Slashdot Mirror

Nice troll but, of course, completely wrong.
You could have spent a minute and actually read the Green Party platform but then you wouldn't have been able to post your rant.
For instance, your assertion that they support big government and corporations controlling everything is directly contradicted by this statement in their platform:
"Since governments too often have an interest in controlling the flow of information, we must constantly guard against official censorship. In our society however, large corporations are a far more common source of censorship than governments. Media outlets kill stories because they undermine corporate interests; advertisers use their financial clout to squelch negative reports; powerful businesses employ the threat of expensive lawsuits to discourage legitimate investigations. The most frequent form of censorship is self-censorship: journalists deciding not to pursue certain stories that they know will be unpopular with the advertisers."
You should actually read their platform. There's a lot in there you might agree with (if you're willing to open your mind).
http://www.gp.org/what-we-beli...

Yup, probably a lot of the same feelings and motivations there. You're not going to upset me by attacking the Democrats. I'm a Green.

"One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties."

Just no.

Yet, you continue...

First, the Greens are primarily a one-issue party.

You mean "grassroots democracy", or something you derived from the party's name? There's a bit more, similar to how the Tea Party is not primarily a single-beverage party.

"Green Party" is the merely the name of USA's left-libertarian party.

"One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties."

Just no.

Yet, you continue...

First, the Greens are primarily a one-issue party.

You mean "grassroots democracy", or something you derived from the party's name? There's a bit more, similar to how the Tea Party is not primarily a single-beverage party.

"Green Party" is the merely the name of USA's left-libertarian party.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Sure. Let's try to figure out a party that can provide a consensus between people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits. This program should be funded through the existing welfare budget, reductions in military spending and corporate subsidies, and a fair, progressive income tax." and people who support a party whose platform calls for, among other things, "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." Good luck with that....

There are issues on which the Greens and Libertarians can find consensus; both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose a strike on Syria and both the Greens and the Libertarians oppose government spying. Some other issues, not so much....

We oppose the development and use of new nuclear reactors, plutonium (MOX) fuel, nuclear fuel reprocessing, nuclear fusion, uranium enrichment, and the manufacturing of new plutonium pits for a new generation of nuclear weapons.

So that pretty much rules out fast breeder reactors that would mitigate (if not outright eliminate) nuclear waste storage issues. I still vote for them because they don't accept campaign contributions from corporate persons, but they really do suck ass when it comes to nuclear power.

The Green Party Platform.

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

This will continue to get worse no matter which party is in charge

You sound like someone who doesn't realize that there are other parties to choose from then the republicrats.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.gp.org/

http://www.aipca.org/

Just 3 off the top of my head that are actively working against the interests of the republicrats. Only *YOU* can stop voting for the same old crap, and choose something different.

Nader Sues Debate Commission

And all he got was a hollow apology.

When I see the debates, I see two very wealthy narcissist Harvard Law graduates who have absolutely no interest in representing the American people and they don't have to because the people play along with this Democrat vs. Republican pseudo conflict. And those of us who vote third party are condescended to and told "we're throwing our vote away."

I'm tired of the argument and I don't bother anymore. But my attitude is, "Fuck you, It's my vote to throw away."

Anyone else feel we are getting to the point where that needs to happen?

It looks like the answer to your question is no. I just went to four parties' websites, and none of them had any sort of inline gpg signature on the page. That kind of tech is unusual on the web, though, so let's look at one highly-broken but widely ubiquitous way for websites to have at least some attestation of who they are: https.

For some amazing adventures in mismatched certs, 404s(!), other brokenness, and even the CA "Comodo" raising its ugly head (did you think they had gone out of business?), try loading (shown in sorted order):
https://www.democrats.org/
https://www.gop.com/
https://www.gp.org/
https://www.lp.org/
You have to see it all to believe it. The one which "works" (no spoilers) still manages to be self-defeating and useless for identity-checking.

More than (I even included the biggest two third parties!) 99 of voters spoke: No, we're not at the point where any voter gives a damn if a party's site says who it is.

I think it's important to note that the Green Party platform supports transitioning government agencies to Open Source Software, supports Net Neutrality and opposes Software Patents. Those are three key "geek" issues to me which both the Democrats and Republicans choose to ignore. Read the Green Party 2010 Platform and decide for yourself.

If it still hasn't dawned on some of you that our government is completely controlled by mobsters, this has to give you the final shove. Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Everything they say is a lie, everything they do is at the behest of powerful, money-soaked lobbyists.

Shake the system:
Peace and Freedom Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party

Vote for any of the above. Mix and match. Vote randomly. Just stop voting for the Mobster Parties.

http://gp.org/

Well, you do actually have a choice in voting, and there is an actual liberal party: http://gp.org/

Of course, they may not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, but you can still vote for them.

While the Green Party is interested in ecological issues, they are not really representative of the environmental "green" movement.

http://www.gp.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States

Or, better yet...

there's not a significant social democratic left party in the US

...depending on your definition of "significant", of course.
http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html

The most likely candidate for a social democratic party in the US is the Green Party
.
Bingo! The party's 2008 Presidential candidate constantly points to the failings of the Democrats (and, of course, those of the Republicans).
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts the Press for calling Obama's war escalation an "exit" Plan
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_6653.shtml
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts Obama's response in Haiti as "Katrina redux"
http://sfbayview.com/2010/from-cynthia-mckinney-an-unwelcome-katrina-redux/
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts Obama's admistration on the Shirley Sherrod affair
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=334
.
More:
http://www.gp.org/cynthia/index.php
.
gewg_ (CAPTCHA:quagmire)

there's not a significant social democratic left party in the US

...depending on your definition of "significant", of course.
http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html

The most likely candidate for a social democratic party in the US is the Green Party
.
Bingo! The party's 2008 Presidential candidate constantly points to the failings of the Democrats (and, of course, those of the Republicans).
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts the Press for calling Obama's war escalation an "exit" Plan
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_6653.shtml
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts Obama's response in Haiti as "Katrina redux"
http://sfbayview.com/2010/from-cynthia-mckinney-an-unwelcome-katrina-redux/
.
Cynthia McKinney blasts Obama's admistration on the Shirley Sherrod affair
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=334
.
More:
http://www.gp.org/cynthia/index.php
.
gewg_ (CAPTCHA:quagmire)

Then vote third party. Pick your ideology:

Pirate Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party

Don't think of it as a wasted vote, think of it as a vote against the current system.

silly goose... which one is the right party?

http://www.gp.org/index.php

You need to get out of the GOP then, because as long as you still wear that label I'm going to count you among the bigots, the homophobes, the religious zealots, the birthers, and every other wing-nut dujour who now speak for the Republican party--and they DO speak for the Republican party, it's not even a matter for debate anymore. The Dems aren't much better in practice, but at least they don't have any of the morally repugnant qualities of the current Republicans (other than graft and corruption, that's universal among the two).

Be an independent, or join a party closer to your actual beliefs. Democrats weren't liberal enough for me so I now vote for the Green Party.

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Someone to run against the two established parties? Done.

Someone with a FULL platform, one that doesn't sway with the political breeze -- like they were Key Values, or something? Done!

Someone to win offices around the country? Done, 160 times over .

But don't feel alone in not immediately saying, "Oh, yeah, THAT Green Party." Even Bill Maher is having trouble remembering:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party has sent an open letter to Bill Maher after a June 19 broadcast of 'Real Time' in which Mr. Maher said "[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats. Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans."

The Green Party's reply to Mr. Maher: "Hey, Bill, we're over here! What you described is the GREEN PARTY! We already exist!"

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Someone to run against the two established parties? Done.

Someone with a FULL platform, one that doesn't sway with the political breeze -- like they were Key Values, or something? Done!

Someone to win offices around the country? Done, 160 times over .

But don't feel alone in not immediately saying, "Oh, yeah, THAT Green Party." Even Bill Maher is having trouble remembering:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party has sent an open letter to Bill Maher after a June 19 broadcast of 'Real Time' in which Mr. Maher said "[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats. Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans."

The Green Party's reply to Mr. Maher: "Hey, Bill, we're over here! What you described is the GREEN PARTY! We already exist!"

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Someone to run against the two established parties? Done.

Someone with a FULL platform, one that doesn't sway with the political breeze -- like they were Key Values, or something? Done!

Someone to win offices around the country? Done, 160 times over .

But don't feel alone in not immediately saying, "Oh, yeah, THAT Green Party." Even Bill Maher is having trouble remembering:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party has sent an open letter to Bill Maher after a June 19 broadcast of 'Real Time' in which Mr. Maher said "[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats. Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans."

The Green Party's reply to Mr. Maher: "Hey, Bill, we're over here! What you described is the GREEN PARTY! We already exist!"

I disagree, somewhat. The US needs ANYONE to run against the two established parties ON ANY PLATFORM, and to WIN offices around the country.

Someone to run against the two established parties? Done.

Someone with a FULL platform, one that doesn't sway with the political breeze -- like they were Key Values, or something? Done!

Someone to win offices around the country? Done, 160 times over .

But don't feel alone in not immediately saying, "Oh, yeah, THAT Green Party." Even Bill Maher is having trouble remembering:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party has sent an open letter to Bill Maher after a June 19 broadcast of 'Real Time' in which Mr. Maher said "[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats. Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans."

The Green Party's reply to Mr. Maher: "Hey, Bill, we're over here! What you described is the GREEN PARTY! We already exist!"

Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

There are three pseudo-viable third options; parties that are on the ballot in enough states that should they win them all, they win the election.

Bob Barr

Cynthis McKinney

Chuck Baldwin

I plan on voting for Barr. Sure, he'll lose, but so will one of the two major party candidates. Why do the media insist that voting for a loser is a wasted vote? Could it be that they are owned by corporations, who bribe both candidates to get legislation (like the Bono Act and the PATRIOT act) passed with 100% or nearly so of the vote?

At the time, the website www.BillionairesForBushOrGore.com (now a link farm for online poker) pointed out that these similarities:

Yawn. Aside from the hyperbole, distortions and how much Gore already fit the Green Party platform, remember those lists of similarities between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations? Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. JWB shot Lincoln in a theater and ran to a warehouse. LHO shot Kennedy from a warehouse and ran to a theater. Doesn't mean they actually had anything in common.

You can try to rationalize as much as you want, but nothing changes the fact that the Greens were fools to risk throwing a close election to Bush over a solid woman rights supporting, middle class advocating, solid environmentalist like Gore.

In this century, almost all the international news in my country's newspaper is about death and destruction brought about by USA. The Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the tortures at Guantanamo bay (refusal to adhere to the internationally agreed upon code for treatment of prisoners of war by inventing a new "enemy combatant" terminology). They are actively working to create unrest in Iranian territory. Nothing much is reported about Russia. Compared to USA's hegemonic goals, Russia will pale into insignificance. And it is really strange that Americans talk about "moral authority" about respecting other nations sovereignty, while having invaded and occupied 2 countries! Isn't that a little bit hypocritical? America has ceased to be a role model for developing nations in this century.

But America need not go down this path of destruction, occupation and generally an imperialistic approach. And that can happen only if Americans make a real choice in their elections. If their choice is only between Republican and Democratic parties, then it is not really a choice. I can see that both these parties are the same. They differ in a very minute details. Americans need to look at political parties like Green Party or other alternative parties, who promise to stop the Iraq war and Afghanistan war, who promise to bring single-payer health care, and who would make policies in an environment friendly manner. When Americans are truly ready for change, then, and only then can America be saved. Otherwise, they will go down this path and into war, and by doing so will drag many other countries in their perilous adventure.

Already the arms race has started. They are already discussion about nuclear weapons in space.

Why only red and blue? There are the Greens.

Why talk as though there are no alternatives? Why not vote for Green Party?

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

A vote for one wing or the other of a two-party state is worse than useless.

The Onion and Fox news have both mentioned Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. Maybe the time will come when a real news outlet will mention third party candidates, instead of just parody outlets like The Onion and Fox?

I can't even find mention of the Green Party's Presidential candidate on their own web site, so in their case I think the mainstream media can be forgiven for ignoring them.

The news today is saying that "John McCain challenged his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, to a series of 10 joint town hall meetings, starting next week in New York City". I guess he's afraid of Bob Barr?

Kidding aside, Obama does speak about reforming the whole intellectual property system... It's hard to quantify what exactly he means when he talks about reform

That scares the hell out of me. Any time a a politican talks about "intellectual pooperty reform" the copyright length is even longer and fair use rights are further eroded.

I've looked at the other two candidates

You mean Wayne Allyn Root and Cynthia McKinney? Don't you mean three? The Republicans are running some guy or another, too, you know

Obama talks about rewriting intellectual property, writes some dream bill, only to have it obliterated in Congress due equally to his lack of commitment and Congress's general distaste for effective legislation

He's been Senator for a while now, why hasn't he introduced this legislation? That is, after all, what Congress does. The President merely vetos it or signs it into law and runs the bureaucracy. Don't look to Obama or any other mainstream candidate to push for meaningful reform of anything, unless it benefits the corporations that pay for their election campaigns.

I've got it pretty good. With only a two-year degree (in computer-aided drafting!), I'm making significantly more than the first Google link for "computer programmer salary" says I should. I've been working for the same company for 12+ years, with management that knows how to handle the business side of things, a team of subject matter experts that handle the customer side, and all we have to do is code. Topping it all off, it's a vertical-market tax software product, so it's not going anywhere until death & taxes are abolished.

Of course, at 41, I'm halfway between "wow I'm grown up now" and "gee I'm old now", so it's high time for a midlife crisis! I'm pretty sure that someday I'll quit and start my own business. Not something in this industry, though. I love my job, but I'd like to do something a bit more directly beneficial to society. Time will tell what happens, but I'm currently thinking about opening a day care center, and when it's successful, going into politics (though I'll probably have to take practicality over idealism if I want to actually get elected). But I've got sense enough to wait until my kids are out of school before making any big changes.

The one thing I do know is that I'll never get to "retire" in any sort of traditional sense. As Fate would have it, I spent 20 years married to someone who didn't understand the value of living within her means... not surprisingly, I got custody of the credit card bills. I'll be working till I die... heck, if things go as planned, I (or at least my remains) will keep working full time even in the hereafter, thanks to Dr. Gunther von Hagens!

There just is no place for guys like me in the political process anymore. I'm a civil-libertarian, social-liberal, fiscal-conservative, non-bible-thumper with no place to call my own.

Also, I'm sorry my last post got bunched together without spacing; I forgot I had to do HTML. By the way, the Draft Nader Committee guy who's probably going to give all his delegates to Nader is named Howie Hawkins, which isn't a pseudonym, despite the alliteration.

I don't live in the US, but I have an interest in the US politics in the sense that US is in fact the only superpower and in our globalised (and Americanised) world, everything that happens in the US quickly spreads elsewhere as well because of the global interconnectedness and the special position of the US in the world. Of course there is a personal reason for my interest in the US politics as well, as it is a place I would enjoy living if it were run by a sane president (such as Dr Ron Paul).

Of much more relevance to geeks and nerds is to see who well-known free software and open source activists support. RMS, for instance, supports Kucinich (who is off the magazine's matrix, why? and by the way he is a candidate that I do not support, but I think that even those who I disagree with have a right to have their views heard) and the Green Party (on which I have a slightly positive opinion, but I haven't researched it much). However, he also partially supports the one and only candidate that I also support*, Dr Ron Paul , and he explains his reasoning here: "The only Democratic or Republican candidate, aside from Kucinich, that clearly stands for human rights, democracy, and an end to torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq is Ron Paul. I urge Republicans to support him for that party's nomination".

* Saying "support" however must be understood as "support among the available and reasonable options", and I also generally believe that politicians in general are not the most ethical people of the planet, and I know that most of them change their ways after they get elected and don't carry out their programmes, but some are better than others, and I think Ron Paul is the best among all the candidates (albeit I have some disagreements over his positions on the UN), and I actually should also say that I like him as a person, at least based on his writings. Unfortunately I can't vote for him, as I am in EU and not an American, although if he wins and makes the US a reasonable country to live in and removes all stupid laws introduced by Bush et al, I would certainly consider instant relocation, as I regard US among the best places to run a business (especially compared to here in EU where entrepreneurship is many times seen with suspicion)... in fact the presence of Bush was one of the primary objections to me even visiting the US for travel or business, let alone living there. I have a special interest in the 2008 elections because these are the elections that will determine whether the fascist reforms introduced by the Bush administration are going to be repealed as a historical paranoid mistake or kept as the new gospel. Apart from Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul, the other candidates who are well-known and have a chance of winning are most likely going to keep a few or most of Bush policies. Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul are the two only candidates who are most likely to reverse the trends that currently destroy the American culture and civics, and I think the most sane choice among those available is Dr Ron Paul. By the way Dr Ron Paul supports homeschooling, which is the best way to educate gifted future geeks and nerds.

I'm not sure about my party because we don't have enough power to have been tested. We are usually on the receiving end of this kind of stuff: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm together with the libertarians. Generally our folks are arrested for attempting to assert free speech rights. Since the Green Party has non-violence among its Ten Key Values: http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml and many of our activists are women our party is probably better at avoiding police brutality than some, but it is mainly democrats that attempt to deny us our civil rights.

I was at the Green Party National Meeting http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_10.shtml last night where RMS gave a talk and he was asked about the issues with the kernel team. The main thing he had to say is that without GPL3, there could be problems with tivoization, where yes, the source is provided, but modifications are not allowed on the specific hardware thus disallowing improvements that are freely made by the community. You can share the code, but if you fix it or improve it or change it is some way that you like, you can't run it, and so you can not share your work. Me: Maybe that kind of deadending is OK since there are other versions that you can hack, and hey, it is just one set of hardware, but it does defeat the spirit of the GPL and GPL3 covers this issue according to RMS. (I have not read it. I just click accept whenever this kind of thing comes up which is why I'm now a towel boy in the house of the borg. Thanks for letting me go to the meeting Mr. Bill.) So, RMS feels, not surisingly, that the changes in the GPL3 are good for free (as in speech) software and it is regrettable if the kernel group does not go along with it. (Didn't they have input?)
--
Get solar power with no installation cost. Register your home today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Green Party: "Greens are pushing for instant run-off voting, proportional representation, and other ways to give minorities of all kinds a greater say in government" [1]

Libertarian Party: ""The problem is that we are a minority party in a winner-take-all voting system," said Mr. Redpath, urging party activists to support "electoral reform" aimed at creating a system of proportional representation." - LNC Chairman William Redpath [2]

Socialist Party: "We continue our involvement with the Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party and FairVote/CFER (Californians For electoral Reform)" [3] (PDF)

You're assuming many Nader voters would have voted for Gore if their only option was Gore or Bush, or that Gore is much better for these voters than Bush. Given the choice between only a D or a R, they'd rather spoil their ballots than vote for either. It's like a choice between Stalin and Pol Pot. One may be worse than the other, but both have crossed the line so far that some are not prepared to support them.

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

A states rights leftist is in essence a Green Party member. The Greens believe in lefty positions like pro environment, pro choice, pro health care for the poor, but done in a decentralized fashion check out the ten key values of Green Party platform if you are not familiar with it already:

http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml

Of course the Greens tend to be poorly organized, poor at media outreach, and unfairly slandered when they do get media coverage but this point anything is better than an interventionist anti COnstitution neo-con Republican or a Caveinacrat, so check them out if you are not already familiar with them.

If you think the Democrats and the Republicans are opposed 180 degrees, then I feel sorry for you.

On a large amount of issues, yes they are. Even without the benefit of hindsight, Nader was a total, complete fool for insisting there would be no difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency.

Unfortunately, people who can't try to make a point without calling other people "idiots" and "trolls" aren't likely

Too bad you are wrong. Again. It's not an ad hominem when it's true. Nobody knew that Bush was going to take a running dive into fascism territory, but everyone should have known what a good corporate, bible beating toady Bush was going to be. See above. Nader also claimed that even if Bush won, the backlash would be so great as to make the cost worthwhile. History has proven him to be a complete idiot, as well as anyone who still backs this failed nonsense.

aren't likely to a) know what they're talking about, or b) listen to what anybody else has to say. The Democrats do not support the "majority" of the Greens' platform and if you think they do, then you obviously aren't paying attention.

What is obvious is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I drive a motorcycle, so Im for it, but there's a lot of businesses that would gripe, and restricting business is political suicide. If you add a tax break to businesses to your plan, however, I'm for it. Ok, now that we've decided, lets write congress with our demands.
Seriously, we all need to get together to do something. Im not yet sure about the latest thing I've gotten into, but everyone should at least register their belief somewhere.