Dems exploiting the war - I completely agree with the Greens on this one

kenny olav

>GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
>http://www.gp.org
>
>For Immediate Release:
>Thursday, March 22, 2007
>
>
>Greens condemn Democratic resolution for U.S.
>troop withdrawal by 2008, calling it a phony
>antiwar posture to give Democrats an advantage in
>2008
>
>• If Democrats (including MoveOn) really oppose
>the war, they should demand a cutoff of war
>funding and the immediate return of all U.S.
>troops, say Greens.
>
>
>WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders strongly
>criticized a proposed Democratic resolution in
>the U.S. calling for withdrawal by September
>2008, and demanded that Congress take action to
>end the U.S. occupation of Iraq with legislation
>that would effect an immediate withdrawal.
>
>The Green Party of the United States has opposed
>the U.S. war on Iraq since late 2002, when
>President Bush announced plans for an invasion,
>and has called for impeachment of President Bush
>and Vice President Cheney for a list of high
>crimes and misdemeanors, including lying to the
>American people to justify going to war.
>
>• Cres Vellucci, member of Veterans For Peace,
>Vietnam War veteran (military information
>specialist), and press secretary of the Green
>Party of California: "The Democrats' resolution
>is piece of phony and meaningless antiwar
>posturing. By proposing a plan that effectively
>delays the withdrawal of U.S. troops until
>September 2008, Democrats are trying to set
>themselves up as the 'antiwar party' in the 2008
>election, since it's obvious that President Bush
>intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq throughout
>2008 and long after. If Democratic Party leaders
>really believe the Iraq War is a disaster -- as
>do the Green Party and most Americans -- they
>should support legislation compelling a rapid
>withdrawal of U.S. forces and reducing war
>funding to the amount it takes to bring our
>troops home safe and sound."
>
>• Anthony Gronowicz, Ph.D., 2005 Green Party
>Candidate for Mayor of New York City: "MoveOn.org
>has limited its support to the bill for delayed
>withdrawal, and has refused to publicize
>alternative legislation. As the war enters its
>fifth year, Democratic leaders and their
>supporters in MoveOn are willing to keep American
>military personnel in Iraq another 18 months.
>That means another 18 months of Iraqi civilians,
>U.S. troops, and U.S. contractors, facing death
>and injury, so that Democrats can gain a
>political advantage in the 2008 election."
>
>• Nan Garrett, co-chair of the Green Party's
>National Women's Caucus: "The fact that Democrats
>are about to approve another $120 billion for
>President Bush's war shows that they're as ready
>to indulge the Bush Administration's imperial
>designs as they were in October 2002, when many
>of them voted to surrender Congress's
>constitutional war power to the White House. The
>result has been mass death and mayhem,
>destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and civil
>society, a brutal civil war, empowerment of
>repressive theocratic movements in Iraq, and rage
>against the U.S. around the world, especially in
>Muslim nations. Even worse, if President Bush
>acts on his threats to attack Iran or Israel
>launches an assault on Iran with U.S. support,
>we'll see a regional war for years to come that's
>likely to turn into a global confrontation,
>possibly nuclear, as Saudi Arabia and other
>nations are drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite
>conflict and powerful countries like Russia and
>China choose sides. Congress must act as quickly
>as possible to head off the Bush-Cheney agenda.
>The first step is to end the occupation of Iraq."
>
>
>• Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party of
>the United States, Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New
>York and a member of the Green Party's Peace
>Action Committee (GPAX): "Democratic leaders in
>Congress are using passage of the 'hydrocarbon
>law' in Iraq as a benchmark for withdrawal of
>U.S. troops. The new law would privatize and
>allow foreign control over Iraqi oil resources,
>and would subject Iraq to World Bank and IMF
>structural adjustment policies that impoverish
>people while enriching corporations. In other
>words, Democrats are happy to prolong the war for
>the very reasons that President Bush launched it
>in the first place -- profits for U.S. oil
>companies, as well as U.S. political and
>corporate dominance in the region and the
>strategic interests of Israel."
>
>

MrBrian

and as long as people continue to rally behind the dems, they'll continue doing these things (dems)

It's always gonna be between the dems and republicans. I mean it's so easy for them to exploit the war. blah, they don't even need to exploit it, they'll get the votes they want anyway.

Abookamongstthemany

MrBrian wrote:

and as long as people continue to rally behind the dems, they'll continue doing these things (dems)

Sad but so verrry true.

deadmosquito

wait, there's still a green party?

Abookamongstthemany

deadmosquito wrote:

wait, there's still a green party?

You'd never know it from the media coverage.

cincybearcat

deadmosquito wrote:

wait, there's still a green party?

Yep, and they're a blast....

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=911

El_Kabong

Kenny Olav wrote:

>GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
>http://www.gp.org
>>

they are the same way on the healthcare issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk

less than 3 minutes, well worth the time to watch!!

and NAFTA, less than 2 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7CqN6uNp4k

kenny olav

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, and they're a blast....

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=911

The best part of this T-shirt is the inclusion of Slimer.

gue_barium

Kenny Olav wrote:

The best part of this T-shirt is the inclusion of Slimer.

That would figure for the Boston Puker.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You'd never know it from the media coverage.

What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense.

This Green Party statement that was posted about. Does it mean anything to anyone that is not already that far left? No. It is almost like if Bob Dole said something. Yeah, a few people might listen, but in the grand scheme of things it means (or produces) nothing.

Do I like to answer my own questions? Yes.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense.

This Green Party statement that you posted about. Does it mean anything to anyone that is not already that far left? No. It is almost like if Bob Dole said something. Yeah, a few people might listen, but in the grand scheme of things it means (or produces) nothing.

Do I like to answer my own questions? Yes.

Why don't they deserve coverage?? Why do you think they won't win? It would mean a hell of a lot if people are actually given the chance to hear what they have to say. Let the people decide who is deserving and electable not the fucking corporate media.

Why do the Reps and Dems deserve it? They never accomplish anything but screwing us over and the fucking news doesn't even mention people who very well may bring a long needed change to that. You're supposed to fix things that are broken and try new methods/ alternatives that might actually work instead of going even further down the wrong path year after year, decade after decade. When is enough ever gonna be enough??

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't they deserve coverage?? Why do you think they won't win? It would mean a hell of a lot if people are actually given the chance to hear what they have to say. Let the people decide who is deserving and electable not the fucking corporate media.

Why do the Reps and Dems deserve it? They never accomplish anything but screwing us over and the fucking news doesn't even mention people who very well may bring a long needed change to that. You're supposed to fix things that are broken and try new methods/ alternatives that might actually work instead of going even further down the wrong path year after year, decade after decade. When is enough ever gonna be enough??

Well I was gonna call him names but that's much better.

bootlegger10 wrote:

What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense.

This Green Party statement that was posted about. Does it mean anything to anyone that is not already that far left? No. It is almost like if Bob Dole said something. Yeah, a few people might listen, but in the grand scheme of things it means (or produces) nothing.

Do I like to answer my own questions? Yes.

Ya know it's not in the constitution or anything that we have to have just two political parties. Perhaps if more people were aware of these parties then change might come about.

MrBrian

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't they deserve coverage?? Why do you think they won't win? It would mean a hell of a lot if people are actually given the chance to hear what they have to say. Let the people decide who is deserving and electable not the fucking corporate media.

Why do the Reps and Dems deserve it???

Because they can earn 26million in 3months?

---

Clinton raises record $26M in 3 months

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Two Democratic presidential candidates broke previous fundraising records during the first three months of the year, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton setting a high bar of $26 million in new contributions for the quarter.

Former Sen. John Edwards raised more than $14 million since the beginning of the year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account, bringing her total receipts for the quarter to $36 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money

norm

MrBrian wrote:

Because they can earn 26million in 3months?

---

Clinton raises record $26M in 3 months

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Two Democratic presidential candidates broke previous fundraising records during the first three months of the year, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton setting a high bar of $26 million in new contributions for the quarter.

Former Sen. John Edwards raised more than $14 million since the beginning of the year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account, bringing her total receipts for the quarter to $36 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money

Yeah read that earlier today. It really is becoming the person who can raise the most $$$ can win the election. I guess it's been the way for a while but it's just now sinking in. :(

bootlegger10

cutback wrote:

Well I was gonna call him names but that's much better.




Ya know it's not in the constitution or anything that we have to have just two political parties. Perhaps if more people were aware of these parties then change might come about.

Well, I never said that there can't be more than two parties. And I never said that the Dems and Reps were better. I was merely pointing out the majority of the country doesn't care about the Green Party, which is why it is not reported on frequently.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't they deserve coverage?? Why do you think they won't win? It would mean a hell of a lot if people are actually given the chance to hear what they have to say. Let the people decide who is deserving and electable not the fucking corporate media.

Why do the Reps and Dems deserve it? They never accomplish anything but screwing us over and the fucking news doesn't even mention people who very well may bring a long needed change to that. You're supposed to fix things that are broken and try new methods/ alternatives that might actually work instead of going even further down the wrong path year after year, decade after decade. When is enough ever gonna be enough??

See my post above. But seriously, the Green Party is about as electable as me or Chris Dodd, which is why the news does not cover me or Chris Dodd.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

See my post above. But seriously, the Green Party is about as electable as me or Chris Dodd, which is why the news does not cover me or Chris Dodd.

It really is all about money right now. Everyone knows you can't buy love so how are you going to get leadership that cares if it's all about who bought the best advertising/whitewashing campaign to be viewed for months on end? The information age is growing leaps and bounds, it's quite exciting! The next generations will have access to many more choices and outsiders that couldn't buy their way in before because we are all sharing info and spreading it through the internet, blogs, even myspace. Young people are showing many signs of wanting to be in the 'know' these days and they are starting to get their acts together about voting and becoming politically active to bring about the change they wish to see. I'm very hopeful and excited to see what the future holds for us all in the new age of information and instant access.

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

See my post above. [below now] But seriously, the Green Party is about as electable as me or Chris Dodd, which is why the news does not cover me or Chris Dodd.

bootlegger10 wrote:

Well, I never said that there can't be more than two parties. And I never said that the Dems and Reps were better. I was merely pointing out the majority of the country doesn't care about the Green Party, which is why it is not reported on frequently.

how does that answer what she asked? maybe they would care if they had some coverage, maybe not as much as the others are shoved down our throats but they are not even heard...they aren't given enough information to base if they actually care, the corporate media makes that decision for them. how can you say you don't care about something you know virtually nothing about? why don't they deserve coverage?

mammasan

I honestly don't know why we even bother having primaries or even general elections any more. We should just award the position to the canidate who raises the most money. In this day and age you no longer run for office, you simply buy it.

Jeanwah

mammasan wrote:

We should just award the position to the canidate who raises the most money. In this day and age you no longer run for office, you simply buy it.

Which is disgusting and WRONG.

mammasan

Jeanwah wrote:

Which is disgusting and WRONG.

Completely disgusting and wrong, but why bother holding an election that is clearly a farse.