The Greens: Humanity's greatest enemy

[Martinus]

I've been meaning to post this for a while and as someone who's been boring every dinner party I've ever been to with how awful and un-leftie the Greens are, it's a delight to have proof:

At a dinner party a week or two ago, I said that I'd rather vote UKIP then Green. I might as well have drowned a kitten in the lentils, the looks I got

Who would you vote for after those two? Or is this under the AV system?

See above. But only with a gun at my head. I'd rather drown a kitten in the lentils than vote for either of them.

I was just being a spelling nazi.

[Gups]

Capital "N", Marty.

[The Brain]

In Sweden we have a Green-Soc Dem cabinet, supported by the Communists. It's about as great as it sounds.

The Greens are incredibly anti-human and anti-environment, but since most journalists in Sweden are Greens or Reds they get very sweet treatment in media.

[derspiess]

The Communists themselves have a stellar record when it comes to the environment.

[grumbler]

Sorry Sheilb, but you'll get no cred by quoting a long piece from an asinine newspaper and a short one from a credible one, and implying that they are saying the same thing.

The Greens appear to be extreme, but I see no reason to believe that they want to "decriminalise ... membership of [sic] terrorist groups."  The fact that the Telegraph says that they do makes it even more unbelievable.

[viper37]

They're absolute loons, this should surprise no one.

what surprises me is that such a party would come even close to power, or dictating terms.  Expecting 5-10% of the vote is one thing, dictating public policies is another.

[KRonn]

Wow, reading through what the Greens are all about in Britain and they're truly a bunch of ruinous loons.     I never really delved into who they are and figured they were mostly about environment and more extreme of a left wing group, but some of their ideas are just dangerous and foolhardy.

[Sheilbh]

The Greens appear to be extreme, but I see no reason to believe that they want to "decriminalise ... membership of [sic] terrorist groups."  The fact that the Telegraph says that they do makes it even more unbelievable.

From their website:

PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

[derspiess]

Boom.

[grumbler]

The Greens appear to be extreme, but I see no reason to believe that they want to "decriminalise ... membership of [sic] terrorist groups."  The fact that the Telegraph says that they do makes it even more unbelievable.

From their website:

PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

So, if the group you belong to does not plan to commit an atrocity, it isn't really a 'terrorist" group at all, is it?  And if you do plan to commit an atrocity, then you are breaking the law, no?

The key here is that they think they can distinguish between terrorist groups and those merely "accused of terrorism."  I don't think that they can, but they aren't crazy for trying.

[CountDeMoney]

Boom.

I see what you did there.

[Martinus]

The Greens appear to be extreme, but I see no reason to believe that they want to "decriminalise ... membership of [sic] terrorist groups."  The fact that the Telegraph says that they do makes it even more unbelievable.

From their website:

PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

So, if the group you belong to does not plan to commit an atrocity, it isn't really a 'terrorist" group at all, is it?  And if you do plan to commit an atrocity, then you are breaking the law, no?

The key here is that they think they can distinguish between terrorist groups and those merely "accused of terrorism."  I don't think that they can, but they aren't crazy for trying.

The paragraph Sheilbh quoted does not attempt to distinguish between terrorist groups and those merely "accused of terrorism."  Read it again.

And the difference between "belonging to an organisation that commits terrorist acts" (which Greens want to decriminalise) and "aiding/abetting terrorist acts" is clearly that of mens rea. It is much harder to prove the latter than the former.

[Caliga]

I voted for Jill Stein for POTUS in the last election.

[garbon]

I voted for Jill Stein for POTUS in the last election.

Why you bother voting, bro?

[Ed Anger]

He wants that 'I Voted' sticker.