[Peace-discussion] Must read.

[David Strand]

John, I am neither a socialist nor a Dem nor a
Republican nor a libertarian but a Green and have been
since the late 1980's.  I believe my objections to Ron
Paul are neither left(socialist) nor right(cato
institute libertarian or socially conservative right).

I believe my objections are Green and backed by what
the Greens have stood for in this country ever since
the Green meeting of Correspondence in St. Paul which
was the first national gathering of Greens in the U.S.
in 1984.

Call them left, call them right,  I call them neither
right nor left but forward!

AND FUTURE FOCUSED!

If you want to campaign for Ron Paul have at it, but I
plan on voting for a Green candidate for president and
right now don't believe that I would be uncomfortable
voting for any of the six of seven potential
candidates I've meet so far(I've not meet Elaine Brown
but have had no objections to what I've seen of her so
far or what I've read in her books).

Why are you seeking support for a milesian Libertarian
running for the Republican nomination on a Green Party
list?  Beyond him being against the war and for
reasons other than our own against some forms of
imperialism(though I would argue not all particularly
in the form of corporate imperialism) and aside from
his peculiar brand of populism which we might learn
from if we can motivate such reaction for our own
candidates from distinctly different motivations for
the most part, why would you want us to support
someone endorsed by nearly every white supremacist
website endorsing a presidential candidate in the
U.S.?

I just don't get it.  Why do you think his popularity
is a good thing?  Because he's opposed to the war?

Why would you try to promote him here of all places on
a listserve of partisans who are partisan enough to be
involved with the Greens at the national level?  Don't
you think if these are your true feelings your energy
would be better spent trying to convince people who
aren't attatched to a political party such as the
Greens?

I doubt most of his own supporters know what he
actually stands for and that is too bad.  I've seen
how many people have been yanked out of apolitical
stances into supporting his campaign but most of them
have no coherent idea of what his actual agenda is and
have latched on to one or another of his positions
whether it be abolishing all income taxes, opposing
the war, or ending all civil rights laws.  Most seem
to be seeing and projecting their outrage with various
parts of our government and our government's policies
without realizing that we have a government for a
reason and government and in of itself is not bad.

I acknowledge Greens have significant anarchist roots
and support bioregionalism and local community
economics and decentralization, but these are a far
different ball game than Ron Paul's "any government
but defense of country and private property from
aggression is bad" stance.

David Strand
> > > John Walsh wrote: 
> > > Actually Nader has spoken approvingly of Paul -
> and vice versa. Neither is 
> > > a socialist in the old 19th century sense of the
> word - but neither am I and 
> > > neither is the GP. 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs