are the centrists who don't support dean's position are problemmatic for you as the greens who don't? that's the fucking clue. :freak:

BTW, problematic has one 'm'...

[noiretextatique]

104. profanity and spelling...

i am tired...but i think you understand the question, hence your snotty reply.
let's try this again: why aren't you whining about the 'ideological purity' of centrists who do not support dean's position on gun control? i assume you would claim those greens who don't support dean's position, unlike granny d, don't because of this 'purity' issue. and since you claim all centrists are so open-minded, please explain to me why even some centrists don't support his position. i am curious to know if is has something to do with this 'ideological purity' thing which seems to explain so much about greens. now...do you fucking ( :scared: is this too much for your delicate ears) understand that...or is this problematic (with one m) for you still?

[gully]

115. I defend Dean here daily....

And, I dislike people swearing at me in conversation. It makes for a much less effective argument.

[buddhamama]

123. hey,Lady

that is just too much profanity and Sense for my delicate ears :hi:

*runs away with fingers in ears*

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buddhamama]

129. sense --all in the mind of the listener

i'm sure you'd like it to be so, but i'm not going anywhere if DK isn't chosen. wishful thinking on your part- i'm heartbroken that i'll have to disappoint ya'.
unlike some here ;-) i have an open mind- essential when you don't live in a black and white world.

[gully]

130. Good for you, that makes two of us.

Then I look forward to working together to oust Bush from the OO in 04.

~Peace

[noiretextatique]

237. LOL...hey there, lady

i guess i was making too much fucking sense :hi: LOL

[gully]

242. No fucking way..

:hi: ;)

[lifelong_Dem]

67. The Greens are LIARS

They said the Democrats supported the war in Iraq. This is a LIE. In fact, a majority of Congressional Dems voted AGAINST the war resolution.

[Terwilliger]

70. Oh yeah?

a majority of Congressional Dems = the Democratic party?

[gully]

80. Well one Green = the Green Party... n/t

[Terwilliger]

86. that Green follows the platform

unlinke Democrats who have a platform thats so vague its easy for them to claim victory when they haven't done anything at all

[gully]

95. Oh, I see, the platform....

:eyes:

What about the Global Responsibility thing, you know it's in the GP Platform? Do you think helping Bush get elected was 'globally responsible?'

[Terwilliger]

106. *BZZZZZZZZZZZZT* Sorry! You don't get to use that

Your buddy, Mr. From discredits that notion:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data." -- Al From

[gully]

116. Al From is NO buddy of mine!!!

However, I assume you have high regard for Granny D? Have you read what she has to say on this issue?


The point remains the "globally responsible" thing for Nader to do was endorse Gore. He didn't.

I would not suggest that any other party do such a thing, but the Green Party has 'global responsibility' in their platform.

Some Greens like Granny D, hold true to that notion. And, I have immense respect for those like her.

*see my sig line*'

Edited to add the speech...

http://grannyd.com/speech20030308.htm

[Terwilliger]

164. You know...I havent seen anything by Granny D...

maybe you could provide a link?

[gully]

177. Sure..I'll be glad to do so again... Perhaps a thread is in order?

Granny D~"Here is what we must do. We must of course find a good candidate who can represent all of us well, including the moderate middle of American thought, where elections are won. We must not look for the perfect candidate, but for a candidate who believes in the value of life on earth and who will uphold the Bill of Rights, which is now under attack by Bush's wildly unpatriotic Patriot Act and the proposed Patriot Act II, which is a treason.

The man in the White House believes that, when our American soldiers start coming home to our communities in coffins, we will rally 'round him -- that we will forget what he did to our budget surpluses, our Social Security funds, our Medicare, our pensions and stocks. Merciless rulers from time out of mind have tried that bloody distraction. We are not distracted by the blood of our own sons and daughters, Mr. Bush. Each drop of that precious blood calls our hearts to an election next year and we are an army of people who come against you at the ballot box. Harm our children and watch us.

In the 2004 presidential election, we must not split our vote between Greens and Democrats. I know the Greens have party building to do, but, if Mr. Bush wins again, there will be no America for them to build their party in. So they must defer this time and earn our respect and admiration for doing so."

http://grannyd.com/speech20030308.htm

For the record Granny D supports Dennis Kucinich, but she will vote for the Dem on the ticket, and is urging you to do the same.

[Terwilliger]

200. was there something about Granny D?

I like her. I'd love to see what she said about the Greens.

[gully]

204. Then read the link I supplied and check out her website...

grannyd.com

[Terwilliger]

222. her? GrannyD?

where is that? does she have a website?

[gully]

224. Yea, http://www.grannyd.com N/T

[Terwilliger]

234. ahh ok

is there a link for that site?

[gully]

235. Once again, here it is...

http://www.grannyd.com Enjoy. I started a thread also :)

[dmkinsey]

82. We have to work

our tails off and not spend our time worrying about what the Greens think. We already know that we face an uphill battle next year. The R's have a TON of money and control of the media,and they're willing to lie ,cheat and steal. We need to do more than merely get more votes. We need to win BIG. That automatically means a margin of victory that will negate the small numbers of Greens.
Besides, I don't believe that the Greens will get the numbers this time. They've got no candidate. Last time a lot of Dems voted for Nader-not this time. Only the truly hard-core Greens will vote for Nader. If Nader doesn't run,even fewer Green votes.
DaveK

[ElsewheresDaughter]

83. NO...every Nader voter I know (25) will not vote Green in the 04 go round

"I am voting Democratic in 04"...every one of them has made this statement.

[gully]

84. But what if it's

not Kucinich?

Edited to add: Will you vote for the guy Kucinich does ie the Democratic nominee?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

96. yes any democrat...with the exception of lieberman ......sorry

[gully]

117. I can respect that, Thanks!

I am no fan of JL and will work to see that he's not the choice going against Bush in 04. But, if need be, I'll vote for him.

[Terwilliger]

92. have you told them you spell his name "Nadar"?

have you told them how much you hate "Nadar"?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

99. opps...... Nader traitor

[Terwilliger]

103. it amazes me you support Kucinich

something tells me you don't know why

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. They're Americans, too.

I support their right to do whatever the fuck they want. (In the voting booth)

[gully]

97. Me too, and I support the right of Bushies to do the same...

But, it doesn't mean I'll refrain from defending the Democratic party against any/all opposition...

[MrPrax]

109. This is terrible!!!

Greens are asking for accommodation of their 'platforms' in the democratic party!!!

Must be an attempt to de-rail Democratic chances, no?

[Oracle]

111. Greens aren't asking for anything...exccept...

De-rail? Man, get real...I've yet to vote outside the democratic party...but I now understand the shit you fucks throw out...you want no real choice, only a two party system, as if that's the answer...ideology must be prominent, well yes, suppose the ideology is closer to home than you want to seek out...and to jump on the Greens is fucking way past me...who do you blame for your fuck-ups in your own life? I'm positive, someone else.

[John_H]

113. They left out a few comparisons

Union Busting

Democrats: Oppose.

Republicans: Support.

Nader: Supports. In fact, busted unions at his own organization


Tax Dodges

Democrats: Oppose. See Rangel legislation to close many tax loopholes.

Republicans: Support

Nader: Oppose. Except for himself.


Bashing "corporatism" while profiting from corporations

Democrats: Oppose. Are pro business, with regulations

Republicans: Oppose. Support business with no regulations.

Nader: Supports. recently bashed drug companies, cable companies, and wal-mart. Personally profits from Merk, Viacom, and Wal-Mart

www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[gully]

118. Here, here...

Send them to damnedbigdifference.org ;)

[Terwilliger]

120. ummm...wanna discuss what realchange.org thinks of Clinton and Gore?

HUH?!?!??!?!?!!

[gully]

121. Nah, been there/done that...

It's really quite boring actually. Especially given the fact that the "stunning accusations" spent so much time in the main stream media. In fact, for the 8 prosperous years of the Clinton/Gore administration, these little tid bits were all over the news.

Your probably to young to remember?

[Oracle]

122. Fucking moderates hate them all! Don't you?

Make nice, nice Oracle because they are Democrats...as I posted last night...get fucking real...I've yet to vote outside the democratic party...but I now understand the shit you fucks throw out...you want no real choice, only a two party system, as if that's the answer...ideology must be prominent, well yes, suppose the ideology is closer to home than you want to seek out...and to jump on the Greens is fucking way past me...who do you blame for your fuck-ups in your own life? I'm positive, someone else.

Moderate Clowns!

[gully]

127. Oracle="A person considered to be a source of wise counsel" ...

Oracle said~get fucking real...I've yet to vote outside the democratic party...but I now understand the shit you fucks throw out...you want no real choice, only a two party system, as if that's the answer...ideology must be prominent, well yes, suppose the ideology is closer to home than you want to seek out...and to jump on the Greens is fucking way past me...who do you blame for your fuck-ups in your own life? I'm positive, someone else.

"Wise counsel?" Time to change your user name Oracle :freak:

I have no problem with choice at all. I simply see the Green Party as an opposing party. Sorry if that's offensive to you :eyes:

[John_H]

151. We fucks do throw shit out....

such as you, hopefully.

[Terwilliger]

167. so realchange.org is discounted

and what was published about Nader doesn't mean anything

thanks gully!

[gully]

182. No, it's not discounted.

Were already discussing the Clinton/Gore failures here are we not?

And, I watched the news in the Clinton era, thus I am aware of all the 'dirt' on Bill Clinton. I simply think Clinton grime is pas-se'. The right wing media discussed his scandals, real or perceived, daily. *Unlike the Bush administration where one needs to be a detective to garner truth.*

[Terwilliger]

194. well, then you cant use their claims on Nader as objective

if you think they weren't objective with Clinton and Gore

[gully]

199. I never said they weren't objective with Clinton/Gore

I said I'd heard it all before and Clinton/Gore dirt is a tiresome subject for me personally.

[Terwilliger]

201. so, what they said about Nader is just as wrong

I don't know what the problem is here :shrug:

[gully]

205. Read my post Terwilliger...Again, I never said what they said was 'wrong'

your putting words in my mouth.

[Terwilliger]

221. you're being highly evasive

You offered up the realchange.org site as PROOF of "BAD OLD NADER"

Well, fine, I offered that site as PROOF of Clinton and Gore being bad people

But you're like OH NO! That was just bullshit created by the right-wing whatever...that doesnt count

And I said OH NO...you tell me that Nader is bad because of what this website says, so what it says about Clinton and Gore must be true

YOU SAY well that's just after 8 years of great things and they're Democrats and I'm a Democrat and that's good

and I SAY :eyes:

[gully]

227. No that's not what I said Terwilliger, I said Clinton and Gore had some

less then positive stuff about them, (as does Nader) I went on to say...that I'd heard it all over the years because of the right wing media not letting up. In other words, I acknowlege what the site says about Clinton/Gore. OK?

I'm not being evasive at all. But, I do find it futile to defend a person who's not running of office.

[Iverson]

125. Trail of Tears Golf Course

"And let me say we RESPECT you savages ..." - Firesign Theater

Thanks for bringing up old news. There was a danger that some Greens and Dems on DU might actually start talking to (not at) each other, and who could countenance that!

Are we ready to revive call for purging Greens once this thread sinks too low? Good F-ing grief!

[gully]

128. I linked a Green Party website.

that Terwilliger - you know one of the Greens that wants dialog here :eyes: has posted and referenced on DU repeatedly. In fact after his posting links to the site on several occasions (in an outstanding effort for open minded discussion) I decided to start a thread on the subject.

So, thanks to Terwilliger for an amazing discussion!

Funny how the 'calls for peace' only surface when a Democrat speaks out.

I do however look forward to your polite reminders to him about 'unity' going forward. :nopity:

[charlie]

131. Terwilliger

is a registered Democrat, not a Green.

[gully]

132. You registered to vote for DK I presume?

Who are you supporting if DK is not nominated?

[buddhamama]

133. why do you presume these things?

i don't get it. because some here voted green in the past doesn't mean they're registered greens and that they would only register DEM to support Kucinich. there are people here who are in agreement with greens on issues but have never been anything but registered DEMs.

again, wishful thinking on your part.

[gully]

135. My question was not directed at you..

And, BTW...I personally agree with much of the GP platform. I am a leftist LIBERAL and proud to be called as such.

In fact I almost voted for Nader. I decided against as I did my research, and there was too much at stake.

My presumption was in relation to Terwilliger. Perhaps I'm wrong, :shrug: but I doubt it.

[buddhamama]

140. no. you asked your question of charlie

i didn't see Terwilliger's name on that post.

[charlie]

134. My vote will go to the Democrat that gets the nomination

Why, making an enemies list?

[buddhamama]

136. i think you're on to something

sanctimonious BS.

[gully]

139. That means he's voting for the Green Party again?

:nuke:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

144. Im not the one with the comprehension problem.

Sorry if my reply went over your head...

[buddhamama]

147. ahh no.

i got it all right. when i said sanctimonious BS you were attempting to put that label on green voters,especially Terwilliger.

got knews for you, Greens aren't the only ones around here filled with sanctimony :puke:

[noiretextatique]

207. that means who he votes for is none of your business

your business is who YOU vote for :nuke:

[gully]

208. Why not let him answer my question.

And BTW, the post you responded to was a question for someone else...

Also, I have many friends who voted for Nader. And, as I said, many people I respect did so. Some in my family did. :shrug:

So far, several people have answered the question (in question) for Terwilliger except Terwilliger.

I welcome a response, no matter what it is.

[noiretextatique]

211. because it's none of your business

mr. mccarthy.

[gully]

216. Who are you his attorney...?

:eyes: Should I take that answer as 'pleading the 5th?'

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

244. What's a withchunt. N/M

[gully]

137. Nope, and once again, the ? was for Terwilliger. n/m

[charlie]

138. Hard to tell

since you replied to my post.

[gully]

141. Hard to tell.

as you were speaking for Terwilliger. Perhaps you can answer the other questions I have for him then?

[charlie]

143. I haven't spoken for Terwilliger

I was pointing out that your nemesis wasn't a Green, no matter how desperately you want him to be one.

[gully]

145. Riiiiiiiiiight.

:eyes:

'Isn't' Green. How bout 'wasn't' Green in 2000?

Or was he too young to vote in the 2000 election?

[charlie]

149. I don't know

I know that he's not a young pup and that he did campaign work for his Democratic congressman in 2000. PM him and find out. If you're clever, maybe he'll reveal that he owns a Nader t-shirt, and then you can pounce.

[gully]

150. Pounce?

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

166. older than you, gully

and probably always will be

[gully]

180. Are we talking this life only...??

;)

[John_H]

152. Bullshit.

I got some Green swampland to sell you.

[ulysses]

155. I'm a Democrat too.

Have been my whole life. Call bullshit on me. Please.

[ulysses]

157. going on an hour, John.

Still googling for some nefarious proof that I'm not a Democrat? Or are you looking for something to back up your beliefs about Ter?

Waiting for that callout.

[Terwilliger]

158. I am the Lady X

er...something like that ;-)

:hi:

:beer:

[ulysses]

159. you're a nutcake

but I like you anyway...:D

[ulysses]

240. geez - a day later

and no proof? Not even a "you're no Democrat" accusation thrown my way? Where's the love?

[Iverson]

161. Bravo!

All that practice at civil discourse is finally paying off.

[Iverson]

160. postcard to the asylum

Your reply makes no sense. In essence, Terwilliger did it, so that makes it the right thing to do, you say. Your choices are all his fault, and you've got the emoticons to back you up.

Well, I've been on DU long enough to know that when Greens are the topic, logic goes out the window, and "Bullshit" is considered an effective and reasonable bit of argumentation to a partisan majority.
(see note #152 below) Oh, and you said something about politeness?

[Terwilliger]

162. your unity is a straight-jacket

borne of ignorance

no thanks :hi:

[ulysses]

154. LOL!

"And let me say we RESPECT you savages ..."

:D

[Dover]

146. Maybe the Greens and the Progressive Dems should merge to form a

3rd Party and call themselves the Progressive Green Party. That would surely cause Dems to choose their true values and allegiance, and sadly such a split already exists within the Dem Party. And the combined groups would make a VERY strong and powerful third party, which might finally make it a viable entity.

Then where would you stand?

[gully]

148. I'd be there...

But I don't like the name. How bout the Liberal Democratic Party? ;)

I would however, vote for the person who has the best chance of ousting Bush. I've said all along, if that person, by some fluke is a Green, consider me a Green.

[Gman]

153. Greens are as much the enemy as are Republicans

They both are against us. That makes Greens and Republicans the enemy.

[Terwilliger]

165. the wide-ranging "us"

that doesn't serve the ideals of liberalism? that "us"?

[Gman]

184. "Us" means Democrats. Greens are the enemy of Democrats

To hell with "liberal". We are the Democratic Party and the Greens are not. I don't care what that statement reminds you of. In politics there are no friends. There are only temporarty alliances. The Greens are not allied with the Democrats, therefore Greens are the enemy. Greens are an enemy no different than Republicas. They both want to see our demise. In politics, you are either with us or against us. There is NO middle ground.

Know your enemy. The Greens are our enemy. Don't lose sight of that fact.

[Terwilliger]

195. NO MIDDLE GROUND! WITH US OR AGAINST US!!!

:eyes:

OnEdit: Is that what you tell DLCers who are trying to revamp the Democratic party into a version of the Republican party????? THAT KIND OF `WITH US OR AGAINST US"?????

[noiretextatique]

196. many greens are supporting democrats

like the democrat kucinich. are they "enemies?"

[Terwilliger]

203. yes

because they don't like Kucinich either...

"He's cute. He's perky. He has no chance to be the presidential nominee, NOW VOTE FOR JOE LIEBERMAN"

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[gully]

210. Uhm, I like Kucinich, and would not only vote for but support him with

everything I've got if he gets the nom.

[noiretextatique]

213. by jove...i think you've got it!!!

:thumbsup:

[gully]

217. I've "always" had it...

:thumbsup:

Note the avatar.

[noiretextatique]

239. that reply was for terwilliger...but i agree with you

ABB is my vote...and I am registered green :thumbsup:

[gully]

250. Here here...!!! N/T

[Iverson]

173. If you isn't with us, you agin' us.

Think about the implications of your line of reasoning. Does it remind you of anything? Does it maybe, just maybe, explain a few things too?

hint: the people who put Socrates to death weren't the good guys.

[ulysses]

156. one answer

Do we battle the Repubs and Greens, or wait and see what the GP does with the Presidential race?

Do what you will. A Democratic campaign that at least acknowledges, in very real ways, the left would short-circuit the Green threat, but do what you will.

[Q]

176. Neither the Greens or the Republicans are the enemy...

- The enemy is the right wing fanatics that replaced conservatives in the GOP. The real conservatives (willing to work with Dems to get things done for the people) were kicked out in the 80s and 90s.

- It's a momumentally stupid idea to trash anyone on the left instead of working with them to counter the Bush* junta.

- I'm inclined to believe that trashing Greens is the idea of right-leaning Dems who would rather have a one-party system than share 'power' with third parties.

[gully]

187. Interesting thought, thanks!

Q said~- "It's a momumentally stupid idea to trash anyone on the left instead of working with them to counter the Bush* junta."

Why are you ok with 'them' trashing Dems? They are doing the 'trashing' here, did you see the website? Is that site a statement of 'let's work together to counter the Bush* junta?' NO! My issue is with the site and the Greens/Nader apologists, who refuse to help us return our country to sanity. I will work with those that actually want to work with us.

Q said- I'm inclined to believe that trashing Greens is the idea of right-leaning Dems who would rather have a one-party system than share 'power' with third parties.

I'm inclinded to believe that trashing the Dems is the idea of self rightous Greens who would rather destroy our countries only chance at hope, then think in terms of what is best for our collective children and country men.

*I love the idea of several men/women to choose from come election time. I'd like to see the party system abolished so we actually focus on issues. I'd like to see one amount given by the goverment to all campaigns and ban all contributions (period). People could contribute their time instead and contribute to one pool.* Though I don't see this happening anytime soon.

But we must take it one step at a time gang. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Let's return to sanity before we try to make radical change.

[Terwilliger]

215. one step at a time

DLC takes over...

Gets Bill Clinton into office (with Perot's help)...

Loses the House...

Loses the Senate...

Stunt's Al Gore in the 2000 race...

Prevents the Democratic party from fighting for the rights of the American people during the recount (as reference, I'll give you the vote from the other day here at DU)

Does not stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in protesting the disenfranchisement in Florida...

Reacts to 9/11 by enabling pResident Fascist in rolling back civil liberties, and waging war on "terrorist regimes"...

Loses everything again in 2002...

Tells us to vote for Gep/Ed/Kerr/Clar/Dean/Graham...

Dem satisfied DUers drone "AUMMMMMMMM....we'll win in '04, we'll win in '04....AUMMMMMMMMMMM, AUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"

:nuke:

[Gman]

241. Greens ARE the ENEMY

Greens have absolutely no interest in the Democratic party. Greens have had the last 2 1/2 years to try to come together with the Dems. The Dems have reached out. ESPECIALLY here at DU. But, the Greens want nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Greens have no desire to work with the Democratic Party and they have made that abundantly clear.

So as far as I'm concerned about Greens, FUCK THEM. They are no better than right wing fanatic pukes.

[ulysses]

243. you're high.

The Dems have reached out. ESPECIALLY here at DU.

Quit bogartin' that thing...

[buddhamama]

181. i just noticed your sig line

do you know who Granny D is supporting for president?

[gully]

183. Dennis Kucinich.

I respect her choice. And, her as a person. I also respect her decision to vote Democratic in the coming election, she's ABB all the way.

I came close to supporting DK at one time. But, after some research have decided on another candidate who I consider the right blend of passion, integrity, and practicality. He also has some notable support ;)

I am a leftist liberal, but I believe Government should represent everyone.

*Including those rich bastards who I resent so much x(

[buddhamama]

186. Greens are the opposition

flamebait question.

i may not hold a degree in PoliSci but i think it goes without saying that different political parties are in opposition to each other.

the better subject of conversation imo, would be what is on the mind's of citizens. what do they care about and how do the DEMs go about giving it them?

it is all too simple to categorize people based on a political party while forgetting that they are individuals and citizens who, like any other, deserve to have their voices heard whether we agree or not with the issues that mean the most to them.

the constant plugging of the ears and yelling over one another will get ya Zip; and it usually results in like behavior by the other side.

More than once on this thread a poster has yelled Nader/Greens lied.
perhaps they did. call me cynical but Okay so they lied. DEMs have certainly done their share of lying...so now what?

we have to get past this finger pointing and patting ourselves on the back. the country,the world is going to shit and there really is nothing to be proud of. collectively we are all guilty.

[gully]

188. Your right.

Buddahmama said~the better subject of conversation imo, would be what is on the mind's of citizens. what do they care about and how do the DEMs go about giving it them? Bravo!

See my thread about ousting Bush. If anyone want's to 'work together' please come on over! Suggestions welcome. I bare no grudge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=104

*I WANT TO CLARIFY, WHEN I SAY "GREEN'S" LIED, I was speaking about the site in question, Ralph Nader and Greens who trash Dems here. We don't need that gang, there's too much at stake. Yes, lets discuss issues, but the trashing shit has to stop and it must stop on both sides, KWIM? I'm willing, who else?

I am totally puzzled as to why it's ok to slam Dems here (at democraticunderground) with wreckless abandon, and not 'Greens' because ... were trying to 'work together?':shrug: :freak:

I've had Granny D's words in my sigline for months. I have a great deal of respect for her and others like her.

Perhaps we need to distinguish those Greens that are willing to work with us and those who aren't?

I think I'll find a new description for them so as not to offend, how bout GINO's? Any other ideas?

BTW, I apoligize for offending anyone here. I felt attacked quite frankly. But, I think some of my posts came across as rude and condescending in hind site. Sorry bout that. I'll blame the Canadian beer.

~Peace~

[Terwilliger]

190. Why dont you focus on what's wrong with the Democratic party

instead of bitching about Greens? Is the Democratic party position SO weak, that a marginalized, small group of "leftist" discontents are such a focus of your spit and bristle?

Once again, Democrats must find a focus for their hatred and anger, because if they actually looked in their own mirror, they'd see that the problems are WELL established within their own party

And, no, I'm not willing to work with people who live in complete denial. Hard to think that you might work with people you can't even accept are telling you the way it is.

[gully]

197. Why don't Greens focus on the Green Party, instead of bitching about Dems?

Is the Green party position SO weak that it has to attack other liberals in order to win support?

You said~"No, I'm not willing to work with people who live in complete denial. Hard to think that you might work with people you can't even accept are telling you the way it is."

Well who are these people who live in 'denial' Terwilliger? Is it just me, or Democrats in general?

Here's my 'reality' ... I don't deny the flaws within the Democratic Party. I don't deny the flaws within the Clinton administration. I don't deny the flaws within the human race. I accept them and try to do what I can to make a good thing better.

BTW, You still didn't answer my question as to who you voted for in 2000? Just curious ;)

Here are some the user rules from Democratic Underground.

"WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with."

Now, I can handle disagreement, but I am curious as to what you feel the shared goals are here? Perhaps we have a different idea.

I feel shared goal #1 ought to be...get Bush* out of office in 2004.

[Terwilliger]

202. gully, you have no superiority here

I've been at DU since Nov of 2001. I have not seen ONE thread started by a Green or Green supporter attacking Dems. It's UNIVERSALLY coming from Democrats.

Sorry if you didn't pay close attention. I have.

[gully]

219. Then you haven't read your own posts in this thread...

I am paying attention Terwilliger. I don't claim superiority here, just posting a reminder.

Have you read the rules for election 2004? I think that clarifies the position of DU. :shrug:

How do you feel about that?

[buddhamama]

220. have you read the boards

are trying to suggest that Terwilliger,because he is a leftist who is critical of the DEMs,stands alone as the only guilty party?

what are the candidate threads about?- people arguing over DEM candidates and being critical of them!!!

btw, the election 2004 rules have not come into effect yet.

[gully]

223. Of course I've read the boards...

You asked~"are trying to suggest that Terwilliger,because he is a leftist who is critical of the DEMs,stands alone as the only guilty party?"

Of course not, I was responding to 'his' post, thus the mention of Terwilliger....

Terwilliger said he never 'trashed' Dems here and I replied...check this thread :shrug:

In addition, in the link he referenced to one of his threads, he said this... "This poll shows just how Stepford Democrats are"

I find that insulting. This is 'trashing' is it not. It's as trashy as anything you'll find here said about the Green Party.

[buddhamama]

226. wait a minute

that's not what Terwilliger said. he said the DEM bashing posts that can be found here are started by DEMs not Greens. here's what he said


"I've been at DU since Nov of 2001. I have not seen ONE thread started by a Green or Green supporter attacking Dems. It's UNIVERSALLY coming from Democrats."

[gully]

228. Check his posts with in this thread and many others...

also, check the threads he has started. That was my point.

[buddhamama]

231. reread his post and mine

and quit assuming he's a Green.
because without that asuumption your argument or point doesn't hold up.

[gully]

230. Clarification...

T said~"I have not seen ONE thread started by a Green or Green supporter attacking Dems. It's UNIVERSALLY coming from Democrats."

How do we know if a person is 'Green' or not when starting a thread? And BTW Terwilliger, can you honestly say you've never started a thread trashing 'any' Dem?

[buddhamama]

232. again, if he is not a green

than his statement is factual.

of course he has started threads that are critical of DEMs but that doesn't disprove his statement.

[gully]

233. Well if he's not a Green then I'm not a Democrat. N/T

Notice how the question remains un-answered.

[Terwilliger]

225. the rules for Election 2004?

for DU? shit, I'll be purged long before that

:nuke:

[gully]

229. aw, this will be a dull place with out you....

;)

[buddhamama]

206. let me ask you something

what gives you the right to be critical of politicians but not others?--because you have Democratic as registered political party?

The Greens didn't lie, they have a different POV than you, there's a big difference. Does being critical equal lying?

No one saying you can't be critical of the Greens the Blues the Reds, Purple or the Sloths, but you're missing my point.

Because of Bush,this election is going to be a win for DEMs.
But once the election is over the issues will have to be addressed. If the DEMs promise us something better and don't live up to that promise, then i'm going to be critical.
Will i be critical of politicians who ignore the issues, you bet and i won't apologize for that.

[gully]

212. I have a right to be critical of Democrats as I am one...

And so do you regardless. So does Bush and co.

However as you said, I also have the right to be critical of the Green Party and the Republican Party and any other party that is critical of my party.

Question for you now. Do I have a right to 'defend' critics of my party from those outside the party?

BTW, I would never suggest one stop critiquing the Democrats, but there is constructive criticism and just plain criticism.

[buddhamama]

214. of course

that is one of the points i raised in my post.

i guess where you and i fail to meet is on the 'party' thing. i honestly care more about issues than the party who is advancing/addressing them.

[gully]

218. I care more about issues also...

Which is why I will work with-IN the only party with a chance to advance my personal position on the issues. There is but one party actually capable of doing that today, and in 2004.

And, I intend to make my party stronger by sticking with it, instead of fleeing to leave the Democratic Party to the Al Froms of the world.

[diamondsoul]

245. Ok, I read the WHOOOOLE thread before deciding to reply.

I post to a lot of feminist and women's issue boards on another message board system. We have a fellow prone to hold out the MOST extreme example he can find of self-proclaimed "feminists" as indicative of feminists overall.

I see the same thing happening between Dems and Greens(most of it coming from the Dem side, and particularly here at DU). The one thing most Democrats seem to forget is that Greens didn't just up and decide to start a third party to screw things up or play some sort of massivehead-game. They flat got sick of trying to support a party that stopped supporting them. Now all of a sudden loyal Democrats seem to want to blame them for that, and I have to say THIS loyal Democrat refuses to join in the parade.

I've been a Democrat for as long as I can remember. The basic issue platform was what I agreed with and still do, most of the time. It's unfortunate tha the Democratic Leadership Council has chosen to move away from that platform and head right to compromise with corporate greed, but that's exactly what I see happening. I support the Democratic Party as it was when I first determined I am a Democrat, and as it was before the Greens got sick of the steady rightward movement and left. I do not, cannot and will not support the DLC.

Democrats, you want to win this thing? Then stop tossing out extremist crap as indicative of all Greens thinking, stop blaming them for running a candidate in 2000, stop laying all our problems at their doorstep. The excercised their rights as citizens and as voters, plain and simple. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you're in the wrong country. Me I LOVE democracy, even when it doesn't go my way. I'd say so do the Green Party members or they wouldn't keep on excercising it, election after election.

Now if you REALLY want to defeat Bush in the next election get off the backs of the Greens and start inviting them back to the old Democratic Party, you know, the one that left them behind somewhere along the way. YES, people we're going to disagree on issues, some to the extent that Green voters will not be swayed. Fine, leave them to their right to excercise their votes, their way and be decent about it for a change!

Some damned body has to start showing some respect around here so here it is! I respect the Green Party and every single member of it. I welcome them to join me in nominating the candidate who most closely matches their views in the interest of ousting the Bush Junta with a massive landslide. If they choose to back a Green Candidate, I WILL not assault, denigrate, insult or otherwise mistreat them for their choice. I swear, all I see is more and more freedoms being assaulted only now it's coming from US! Leave the Greens who don't feel they can back a Democrat the hell alone already! They are just as free (or not free) as the rest of us. In case you've all forgotten, that IS what this is all about.

[gully]

248. I'd like to remind people that Terwilliger posted reference to the site

I linked in my OP on 'several' occasions here. I might ask who should leave whom alone?

Many Greens have insulted Dems here on these boards on several occasions. And, I don't appreciate it frankly.

Also, The Green Party started organizing in the US in the Reagan years. Before Clinton and the DLC were even an issue. In fact, the Carter administration was the most recent Dem in office prior to the formation, go figure? The big sell in the beginning was the legalization of pot. I remember because at the time, that piqued my interest ;)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/green_history.html

By the way, I respect everyones right to vote for whom they so choose. I also want to be respected when I pull the trigger for the most likely person to beat Bush in the coming election? Deal...

By the way, I draw the line at being called a Republican which is what the 'site' attempts to do. I also refuse to coddle GINO's (my new name for certain segments of the Green Party who don't adhere to the 'global responsibility' that is part of the GP platform) because I might offend a so called 'leftist.'

Respect must be mutual, and until the Green Party quits calling me a Republican or a DINO, I will not relent. I've said before, I will work with any Green who will work with me to oust Bush in 04. Anyone that is not on board with that objective, does not have any more of my respect then a Republican.

Thanks Diamondsoul for a most thoughtful post. I'm sure come the selection of our candidate we will be united at DU. Or at least I hope so... You are a kind soul. It's obvious. We could all learn a thing or two from you.

~Peace

[diamondsoul]

253. Sorry, Gully, I didn't mean to dump it all on your head that way.

I missed your post (more likely read it and let it slip from my thoughts) where you mentioned Terwilliger had referenced the site until I was waiting for the posts to load this time out.

Kind of obvious this is a bit of a pet peeve with me, huh? ;) It's been building up for a while, and I suspect it bothers me now more than usual because we have so many Greens supporting Kucinich. All of the Greens I deal with regularly are just plain good people so I really hate those general statements "Greens are, Greens do, Greens say..." Makes me want to scream.

Anyway, thanks very much for the compliments, and I do think we'll come together once the nominee is chosen, or at least those of us determined to be rid of Bushco above all else. Myself I think we've got an amazing field to choose from and I wonder if that's part of what makes it so hard.

I guess my point was it's not the whole of the Green Party doing those things, and we shouldn't treat Greens as if it is. Guilt by association, you know? I've met a good share of Dems I would call obnoxious jerks, right here at DU, but that's my opinion and it doesn't reflect on the entire Party. Most of the time I try not to even tell them that! O8) :D

[patrice]

252. Thanks for that Diamondsoul. As someone who is working with both

Democrats and Greens, my opinion is that this sort of fighting is really more about power than it is about what works.

I especially like what Quaker Bill said above about ideologues on both sides compared to centrists who are committed to certain values for which they pick their own battles, and let the other stuff ride.

As an environmentalist that is why I want the Greens around, I need them, and so do the Democrats. I've been a Democrat all of my life, and I'd sure like to see this fighting with the Greens stop, both sides need to give to the other.

[Dr Fate]

247. Visions of Karl Rove LAUGING maniacally while reading this thread

...

[gully]

249. Much like he laughed when he paid for Naders television commercials...?

:P