[Peace-discussion] Must read.

a.gronowicz@att.net a.gronowicz@att.net
Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:45:07 +0000


--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28730_1197722707_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Pat Buchanan was/is against the war. Ron Paul is just more politically effective.

Tony

-------------- Original message from David Strand <mncivil@yahoo.com>: -------------- 


> 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 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Peace-discussion mailing list 
> Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org 
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion 
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28730_1197722707_0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Pat Buchanan was/is against the war. Ron Paul is just more politically effective.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Tony<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message from David Strand &lt;mncivil@yahoo.com&gt;: -------------- <BR><BR><BR>&gt; John, I am neither a socialist nor a Dem nor a <BR>&gt; Republican nor a libertarian but a Green and have been <BR>&gt; since the late 1980's. I believe my objections to Ron <BR>&gt; Paul are neither left(socialist) nor right(cato <BR>&gt; institute libertarian or socially conservative right). <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I believe my objections are Green and backed by what <BR>&gt; the Greens have stood for in this country ever since <BR>&gt; the Green meeting of Correspondence in St. Paul which <BR>&gt; was the first national gathering of Greens in the U.S. <BR>&gt; in 1984. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Call them left, call them right, I call them neither <BR>&gt; right nor left but forward! <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; AND FUTURE FOCUSED! <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; If you want to campaign for Ron Paul have at it, but I <BR>&gt
; plan on voting for a Green candidate for president and <BR>&gt; right now don't believe that I would be uncomfortable <BR>&gt; voting for any of the six of seven potential <BR>&gt; candidates I've meet so far(I've not meet Elaine Brown <BR>&gt; but have had no objections to what I've seen of her so <BR>&gt; far or what I've read in her books). <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Why are you seeking support for a milesian Libertarian <BR>&gt; running for the Republican nomination on a Green Party <BR>&gt; list? Beyond him being against the war and for <BR>&gt; reasons other than our own against some forms of <BR>&gt; imperialism(though I would argue not all particularly <BR>&gt; in the form of corporate imperialism) and aside from <BR>&gt; his peculiar brand of populism which we might learn <BR>&gt; from if we can motivate such reaction for our own <BR>&gt; candidates from distinctly different motivations for <BR>&gt; the most part, why would you want us to support <BR>&gt; someone endorsed by near
ly every white supremacist <BR>&gt; website endorsing a presidential candidate in the <BR>&gt; U.S.? <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I just don't get it. Why do you think his popularity <BR>&gt; is a good thing? Because he's opposed to the war? <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Why would you try to promote him here of all places on <BR>&gt; a listserve of partisans who are partisan enough to be <BR>&gt; involved with the Greens at the national level? Don't <BR>&gt; you think if these are your true feelings your energy <BR>&gt; would be better spent trying to convince people who <BR>&gt; aren't attatched to a political party such as the <BR>&gt; Greens? <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I doubt most of his own supporters know what he <BR>&gt; actually stands for and that is too bad. I've seen <BR>&gt; how many people have been yanked out of apolitical <BR>&gt; stances into supporting his campaign but most of them <BR>&gt; have no coherent idea of what his actual agenda is and <BR>&gt; have latched on to one or another of his po
sitions <BR>&gt; whether it be abolishing all income taxes, opposing <BR>&gt; the war, or ending all civil rights laws. Most seem <BR>&gt; to be seeing and projecting their outrage with various <BR>&gt; parts of our government and our government's policies <BR>&gt; without realizing that we have a government for a <BR>&gt; reason and government and in of itself is not bad. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I acknowledge Greens have significant anarchist roots <BR>&gt; and support bioregionalism and local community <BR>&gt; economics and decentralization, but these are a far <BR>&gt; different ball game than Ron Paul's "any government <BR>&gt; but defense of country and private property from <BR>&gt; aggression is bad" stance. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; David Strand <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; John Walsh wrote: <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Actually Nader has spoken approvingly of Paul - <BR>&gt; &gt; and vice versa. Neither is <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; a socialist in the old 19th century sense of the <BR>&gt; &gt; wor
d - but neither am I and <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; neither is the GP. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; ________________________________________________________________________________ <BR>&gt; ____ <BR>&gt; Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. <BR>&gt; http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs <BR>&gt; _______________________________________________ <BR>&gt; Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>&gt; Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org <BR>&gt; http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->

</body>
</html>

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28730_1197722707_0--