[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 04:22:12 +0000
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_25080_1197778932_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Couldn't agree more. Tony
-------------- Original message from "henry duke" <henryduke2004@yahoo.com>: --------------
> 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 Israel 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
> > endorsement 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 what 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_25080_1197778932_0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>Couldn't agree more. Tony<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message from "henry duke" <henryduke2004@yahoo.com>: -------------- <BR><BR><BR>> The nazi's, KKK, or radical libertarians in the minutemen; Me and mine shall <BR>> have no coalition with. <BR>> <BR>> Being against the war because you want the National Guard back in the USA 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 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 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>> 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 it <BR>> comes to openly chauvinist folks, I draw a line, refuse, and IMO - and very <BR>> stubborn opinion -- we all should and I think we should exclude people 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 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 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 that 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 <A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET>wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Correct. Tony <BR>> >> <BR>> >> --------------
Original message from David Strand <BR>> >> <MNCIVIL@YAHOO.COM>: <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>> >>> 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>> >> & 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>> > 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_25080_1197778932_0--