Your research has taken you to a different place than I. The green party is nothing but a bunch of neo-liberals and they are playing both sides of the isle,they tell the leftists that they share the same ideology as the liberal left wing, with all of the evironmental talk and how much they they represent social issues drawing in the weaker liberals and turn around and tell the other side what they want to hear.Neo-liberal greens are capitalists through and through. They sucked Ralph Nader in with their crap and he used to be a good left wing thinker,now he is siding with the right wing,or anyone that will listen to him,I have read 5 or 6 articles about him and how he went around to college campuses and still does,condemns the current two party system and what they have done to this country,but he only focuses on the dems. and never says anything about the republicans,he has been seen on right wing news stations on a regular basis kissing up. The green party is like the old medicine man,that used to go from town to town selling his magic bottle of medicine that would cure anything, but consisted of nothing but a little cheap whiskey,and some sasafras tea and the people swore by it, until the whiskey buzz wore off. Some of the leftists are coming around and finding out what the greens are and the democrats are the only chance this country has, because if the republicans get in you can kiss your ass good by. the research I have done the green party has done the same thing in every country they have been in,caused disruption and then moved on. The green party is trouble and anybody that is involved with them,had better wise up and stop listening to their crap. I am not happy with a lot of things the dems. have done or have not done lately,but they are the only ones that can get us out of this mess,it sure won't be the republicans or greens. Their twin sons with different mothers.
IN SOLIDARITY NEW EVOLUTIONARY WORLD SOCIALISTS Max
--- billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >Luckily, no one like that exists around here,
> although there are some odd
> >folks who think that putting the words "Green" on
> the ballot will suddenly
> >make electoral action a magical short-cut to policy
> change.
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that, perhaps you
> imagined it? Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt you to try
> thinking outside the box a bit. Here, read this.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>
>
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/08/09/1028158015209.htm
>
> Political desert needs Green oasis
>
> Date: August 10 2002
>
>
> By Hugh Mackay
>
> Everywhere you look, you see Green. The Democrats,
> flailing wildly in their disarray, are advised to
> ponder a merger with the Greens. The Greens post a
> record vote in the Tasmanian election. The Greens
> perform so strongly in the New Zealand election that
> Prime Minister Helen Clark is forced to explore the
> possibility of a coalition with them in order to
> form a government.
>
> The Greens have been riding high in Europe for
> years. They found their political voice in Australia
> in the late 1980s, when the environment stormed on
> to the national agenda (triggered, I seem to recall,
> by some unseasonable wet weather that spooked many
> Australians into believing they were seeing the
> evidence of global warming right there on their
> soggy lawns).
>
> But why the current surge in their fortunes? Have we
> developed a new sensitivity to the health of the
> planet? Has the message about the disastrous levels
> of rural soil salinity finally got through? Are we
> about to abandon our profligate use of cars and
> fossil fuels and switch, en masse, to the bicycle
> and the solar-powered home?
>
> I doubt it. Most of us are more worried about
> traffic congestion than the impact of our cars on
> the quality of our air. Although there are many
> committed environmentalists in our midst ("dark
> greens", in the jargon of the trade), most of us are
> "light greens" - supportive, but not passionate.
>
> In any case, I suspect the recent growth in support
> for the Greens is only partly driven by a concern
> for the state of our environment: my guess is that
> the Greens have achieved a new level of political
> respectability - and even a certain allure - because
> they clearly believe in something.
>
> This is the era of political opportunism and
> unabashed pragmatism. It is ironic that at a time
> when many Australians have felt confused by the
> swirl of events, and have been hoping for a moral
> dimension to emerge in our political leadership,
> we're being told that ideology is dead, and
> practical economics is everything (though it's hard
> to escape the feeling that some of the economics on
> offer is very ideological indeed).
>
> When we feel as if we've lost our emotional and
> intellectual bearings, our natural reaction is to
> search for a moral compass: we'd like someone to
> offer us a guiding story that would help us make
> sense of what's happening to us (and perhaps even
> help us see where we are heading: that's what is
> meant by the deeply unfashionable notion of
> "vision").
>
> The crowds who recently flocked to hear the Dalai
> Lama were symptomatic of this yearning for moral
> leadership. When General Peter Cosgrove offers
> apparently impartial assessments of
> politico-military issues - such as his recent
> remarks about the Vietnam War - the community
> welcomes an authoritative voice that seems to speak
> from a position of principle rather than from a
> purely political platform.
>
> And that's an important part of the appeal of the
> Greens. By using the health of the environment - of
> the planet itself - as the foundation of their
> political philosophy, the Greens look as if they are
> on the side of the angels.
>
> (By the way, this makes them peculiarly vulnerable
> to any hint of tawdriness or opportunism. Senator
> Brown raised more than a few eyebrows when he
> offered to support the sale of Telstra on condition
> that the proceeds were applied to the care of the
> environment rather than the retirement of government
> debt. His party organisation, sensing trouble,
> quickly pulled him into line.)
>
> The Greens represent the new world religion - a
> modern version of pantheism - whose fundamentalist
> church is Greenpeace. Their political strength
> springs from the perception that they are being true
> to values that, deep down, most of us feel inclined
> to accept.
>
> Who is going to argue with the idea that survival of
> the species depends on putting the environment
> first? Who dares say that in a head-to-head contest
> between the economy and the ecology, the economy
> should win? We might once have said that, but not
> now.
>
> The Greens are the closest thing we have to a
> political party that proceeds from a clear sense of
> its own meaning and purpose. Such words are as
> unfashionable as "vision", but they tap into the
> community's hunger for moral guidance at a time when
> its traditional source - religion - is in decline.
>
> We're not about to elect a Green government, but we
> like to have a finely balanced
>
> Senate and, come the next election, voters may well
> decide to place the Greens at its fulcrum. In rather
> the same way as non-churchgoers have traditionally
> been reassured by the presence of the church in
> society, so a growing number of Australians are
> pleased to know the Greens are there, standing for
> something.
>
> Social researcher Hugh Mackay is author of the
> Mackay reports.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com