[Peace-discussion] Re: Coalition with Libertarians Unless they Are Openly Racist or White Nationalists
a.gronowicz@att.net
a.gronowicz@att.net
Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:24:39 +0000
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5157_1197815079_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 that needs work. It will not
> > > happen if we do not discuss it.
-------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <jvwalshmd@gmail.com>: --------------
> 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 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.
> > >
> > > 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 against
> > > womyn rights.
> > >
> > > For action,
> > > Henry
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 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; 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
> > > 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 that 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.
> > > > 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 plans for 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 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>> common goals such as ending the war?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Abso lutely.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Do I think liberterians are gulity of several of
> > > >>> 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?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > > ; > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> > > >
> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> > > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
> > >
> > >
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5157_1197815079_0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You are. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>On December 15 at 2:05 PM you wrote:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do so<BR>> > > at the national level is something that needs work. It will not<BR>> > > happen if we do not discuss it.<BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <jvwalshmd@gmail.com>: -------------- <BR><BR><BR>> Well of course no one would want such an alliance. But who is talking <BR>> about such a thing? <BR>> john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> <BR>> On 12/15/07, a.gronowicz@att.net <A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Couldn't agree more. Tony <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message from "henry duke" <HENRYDUKE2004@YAHOO.COM>: <BR>> > -------------- <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > > The nazi's, KKK, or radical libertarians in the minutemen; Me and mine <BR>> > shall <BR>> > > have no coalition with. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Being against the war because you want the National Guard back in the USA <BR>> > to <BR>> > > build the wall against Mexicans, is a position I will
not make coalition <BR>> > > with, as these chauvinists are the growing righwing violent militias which <BR>> > I <BR>> > > will positively peacefully oppose. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > I can make coalition with uneducated, unprincipled opportunists, or even <BR>> > > evil cynical fools like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or <BR>> > Republicans <BR>> > > who think Iraq is wrong because the real war should be in Afghanistan. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > And for the European Colonialist types who justify White or European <BR>> > > "democracies" like Israe l or South Africa as legitimate, yes, like the <BR>> > <BR>> > > European conquests of the so called new world, they may be legitimate, but <BR>> > > it is a legitimacy based on terrorism, violence, and war, and specifically <BR>> > > White / European terrorism, violence, and genocide. <BR>> > > <BR>> >
> Having blabbed that I can work in coalition with anti-war types, but when <BR>> > it <BR>> > > comes to openly chauvinist folks, I draw a line, refuse, and IMO - and <BR>> > very <BR>> > > stubborn opinion -- we all should and I think we should exclude people <BR>> > from <BR>> > > any peace action committee who are not committed to anti-racism or against <BR>> > > womyn rights. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > For action, <BR>> > > Henry <BR>> > > <BR>> > > -----Original Message----- <BR>> > > From: peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org <BR>> > > [mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org] On Behalf <BR>> > Of Aimee Smith <BR>> > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:15 AM <BR>> > > To: John Walsh <BR>> > > Cc: a.gronowicz@att.net; David Strand ; Nick Schmader; GPAX Discussion <BR>> > List <BR>> > > Subject: Re: So John
, what's your plan...Re: [Peace-discussion] Must read. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > on fillibuster - <BR>> > > There is someone in town very excited to join this campaign <BR>> > > Will let you know what we come up with. In particular, he wants <BR>> > > to expose the democratic officials enabling war. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > On coaltion with Libertarians: <BR>> > > in MI we have a third parties coalition with the libertarians (who <BR>> > > have ballot status), socialists (who don't have ballot status), and <BR>> > > US Taxpayers party (who like us have ballot status.) It is mostly <BR>> > > geared toward electoral reforms, but as far as I am aware, the <BR>> > > alliance is cordial and productive. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Aimee <BR>> > > <BR>> > > On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > > I might point out th
at the same "pwog" Dems like UFPJ have worked hard <BR>> > > > to keep Greens, Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace <BR>> > > > movement. We already have the same enemies. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do so <BR>> > > > at the national level is something that needs work. It will not <BR>> > > > happen if we do not discuss it. <BR>> > > > BUT I think of two things: <BR>> > > > First, see FilibusterForPeace.org Kevin Zeese (another Green), <BR>> > > > myself and Richard Aucoin, the Libertarian Lt. Gubernatorial candidate <BR>> > > > here in MA, started it. In fact we fondly hope that GPAX will push <BR>> > > > this - it shows that the Dems HAVE the power to end the war in a <BR>> > > > veto-proof way to end the war. They have the power but they favor the <BR>> > > >
war. That is a great help in getting at the "left" wing of the <BR>> > > > duopoly. <BR>> > > > Let's discuss it in our next conference call. <BR>> > > > Second, Kevin Zeese ran a Senatorial campaign in which he got the <BR>> > > > end orsement of Libertarians AND Greens in MD. That is a model for the <BR>> > > > future. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Right now Paul is much to be preferred over any of the candidates <BR>> > > > running a real national campaign. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > p.s. I stopped talking of sins when I abandoned my plans for the <BR>> > > > seminary at age 17. Or as Jesse Jackson said once, "This is politics <BR>> > > > not theology." Principles are essential and no one is speaking of <BR>> > > > abandoning them BUT on the Left there is often a
smugness about having <BR>> > > > all the answers. We do not. Too often this smugness is a triumph of <BR>> > > > ideology over fact - to paraphrase Ralph Nader in another context. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > On 12/15/07, a.gronowicz@att.net wrote: <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> Correct. Tony <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> -------------- Original message from David Strand <BR>> > > >> : <BR>> > > >> -------------- <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >>> Seven Deadly Social Sins <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> Gandhi <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 1] politics without principle <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 2] wealth without work <BR>> > > >>>
<BR>> > > >>> 3] commerce without morality <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 4] pleasure without conscience <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 5] education without character <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 6] science without humanity <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> 7] worship without sacrifice <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> John, I am willing to make alliances to end the war <BR>> > > >>> but as far as your statements about "purity" I think <BR>> > > >>> what you are calling "purity" is wh at many of us we <BR>> > > >>> call "principles" and I don't believe in doing <BR>> > > >>> politics without principles. <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> Can we still form strategic alliances to achieve <BR>> > > &g
t;>> common goals such as ending the war? <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> Abso lutely. <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> Do I think liberterians are gulity of several of <BR>> > > >>> Ghandi's so called Deadly Social Sins? <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> Yes! <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> But I'm still willing to work with them towards common <BR>> > > >>> ends. <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> So, what is your proposal and how would it work? <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> No one has said we can't do such alliances for <BR>> > > >>> strategic purposes we are simply saying why we don't <BR>> > > >>> support Ron Paul. Now a strategy to end the war <BR>> > > >>> together with Ron Paul supporters, that
is obviously <BR>> > > >>> open to discussion, what does it look like? <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> After all, even the nonviolent theologian and theorist <BR>> > > >>> Bonhoffer found that sometimes actions he would have <BR>> > > >>> thought unthinkable were right under given <BR>> > > >>> circumstances. <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> David Strand <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >>> <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > _____________________________________________________________________ <BR>> > > >> ___________ <BR>> > > >>> ____ <BR>> > > >> & gt; Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. <BR>> > > >>> http:/
/www.yahoo.com/r/hs <BR>> > > > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > > > Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>> > > ; > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org <BR>> > > > <BR>> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion <BR>> > > <BR>> > > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > > Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>> > > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org <BR>> > > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion <BR>> > > <BR>> > > </BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
</body>
</html>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5157_1197815079_0--