|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:16 pm
Wishbone Redemption funwithjoysticks i don't like using celeberties as an influence, even if it's soemthing i agree with. Peta does this and a gree with most of their ideas, but not how thye use celeberties as an influence. It's like "Paris Hilton is a vegetarian, you should be too. buy morningstar farms products.' not their exact quote but that's basically how they do things. actually i don't really like how peta does things at all. well anyway, i think we need to tell people mor facts, and in the case of enviromental issues what we can do to help. A lot of people would love to help, but just don't know what do do besides recyling and the obvious things. Unfortunatly, a lot of people don't care, even when they find out the issues. I feel that a majority of society is shallow. I don't like that those tactics work well, but the best way to get out to a huge audience is through something considered popular, or creating a fad that knowingly or unknowingly promotes the cause you stand for. But that's self-defeating sometimes... 'Livestrong' bracelets became more of 'the cool thing to wear' than 'Oo. let's donate to cancer reaserch, it's a good thing.' The majority (of America, that is, don't know about others) doesn't like idealists or liberals anymore. It doesn't matter that our planet is obviously important- I honestly don't think they care beyond what the media throws at them. So what better way than through commercial media? You can do anything if you have charisma. (Apologies for cynisism.)
Of course, there are also many people who WOULD care, but don't know the extreme danger that the Earth is in right now. So we must spread the word! 3nodding
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:03 pm
i think if everyone who didn't vote for a green candidate because they didn't think they had a chance (or any minor party for that matter) voted for them, we would ahve a chance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:23 pm
funwithjoysticks i think if everyone who didn't vote for a green candidate because they didn't think they had a chance (or any minor party for that matter) voted for them, we would ahve a chance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:15 pm
I used to be the secretary of my local Green Party chapter when I lived in NYS, and I worked on the 2000 Nader campaign at a local level.
I think it's really a misconception that they're only concerned about environmental issues. They're also very concerned about access to health care, consumer rights, civil/GLBT rights, education, campaign finance reform, and a non-aggressive foreign policy. It's a pretty comprehensive platform, and even though I certainly don't agree with all of it I think that generally it's very well put-together.
In the States, the Green Party's real strength is at the local level. They've been pretty successful at getting people elected to positions in municipalities, and have even have people elected at the state level. Having a mayor or city councilmembers elected can do a lot of good (just think about the current efforts in the US to curb CO2 emissions - there's little at the federal level, but mayors all over the country are putting together a coalition that's going to help out significantly).
Besides, I think a local focus fits better with the Green Party's grassroots nature, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:39 pm
What could be considered bad about them, though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:04 pm
rikuHEART What could be considered bad about them, though? IMO? I don't think their plan for curtailing the cost of the military - by slashing the budget in half - is realistic; a more detailed plan, which takes into account where the costs are spent and what is actually necessary for defense, is required. They aren't very big on revitalizing our failing infrastructure. Most of our power grid, for example, was put up originally in the 1930s as a quick 'n dirty hodgepodge effort to bring electricity to rural areas, and it needs to be completely redone. Our electric power grid is in deep doo-doo; experts in the field don't even know why it's functioning, because by all accounts it theoretically shouldn't be working. The Green Party wants to promote public and mass transit, and that's all gravy, but we have much more immediate and pressing problems with infrastructure. They proclaim many "rights" - such as a "right to a job" or a "right to health care" - which aren't rights. They're just good social policy. I think that's shoddy language and it undermines actual rights which certain people like to attack, such as the right of privacy and bodily integrity. I also feel that they're too quick to push some form of collective land ownership. I think that we should put time and thought into developing ecologically-friendly modes of property ownership which don't involve stronger incursions into the rights and interests of land owners. I have a few other nitpicks with them, too, but those are my biggest complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:06 pm
Thanks, Tahpenes! It's good to hear stuff from different viewpoints. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:25 am
funwithjoysticks i understand. a lot of people don;t take the green party, or the enviroment in general seriously at all. I joined the Western Australian Greens for a little less than a year a couple of years back and people are right not to take them seriously. They're just a loose collection of pet projects and ego trips. You're much better off campaigning for democratic reform and education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:58 pm
funwithjoysticks well they do care abotut he enviroment, but they seem to only care about the enviroment (and legalizing marijuama i've heard) it's an important issue but there are many other just as important issues. Actually that's only one of the four pillars of the party: ecological wisdom. There's also social justice, grassroots democracy, and non-violence. All green parties worldwide hold to these pillars. The US Green Party has ten key values which expand upon the four pillars. Again, only one of them is caring about the environment. At a local level, different parties and candidates may be stressing environment over other issues, or they may be stressing something else. I am involved with the party in my city, and we do a lot of work on universal health care and pro-small-business/anti-big-box campaigns. It's actually very exiting to get involved locally, because there are Green candidates winning local elections, such as mayor. Even when Green candidates don't win, they have the opportunity to bring Green issues to the table for discussion. I can see a lot more people discussing topics that we care about as a result of candidates bringing them up in debates and in their campaign literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:30 pm
adabyron funwithjoysticks well they do care abotut he enviroment, but they seem to only care about the enviroment (and legalizing marijuama i've heard) it's an important issue but there are many other just as important issues. Actually that's only one of the four pillars of the party: ecological wisdom. There's also social justice, grassroots democracy, and non-violence. All green parties worldwide hold to these pillars. The US Green Party has ten key values which expand upon the four pillars. Again, only one of them is caring about the environment. At a local level, different parties and candidates may be stressing environment over other issues, or they may be stressing something else. I am involved with the party in my city, and we do a lot of work on universal health care and pro-small-business/anti-big-box campaigns. It's actually very exiting to get involved locally, because there are Green candidates winning local elections, such as mayor. Even when Green candidates don't win, they have the opportunity to bring Green issues to the table for discussion. I can see a lot more people discussing topics that we care about as a result of candidates bringing them up in debates and in their campaign literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:25 am
Krisjohn funwithjoysticks i understand. a lot of people don;t take the green party, or the enviroment in general seriously at all. I joined the Western Australian Greens for a little less than a year a couple of years back and people are right not to take them seriously. They're just a loose collection of pet projects and ego trips. You're much better off campaigning for democratic reform and education. I think your wrong to lump them all together like that,You have to vote for the person best suited for the job, not the party. If everyone did that we might actually have some decent democratic governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:04 pm
forestnymf Krisjohn funwithjoysticks i understand. a lot of people don;t take the green party, or the enviroment in general seriously at all. I joined the Western Australian Greens for a little less than a year a couple of years back and people are right not to take them seriously. They're just a loose collection of pet projects and ego trips. You're much better off campaigning for democratic reform and education. I think your wrong to lump them all together like that,You have to vote for the person best suited for the job, not the party. If everyone did that we might actually have some decent democratic governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
