[Peace-discussion] Re: Coalition with Libertarians Unless they Are Openly...
Dibloc@aol.com
Dibloc@aol.com
Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:31:32 EST
-------------------------------1197822692
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We often work with Libertarians on ballot access and anti war issues here in
North Carolina.
If we insist on ideological purity with the groups we work with, then we
will be completely isolated. How will we reach out to people if we insist on
only working with people that already think like us?
Gray Newman
North Carolina
In a message dated 12/16/2007 11:20:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alsmith@hvgreens.org writes:
There is a difference between the libertarians and
the KKK. And as I already stated, we in MI have been
working on election reform in MI with Libertarians and
others. And David pointed out that there has already been
a coalition effort in the Ohio recount.
Tony, I sent out an article, but your email always bounces,
so I am going to send it via another email. But the point
is to think about moving coalitions depending on the issue.
Just think about it - I think we need to be willing to work
with people who think very differently in an effort to both
*encourage* them to think differently (in a respectful manner)
as we win campaigns against shared harms. In other words,
win people over to our values by action instead of words.
Sincerely,
Aimee
On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:46 AM, _a.gronowicz@att.net_
(mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net) wrote:
I just excerpted from your quote. You said and now I paraphrase since you
can't seem to recognize your own quote that an alliance with the Libertarians
is possible needs work.
Why bother? And why bother to push REPUBLICAN Ron Paul on us?
Tony
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I might point out th at the same "pwog" Dems like UFPJ have worked
> hard
>
> > > > > to keep Greens, Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace
> > > > > movement. We already have the same enemies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do so
> > > > > at the national level is something that needs work. It will not
> > > > > happen if we do not discuss it.
-------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <_jvwalshmd@gmail.com_
(mailto:jvwalshmd@gmail.com) >: --------------
> Could you please show me the quote where I say that. If you cannot, I
> think you owe me an apology.
> Have you ever been attacked physically by the KKK? I have. And when
> I read this ugly comment, it makes me sick.
> If you cannot apologize, please do not communicate with me any more.
> john walsh (MA delegate)
>
> On 12/16/07, _a.gronowicz@att.net_ (mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You are.
> >
> >
> >
> > On December 15 at 2:05 PM you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do so
> > > > > at the national level is something th at nee ds work. It will not
> > > > > happen if we do not discuss it.
> >
> >
> > -------------- Original message from "John Walsh" :
> > --------------
> >
> >
> > > Well of course no one would want such an alliance. But who is talking
> > > about such a thing?
> > > john walsh (MA delegate)
> > >
> > > On 12/15/07, _a.gronowicz@att.net_ (mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net)
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Couldn't agree more. Tony
> > > >
> > > > -------------- Original message from "henry duke" :
> > > > --------------
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The nazi's, KKK, or radical libertarians in the minutemen; Me and
mine
> > > > shall
> > > > > have no coalition with.
> & gt; > > >
> > > > > Being against the war because you want the National Guard back in
the
> > USA
> > > > to
> > > > > build the wall against Mexicans, is a position I will not make
> > coalition
> > > > > with, as these chauvinists are the growing righwing violent
militias
> > which
> > > > I
> > > > > will positively peacefully oppose.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can make coalition with uneducated, unprincipled opportunists,
or
> > even
> > > > > evil cynical fools like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or
> > > > Republicans
> > > > > who think Iraq is wrong because the real war should be in
Afghanistan.
> > > > >
> > > > > And for the European Colonialist types who justify White or
European > > > > > "democracies" like Israe l or South Africa as legitimate, yes,
like
> > the
> > > >
> > > > > European conquests of the so called new world, they may be
legitimate,
> > but
> > > > > it is a legitimacy based on terrorism, violence, and war, and
> > specifically
> > > > > White / European terrorism, violence, and genocide.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having blabbed that I can work in coalition with anti-war types,
but
> > when
> > > > it
> > > > > comes to openly chauvinist folks, I draw a line, refuse, and IMO -
and
> > > > very
> > > > > stubborn opinion -- we all should and I think we should exclude
people
> > > > from
> > > > > any peace action committee who are not committed to anti-racism or
> > a gainst
> > > > > womyn rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > For action,
> > > > > Henry
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: _peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org_
(mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org)
> > > > > [_mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org_
(mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org) ] On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Aimee Smith
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:15 AM
> > > > > To: John Walsh
> > > > > Cc: _a.gronowicz@att.net_ (mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net) ; David
Strand ; Nick Schmader; GPAX Discussion
> > > > List
> > > > > Subject: Re: So John , what's your plan...Re: [Peace-discussion]
Must
> > read.
> > > > >
> > > > > on fillibuster -
> > > > > There is someone in town very excited to join this campaign
> > > & gt; > Will let you know what we come up with. In particular, he
wants
> > > > > to expose the democratic officials enabling war.
> > > > >
> > > > > On coaltion with Libertarians:
> > > > > in MI we have a third parties coalition with the libertarians (who
> > > > > have ballot status), socialists (who don't have ballot status),
and
> > > > > US Taxpayers party (who like us have ballot status.) It is mostly
> > > > > geared toward electoral reforms, but as far as I am aware, the
> > > > > alliance is cordial and productive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aimee
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I might point out th at the same "pwog" Dems like UFPJ have
worked
&g t; > ; hard
> >
> > > > > > to keep Greens, Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace
> > > > > > movement. We already have the same enemies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do
so
> > > > > > at the national level is something that needs work. It will not
> > > > > > happen if we do not discuss it.
> > > > > > BUT I think of two things:
> > > > > > First, see FilibusterForPeace.org Kevin Zeese (another Green),
> > > > > > myself and Richard Aucoin, the Libertarian Lt. Gubernatorial
> > candidate
> > > > > > here in MA, started it. In fact we fondly hope that GPAX will
push
> > > > > > this - it shows that the Dems HAVE the power to end the war in a
> > > > > > veto-proof way to end the war. They have the power but they
favor
> > the
> > > > > > war. That is a great help in getting at the "left" wing of the
> > > > > > duopoly.
> > > > > > Let's discuss it in our next conference call.
> > > > > > Second, Kevin Zeese ran a Senatorial campaign in which he got
the
> > > > > > end orsement of Libertarians AND Greens in MD. That is a model
for
> > the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now Paul is much to be preferred over any of the
candidates
> > > > > > running a real national campaign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > john walsh (MA delegate)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > p.s. I stopped talking of sins when I abandoned my p lans f or
the
> > > > > > seminary at age 17. Or as Jesse Jackson said once, "This is
politics
> > > > > > not theology." Principles are essential and no one is speaking
of
> > > > > > abandoning them BUT on the Left there is often a smugness about
> > having
> > > > > > all the answers. We do not. Too often this smugness is a triumph
of
> > > > > > ideology over fact - to paraphrase Ralph Nader in another
context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/15/07, _a.gronowicz@att.net_ (mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net)
wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Correct. Tony
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -------------- Original message from David Strand
> > > > > >> :
> > > > > >> --------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Seven Deadly Social Sins
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Gandhi
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 1] politics without principle
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 2] wealth without work
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 3] commerce without morality
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 4] pleasure without conscience
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 5] education without character
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 6] science without humanity
> > > > > >>>
> > & gt; > > >>> 7] worship without sacrifice
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> John, I am willing to make alliances to end the war
> > > > > >>> but as far as your statements about "purity" I think
> > > > > >>> what you are calling "purity" is wh at many of us we
> > > > > >>> call "principles" and I don't believe in doing
> > > > > >>> politics without principles.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Can we still form strategic alliances to achieve
> > > > > &g t;>> common goals such as ending the war?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Abso lutely.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Do I think liberterians are gulity of several of < BR>> ; > >
> > >>> Ghandi's so called Deadly Social Sins?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yes!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> But I'm still willing to work with them towards common
> > > > > >>> ends.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So, what is your proposal and how would it work?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> No one has said we can't do such alliances for
> > > > > >>> strategic purposes we are simply saying why we don't
> > > > > >>> support Ron Paul. Now a strategy to end the war
> > > > > >>> together with Ron Paul supporters, that is obviously
> > > > > >>> open to discussion, what does it look like?
> & gt; &g t; > > >>>
> > > > > >>> After all, even the nonviolent theologian and theorist
> > > > > >>> Bonhoffer found that sometimes actions he would have
> > > > > >>> thought unthinkable were right under given
> > > > > >>> circumstances.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> David Strand
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >> ___________
> > > > > >>> ____
> > > > > >> & gt; Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > > > > >>> http:/ /_www.yahoo.com/r/hs_ (http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs)
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > > > > ; > _Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org_
(mailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > _http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion_
(http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion)
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > > > > _Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org_
(mailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org)
> > > > >
> > _http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion_
(http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion)
> > > > >
> > > > >
=
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------------------------1197822692
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>We often work with Libertarians on ballot access and anti war issues he=
re=20
in North Carolina. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If we insist on ideological purity with the groups we work with, then w=
e=20
will be completely isolated. How will we reach out to people if we insist on=
=20
only working with people that already think like us?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gray Newman</DIV>
<DIV>North Carolina</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/16/2007 11:20:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,=20
alsmith@hvgreens.org writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><=
FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>There is=20
a difference between the libertarians and=20
<DIV>the KKK. And as I already stated, we in MI have been</DIV>
<DIV>working on election reform in MI with Libertarians and</DIV>
<DIV>others. And David pointed out that there has already been</DIV>
<DIV>a coalition effort in the Ohio recount.</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=3Dwebkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Tony, I sent out an article, but your email always bounces,</DIV>
<DIV>so I am going to send it via another email. But the point</DIV>
<DIV>is to think about moving coalitions depending on the issue.</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=3Dwebkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Just think about it - I think we need to be willing to work</DIV>
<DIV>with people who think very differently in an effort to both</DIV>
<DIV>*encourage* them to think differently (in a respectful manner)</DIV>
<DIV>as we win campaigns against shared harms. In other=20
words,</DIV>
<DIV>win people over to our values by action instead of words.</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=3Dwebkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV>Aimee</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:46 AM, <A title=3Dmailto:a.gronowicz@att.net=20
href=3D"mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net">a.gronowicz@att.net</A> wrote:</DIV><B=
R=20
class=3DApple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY --><!-- WEBMAIL ST=
ATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I just excerpted from your quote. You said and now I paraphrase=
=20
since you can't seem to recognize your own quote that an alliance with t=
he=20
Libertarians is possible needs work.</P>
<DIV><BR class=3Dkhtml-block-placeholder> </DIV>
<P>Why bother? And why bother to push REPUBLICAN Ron Paul on us?</P>
<DIV><BR class=3Dkhtml-block-placeholder> </DIV>
<P>Tony</P>
<DIV><BR class=3Dkhtml-block-placeholder> </DIV>
<P> On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote:<BR>> > >=
;=20
><BR>> > > > > I might point out th at the same "pwog"=
=20
Dems like UFPJ have worked<BR>> hard<BR>><BR>> > > > &=
gt;=20
to keep Greens, Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace<BR>> &g=
t;=20
> > > movement. We already have the same enemies.<BR>> >=20=
>=20
> ><BR>> > > > > Now you ask how an alliance with=20
Libertarians is possible? To do so<BR>> > > > > at the=20
national level is something that needs work. It will not<BR>> > &g=
t;=20
> > happen if we do not discuss it.<BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px s=
olid">--------------=20
Original message from "John Walsh" <<A title=3Dmailto:jvwalshmd@gma=
il.com=20
href=3D"mailto:jvwalshmd@gmail.com">jvwalshmd@gmail.com</A>>:=20
-------------- <BR><BR><BR>> Could you please show me the quote whe=
re I=20
say that. If you cannot, I <BR>> think you owe me an apology. <BR>&=
gt;=20
Have you ever been attacked physically by the KKK? I have. And when=20
<BR>> I read this ugly comment, it makes me sick. <BR>> If you=20
cannot apologize, please do not communicate with me any more. <BR>>=
=20
john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> <BR>> On 12/16/07, <A=20
title=3Dmailto:a.gronowicz@att.net=20
href=3D"mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net">a.gronowicz@att.net</A>=20
<A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >=20
<BR>> > <BR>> > You are. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>&=
gt;=20
> <BR>> > On December 15 at 2:05 PM you wrote: <BR>> >=20
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Now you ask how an alliance=20=
with=20
Libertarians is possible? To do so <BR>> > > > > at the=
=20
national level is something th at nee ds work. It will not <BR>> &g=
t;=20
> > > happen if we do not discuss it. <BR>> > <BR>>=20=
>=20
<BR>> > -------------- Original message from "John Walsh"=20
<JVWALSHMD@GMAIL.COM>: <BR>> > -------------- <BR>> > <BR>=
>=20
> <BR>> > > Well of course no one would want such an allia=
nce.=20
But who is talking <BR>> > > about such a thing? <BR>> >=
;=20
> john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> > > <BR>> > > On=
=20
12/15/07, <A title=3Dmailto:a.gronowicz@att.net=20
href=3D"mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net">a.gronowicz@att.net</A> wrote: <BR=
>>=20
> > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Couldn'=
t=20
agree more. Tony <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > >=20
-------------- Original message from "henry duke" : <BR>> > >=
=20
> -------------- <BR>> > <BR>> > > > <BR>> >=
;=20
> > <BR>> > > > > The nazi's, KKK, or radical=20
libertarians in the minutemen; Me and mine <BR>> > > > sha=
ll=20
<BR>> > > > > have no coalition with. <BR>> & gt=
;=20
> > > <BR>> > > > > Being against the war beca=
use=20
you want the National Guard back in the <BR>> > USA <BR>> >=
;=20
> > to <BR>> > > > > build the wall against Mexic=
ans,=20
is a position I will not make <BR>> > coalition <BR>> > &g=
t;=20
> > with, as these chauvinists are the growing righwing violent=20
militias <BR>> > which <BR>> > > > I <BR>> > &=
gt;=20
> > will positively peacefully oppose. <BR>> > > > &=
gt;=20
<BR>> > > > > I can make coalition with uneducated,=20
unprincipled opportunists, or <BR>> > even <BR>> > > &g=
t;=20
> evil cynical fools like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or=20
<BR>> > > > Republicans <BR>> > > > > who t=
hink=20
Iraq is wrong because the real war should be in Afghanistan. <BR>>=20=
>=20
> > > <BR>> > > > > And for the European=20
Colonialist types who justify White or European <B r=3D"">> > &g=
t;=20
> > "democracies" like Israe l or South Africa as legitimate, ye=
s,=20
like <BR>> > the <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > >=
=20
> European conquests of the so called new world, they may be=20
legitimate, <BR>> > but <BR>> > > > > it is a=20
legitimacy based on terrorism, violence, and war, and <BR>> >=20
specifically <BR>> > > > > White / European terrorism,=20
violence, and genocide. <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > >=
;=20
> > Having blabbed that I can work in coalition with anti-war ty=
pes,=20
but <BR>> > when <BR>> > > > it <BR>> > > &=
gt;=20
> comes to openly chauvinist folks, I draw a line, refuse, and IMO=20=
-=20
and <BR>> > > > very <BR>> > > > > stubborn=
=20
opinion -- we all should and I think we should exclude people <BR>>=
=20
> > > from <BR>> > > > > any peace action=20
committee who are not committed to anti-racism or <BR>> > a gain=
st=20
<BR>> > > > > womyn rights. <BR>> > > > >=
;=20
<BR>> > > > > For action, <BR>> > > > >=20
Henry <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > >=20
-----Original Message----- <BR>> > > > > From: <A=20
title=3Dmailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org=20
href=3D"mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org">peace-discussio=
n-admin@lists.gp-us.org</A>=20
<BR>> > > > > [<A=20
title=3Dmailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org=20
href=3D"mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org">mailto:peace-di=
scussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org</A>]=20
On <BR>> > Behalf <BR>> > > > Of Aimee Smith <BR>>=
;=20
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:15 AM <BR>>=
;=20
> > > > To: John Walsh <BR>> > > > > Cc: <A=
=20
title=3Dmailto:a.gronowicz@att.net=20
href=3D"mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net">a.gronowicz@att.net</A>; David Str=
and ;=20
Nick Schmader; GPAX Discussion <BR>> > > > List <BR>> &=
gt;=20
> > > Subject: Re: So John , what's your plan...Re:=20
[Peace-discussion] Must <BR>> > read. <BR>> > > > &g=
t;=20
<BR>> > > > > on fillibuster - <BR>> > > >=20=
>=20
There is someone in town very excited to join this campaign <BR>> &=
gt;=20
> & gt; > Will let you know what we come up with. In particu=
lar,=20
he wants <BR>> > > > > to expose the democratic officia=
ls=20
enabling war. <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > >=
; On=20
coaltion with Libertarians: <BR>> > > > > in MI we have=
a=20
third parties coalition with the libertarians (who <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
> have ballot status), socialists (who don't have ballot status), a=
nd=20
<BR>> > > > > US Taxpayers party (who like us have ball=
ot=20
status.) It is mostly <BR>> > > > > geared toward elect=
oral=20
reforms, but as far as I am aware, the <BR>> > > > >=20
alliance is cordial and productive. <BR>> > > > > <BR>&=
gt;=20
> > > > Aimee <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > &=
gt;=20
> > On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote: <BR>> >=
=20
> > > <BR>> > > > > > I might point out th=20=
at=20
the same "pwog" Dems like UFPJ have worked <BR>&g t; > ; hard=20
<BR>> > <BR>> > > > > > to keep Greens,=20
Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace <BR>> > > >=20=
>=20
> movement. We already have the same enemies. <BR>> > > &g=
t;=20
> > <BR>> > > > > > Now you ask how an allianc=
e=20
with Libertarians is possible? To do so <BR>> > > > > &=
gt;=20
at the national level is something that needs work. It will not <BR>&g=
t;=20
> > > > > happen if we do not discuss it. <BR>> >=
=20
> > > > BUT I think of two things: <BR>> > > >=
=20
> > First, see FilibusterForPeace.org Kevin Zeese (another Green=
),=20
<BR>> > > > > > myself and Richard Aucoin, the=20
Libertarian Lt. Gubernatorial <BR>> > candidate <BR>> > &g=
t;=20
> > > here in MA, started it. In fact we fondly hope that GPA=
X=20
will push <BR>> > > > > > this - it shows that the D=
ems=20
HAVE the power to end the war in a <BR>> > > > > >=20
veto-proof way to end the war. They have the power but they favor <BR>=
>=20
> the <BR>> > > > > > war. That is a great help i=
n=20
getting at the "left" wing of the <BR>> > > > > >=20
duopoly. <BR>> > > > > > Let's discuss it in our nex=
t=20
conference call. <BR>> > > > > > Second, Kevin Zeese=
ran=20
a Senatorial campaign in which he got the <BR>> > > > >=
=20
> end orsement of Libertarians AND Greens in MD. That is a model fo=
r=20
<BR>> > the <BR>> > > > > > future. <BR>> &=
gt;=20
> > > > <BR>> > > > > > Right now Paul i=
s=20
much to be preferred over any of the candidates <BR>> > > >=
;=20
> > running a real national campaign. <BR>> > > > &g=
t;=20
> <BR>> > > > > > john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>&g=
t;=20
> > > > > <BR>> > > > > > p.s. I stop=
ped=20
talking of sins when I abandoned my p lans f or the <BR>> > >=
=20
> > > seminary at age 17. Or as Jesse Jackson said once, "Thi=
s is=20
politics <BR>> > > > > > not theology." Principles a=
re=20
essential and no one is speaking of <BR>> > > > > >=20
abandoning them BUT on the Left there is often a smugness about <BR>&g=
t;=20
> having <BR>> > > > > > all the answers. We do n=
ot.=20
Too often this smugness is a triumph of <BR>> > > > > &=
gt;=20
ideology over fact - to paraphrase Ralph Nader in another context.=20
<BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > On=
=20
12/15/07, <A title=3Dmailto:a.gronowicz@att.net=20
href=3D"mailto:a.gronowicz@att.net">a.gronowicz@att.net</A> wrote: <BR=
>>=20
> > > > >> <BR>> > > > > >>=20
<BR>> > > > > >> Correct. Tony <BR>> > >=
=20
> > >> <BR>> > > > > >> -------------=
-=20
Original message from David Strand <BR>> > > > > >&g=
t; :=20
<BR>> > > > > >> -------------- <BR>> > >=
;=20
> > >> <BR>> > > > > >> <BR>> >=
=20
> > > >> <BR>> > > > > >>> Seve=
n=20
Deadly Social Sins <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>>=20=
>=20
> > > >>> Gandhi <BR>> > > > >=20
>>> <BR>> > > > > >>> 1] politics wit=
hout=20
principle <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > >=
=20
> > >>> 2] wealth without work <BR>> > > >=20=
>=20
>>> <BR>> > > > > >>> 3] commerce wit=
hout=20
morality <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
> >>> 4] pleasure without conscience <BR>> > > &g=
t;=20
> >>> <BR>> > > > > >>> 5] educati=
on=20
without character <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> &=
gt;=20
> > > >>> 6] science without humanity <BR>> >=20=
>=20
> > >>> <BR>> > & gt; > > >>>=20=
7]=20
worship without sacrifice <BR>> > > > > >>>=20
<BR>> > > > > >>> John, I am willing to make=20
alliances to end the war <BR>> > > > > >>> but=
as=20
far as your statements about "purity" I think <BR>> > > >=20=
>=20
>>> what you are calling "purity" is wh at many of us we <BR>=
>=20
> > > > >>> call "principles" and I don't believe=
in=20
doing <BR>> > > > > >>> politics without=20
principles. <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > &g=
t;=20
> > >>> Can we still form strategic alliances to achiev=
e=20
<BR>> > > > > &g t;>> common goals such as en=
ding=20
the war? <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
> >>> Abso lutely. <BR>> > > > > >>&g=
t;=20
<BR>> > > > > >>> Do I think liberterians are=20
gulity of several of < BR>> ; > > > > >>>=
;=20
Ghandi's so called Deadly Social Sins? <BR>> > > > >=20
>>> <BR>> > > > > >>> Yes! <BR>> &=
gt;=20
> > > >>> <BR>> > > > > >>>=20=
But=20
I'm still willing to work with them towards common <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
> >>> ends. <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>=
>=20
> > > > >>> So, what is your proposal and how wou=
ld=20
it work? <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
> >>> No one has said we can't do such alliances for <BR>&=
gt;=20
> > > > >>> strategic purposes we are simply sayi=
ng=20
why we don't <BR>> > > > > >>> support Ron Pau=
l.=20
Now a strategy to end the war <BR>> > > > > >>>=
;=20
together with Ron Paul supporters, that is obviously <BR>> > >=
;=20
> > >>> open to discussion, what does it look like?=20
<BR>> & gt; &g t; > > >>> <BR>> > >=
=20
> > >>> After all, even the nonviolent theologian and=20
theorist <BR>> > > > > >>> Bonhoffer found tha=
t=20
sometimes actions he would have <BR>> > > > > >>&=
gt;=20
thought unthinkable were right under given <BR>> > > > >=
;=20
>>> circumstances. <BR>> > > > > >>>=20
<BR>> > > > > >>> David Strand <BR>> > &=
gt;=20
> > >>> <BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>&=
gt;=20
> > > > >>> <BR>> > > > > >>=
>=20
<BR>> > > > > >>> <BR>> > > > >=
=20
>>> <BR>> > > > > >> <BR>> > >=20=
>=20
<BR>> >=20
_____________________________________________________________________=20
<BR>> > > > > >> ___________ <BR>> > > &=
gt;=20
> >>> ____ <BR>> > > > > >> & gt;=
=20
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. <BR>> > > >=
=20
> >>> http:/ /<A title=3Dhttp://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20
href=3D"http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs">www.yahoo.com/r/hs</A> <BR>> >=
; >=20
> > > _______________________________________________ <BR>>=
;=20
> > > > > Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>> > &=
gt;=20
> > ; > <A title=3Dmailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org=20
href=3D"mailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org">Peace-discussion@list=
s.gp-us.org</A>=20
<BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> >=
; <A=20
title=3Dhttp://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion=20
href=3D"http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion">http=
://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion</A>=20
<BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > >=20
_______________________________________________ <BR>> > > >=
;=20
> Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>> > > > > <A=20
title=3Dmailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org=20
href=3D"mailto:Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org">Peace-discussion@list=
s.gp-us.org</A>=20
<BR>> > > > > <BR>> > <A=20
title=3Dhttp://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion=20
href=3D"http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion">http=
://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion</A>=20
<BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > >=20
</B></JVWALSHMD@GMAIL.COM></A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET></BLOCKQUOTE><B r=3D""=
><!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY --></B></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>=3D</FONT><=
/BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style=3D"color: black; font:=20=
normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See AOL's <A t=
itle=3D"http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=3Daoltop00030000000004" h=
ref=3D"http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=3Daoltop00030000000004" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">top rated recipes</A> and <A title=3D"http://body.aol.com/fi=
tness/winter-exercise?NCID=3Daoltop00030000000003" href=3D"http://body.aol.c=
om/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=3Daoltop00030000000003" target=3D"_blank">ea=
sy ways to stay in shape</A> for winter.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1197822692--