[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
we feel like Americans would agree

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the big difference I'm trying to drive home though. You feel like they would or should agree if they understood where you were coming from or whatever. We HEAR people and SEE people support the things we stand for, and then see them rally behind a religious zealot who stands for none of those things but throws the words into his speeches.

I didn't mean to get overly critical of the Green Party, since like you said this thread is not meant to discuss it, but I think there is a big difference between the political viability between the Green's platform and between the platform a majority of the voting members of a major political party expressly claim to stand for and that which is supported by our own Constitution!

The pacifism thing is something I dug up on Wiki. It seems pretty clear that the Green position is one of pacifism. That thing you quoted about "recognizing the need of self-defense" is pretty vague. Do Greens actually allow me to defend myself? They can *say* they "recognize some need" but if they don't actually hold the position that addresses that need then it's just rhetoric.

Greens support pacifism. Wikipedia sums up their views as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
Green platforms draw terminology from the science of ecology, and policy from Environmentalism, Ecosophy, Eco-socialism, Progressivism, Feminism, Pacifism, Centrism, libertarian socialism, Social Ecology and even sometimes libertarian survivalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean I'm sure that is very generalized and Greens don't necessarily embrace literal pacifism. But my point is that this collection of views seems way less politically viable than individual liberty, self-reliance, and respect for the Constitution.