Any alternative to bipartisan dictatorship is welcome. The policies are sometimes wacky, but I'd like to see them give it a try.

The sky is falling!

The Age of Aquarius is over. Don't forget to buy your Depends on the way to the Social Security Office.

Socialists? Left-liberals or modern social democrats (as in SoDems who support humanising capitalism rather than old-school SoDems who supported democratic reform with Marxism as the end goald...I proudly consider myself a left-wing capitalist as opposed to a Marxist) would better represent the truth... They lose a point for running a guy (Nader) who sided with the rightist religious wakcos on the Terri Schiavo case...Oh well...He ain't green no more.

A Green Party poster that was located near my home read: 48% of the National Budget is spent on defense. Are you ready to do something about it? This indicated to me, the fundamental problem with the Greens. They either don't understand what this country was intended to be (Capitalist, minimal government, low or no taxes) or they simply don't care. Two words: Peter Camejo. That just about says it all for the Green Party and what they add to the quality of political debate in this country. I would have rated them lower but I have a certain degree of respect for organizations who consistently field candidates even though American politics is dominated by a two-party system. Their presence on the ballots, just like that of the Communists, Libertarians, etc. provides voters with true choices.

Green Party? a.k.a - Democrats with Balls that aren't Afraid of Republicans.

If anyone thinks the Democrats or Libertarians are left then they should take a look at these guys. Their party platform is far left most moderate Democrats would turn Republican or to the Constitution Party. The Greens may elect some in places like California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. They are no more than a regional party. Once you get to the midwest and south they lose their interest. Too far left for America today.

They seem to be a bunch of tree hugging hippies.

I don't know if what Krankor wrote is true, but if the green party advocate 100% tax brackets, I don't think that would be much different than communism. Greens have no background in economics.

There idiots complete fools. While we are in a war in Iraq and fighting terroism all these clowns can do is worry about the freakin enviroment.

Total watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). They lost any respect I ever might have had for them when I read their party platform and found out they advocate *100%* tax brackets. Think about that: they're saying that some people are fit to be *slaves of the state*.

The Green Party may have to replace the Democratic Party on the liberal scale. The Democrats are getting too conservative for my taste.

A bunch of pain in the ass hippie snivelers. Would be a one star, but they helped to keep Gore from winning, I guess that counts for something.

A good alternative to the Democrats if they cannot get their act together.

INSANE!!!!

The environment is OUR NUMBER ONE MOST PRESSING ISSUE TODAY! This is the party of the future! Not the Democrats, CERTAINLY not the Republicans, but the Green Party, who will preserve and ENRICH OUR EARTH!

Communists.

Anti-American environmentalist freaks.

The Green party is for: Equal rights, gay marridges, seperation of church and state, pro-choice, freedom of spech, freedom of expression, universal laws, eliminating laws that limit artistic expression, diversity. They are against: racial profiling, animal cruelty, terrorism, dictatorship, nuclear war, and genocide as well as special rights for the elderly. Green Party may seem like a bunch of senile far left extremists, but they're a lot like Liberterians in many ways.

Tree hugging communists who drive Honda Civic Hybrids that get 60mgp!

I think many people voted for Nader just because they didn't like the main party candidates. But I can't think of anyone who would have actually wanted Nader as a president. That party is too obsessed with the environment. The environment is important, but other things are too.

They need to recognize that the best way to help the environment TODAY is to help get Bush out of office. Can you really say there is no difference between the 2 parties now? Looking to the greater good in environmental issues will help them in the long run.

A politically naive and ineffectual group that supported the wrong horse in the 2000 elections and handed the White House to that idiot from Texas. In doing so, they set back their own agenda about 20 years. Although it is very, very important that we should be stewards and protectors of our environment, of our natural resources, to make such ideology the forefront defining cornerstone of a political party is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog.

Government should only exsist to protect individual freedoms. Greens exsist to trample individual freedoms. ROFLMAO @ Greens! I vote Libertarian!

one word joke

i could only wish people would allow a free thoguht to occur in their minds and give the green party a chance

Tell me if I'm wrong. But I think to many commies pretending to be Greens.

The Sillies. KGB funded and founded

hysterical idiots!

The greens have a realistic message that many don't seem to want to hear. They don't believe that big business is evil, just that it has taken precedence over the welfare of humanity through our own disinterest. Ultimately, corporations should exist to serve the people, not vice versa, but the current government overhaul that began with Reagan is favoring corporate rights over human rights more and more. American voters have been fed by the corporate news media to believe that the two parties are the only answer, and that by voting from a fleeting, superficially informed position, everything will take care of itself. Then, they are refused information that could change this sheltered view. As the welthiest constituency on the planet, voter apathy has become the result of this. Everyone feels both comfortable with the satus quo, and powerless to change the current system. The power, however, has always been there, regardless of the spin we hear from the major news outlets. Less than 0.5% of voters made a contribution of $200 or more to a political campaign last year (www.opensecrets.org). If the voters for a third party candidate had made this kind of contribution to a campaign they believed in , the resources would be there to get the message to others in a national forum. The FACT is that corporations have come into control of our government because very few seem to believe that their time and money, as well as their vote, can make a difference. I challenge every citizen of this country to do more than vote from his or her gut via sound bites on the evening news and campaign ads. Find the issues that matter to you, actively seek out information on those issues, then FULLY support the party that best agrees with those views with your time, money, voice, and informed vote. This is the true duty of every citizen in a strong democracy. A duty that I fear many refuse to fulfill.

Though there are some things I disagree with I still believe that this is one of the two best possible parties. There most important aspect is that they are respectable and virtuous, neither the Dems or the Republicans can say that, Republicans to a lesser degree. The stupidest thing I've heard today is that the environment is getting better. It's getting worse, maybe to a degree lesser, but that will all change due to Bush's voluntary environmental standards, and though buisness is essential to America it should not come with the price tag the Republicans put on it.

I think this party has done a good job of making itself a noticeable third party. Our country needs a third party to help ease the partisanship among Republicans and Democrats.

Great. I voted for Nader. Repubs and Dems have traditionally messed up so why are so many people reluctant to try new, alternative parties that might bring better results?

The people down at the Green Party could be really dangerous if they ever acquired any formal power in the government. I admire their idealism, but on the same token I think that they are hopelessly idealistic when considering the nature of humanity. If Nader had become President, he would have scaled back the military severely, thus limiting our bargaining power when dealing with other countries. In retrospect, if the 2000 Elections had been held today, I don't think Nader would have gotten more than half-a-million votes as opposed to the 2 and a half million he got in November of 2000. The Greens advocate isolationist positions that would threaten us militarily, politically, and economically. He would have us pull out of the Middle East and Korea and maybe even Japan. That would not be tolerated today considering the terrorist threat we are under now. I believe that the United States has a special responsibility as the sole superpower to maintain a balance of power among nations. If the United States gets caught up in fluffy idealistic thinking, we would be doing the world a great disservice. In addition, Nader and his Green friends would regulate business to the point that it would jeopardize national security because the government would not be able to receive enough revenues to provide for the national defense or a healthy population. Decision makers in Washington affect us more than we think. There is a proper balance between government intervention and business interests. If you have too much government intervention, like what the Greens want, government revenues will go down because companies that form the backbone of this country won't have so much capital that can be taxed, therefore, the government won't be able to take in as much money. If there is too little government regulation; companies could potentially abuse their privledges; remember the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980's? Greens go too far on everything from foreign policy to economic issues. There is a reason why the Greens do not have the support in this country that think they should have; and that is because their postions are against U.S. national interests.

I really did not like Ralph Nader. All this crap about "big business is evil". Well, for his info, the freakin' environment is important, but businesses are the backbone of the US! Plus, before you decide to form a political party, it is wise to have a little money. The Green Party is not exactly well off, and that is bad for them. I say the Green Party needs to go learn how to plan ahead!

These "other" parties aren't known for really any ideas except for bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance.

The only U.S. political party today that truly values the importance of progressive legislation and taking a stand based on ethics rather than comfort or campaign-finance contributions!

The Green Party's core beliefs are, by and large, demonstrably wrong. The condition of the environment is improving, and economic growth is to thank. Globalization and free trade do cause pockets of economic dislocation, but actually is a boon to developing nations (shutting down Nike sweatshops isn't exactly a good thing to do, when Plan B in many of Southeast Asian countries is child prostitution...). But I'm not going to give them a "terrible" rating, because there are at least principles which the Green Party is willing to argue. Moreover, they accept basic moral tenets, "corruption is bad", about which Democrats are now real wishy-washy. That counts for something.