[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 14:46:48 +0000
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_13629_1197816408_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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>: --------------
> 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 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 that needs 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 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 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.
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > &g t;>> 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_13629_1197816408_0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<P>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.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Why bother? And why bother to push REPUBLICAN Ron Paul on us?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Tony</P>
<P> </P>
<P> 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<BR>> hard<BR>><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><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>> Could you please show me the quote where I say that. If you cannot, I <BR>> think you owe me an apology. <BR>> Have you ever been attacked physically by the KKK? I have. And when <BR>> I read this ugly comment, it makes me sick. <BR>> If you cannot apologize, please do not communicate with me any more. <BR>> john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> <BR>> On 12/16/07, a.gronowicz@att.net <A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > You are. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > On December 15 at 2:05 PM you wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible? To do so <BR>> > > > > at the national level is something that nee
ds work. It will not <BR>> > > > > happen if we do not discuss it. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <JVWALSHMD@GMAIL.COM>: <BR>> > -------------- <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 wrote: <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Couldn't agree more. Tony <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > -------------- Original message from "henry duke" : <BR>> > > > -------------- <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>> &
gt; > > > <BR>> > > > > Being against the war because you want the National Guard back in the <BR>> > USA <BR>> > > > to <BR>> > > > > build the wall against Mexicans, is a position I will not make <BR>> > coalition <BR>> > > > > with, as these chauvinists are the growing righwing violent militias <BR>> > which <BR>> > > > I <BR>> > > > > will positively peacefully oppose. <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > I can make coalition with uneducated, unprincipled opportunists, or <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > the <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > > European conquests of the so called new world, they may be legitimate, <BR>> > but <BR>> > > > > it is a legitimacy based on terrorism, violence, and war, and <BR>> > specifically <BR>> > > > > White / European terrorism, violence, and genocide. <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > Having blabbed that I can work in coalition with anti-war types, but <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > read. <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > on fillibuster - <BR>> > > > > There is someone in town very excited to join this campaign <BR>> > > &
gt; > 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 <BR>> >
; hard <BR>> > <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 <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > 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 f
or 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 <BR>> > 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>> > &
gt; > > >>> 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>> > &g
t; > > >>> <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>> > > > > >>> ____ <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>> > > > <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>> > > > > <BR>> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > </BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
</body>
</html>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_13629_1197816408_0--