<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I hope your description is correct, but I disagree with the
prescription. <br>
<br>
The antiwar movement of the 1960s was built up with people from all
sorts of political backgrounds. By 1969 about 70% of the public had
come to regard the war in SE Asia as "fundamentally wrong and
immoral," not "a mistake" (according to the longitudinal polls of
the Chicago Center for Foreign Relations). Obviously, they weren't
all Democrats. <br>
<br>
We need now to work to convince more of our fellow citizens,
regardless of their general political positions, that the war in SW
Asia is fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. Which means
we shouldn't limit whom we talk to. --CGE (PS: Good to have you on
the list.)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/10 5:12 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinFxOD=ruT-QRd35qKjjEjV=D4VqYYVDEDR2jpZ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>I have to disagree with Carl's assessment. I believe that
there are more anti-war, rank-and-file Democrats than anti-war
Libertarians, and while the Libertarians are part of the
Tea Party movement, they have no influence in that movement on
the issue of the war.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While the liberal/left antiwar movement has declined,
especially around the time of the 2008 election, the
left/liberal antiwar movement is considerably larger than
anything produced by the right-wing. 1,500 people marched in
Chicago last Saturday, and even with these relatively low
numbers, this march is larger than what the Libertarians could
produce in the Midwest. The Libertarians were ENTIRELY absent
from this march, probably because they saw it as organized by
the left and also because it included the demand that our
federal dollars should be used for human needs. Where have the
Libertarians brought significant numbers of people in the street
around an anti-war demand?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here in Bloomington-Normal, we have a very organized Young
Americans for Liberty branch at Illinois State, the successor
organization to Students for Ron Paul. They are Libertarians
active in the Tea Party movement and have attended, even spoke
at, tea party rallies here that brought 500 people (very large
for Blo-No standards). But all they bring to our monthly BNCPJ
anti-war protests, which they do attend, are themselves - around
3 or 4 people out of a total of 20 to 30. At least here in
Bloomington-Normal, in terms of who shows up in the street,
the rank-and-file Democrats DO outnumber the Libertarians. I
expect that this is the same elsewhere. The Libertarians are
well-organized and well-funded, for a small group of individuals
nationally. They definitely know how to use the Internet. But
their numbers are small and their influence, on the issue fo the
war, is relatively nil in the Tea Party movement. I don't have
stats to back myself up, but I would venture to guess the vast
majority of Teabaggers are very pro-military and pro-war. That's
why the Libertarians can't produce any of them in the street.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll be honest. I'll work with right-wingers on an individual
basis, I get along with them as individuals, and would never
think of turning them away from actions and coalition
meetings. So far, Libertarians haven't come to our BNCPJ
meetings, and given our differences, I don't think we would last
very long in the same organization. But I don't think we should
be seeking out a coalition with a group of reactionaries
who don't have the numbers themselves, have no anti-war mass
constituency, and wish to construct a world even worse than 18th
century, dog-eat-dog, Laissez-faire capitalism. Even if many of
the Obama supporters have been AWOL from the anti-war movement,
we have much more in common with the vast majority of them than
we do with neo-fascists and anti-tax protesters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--- Corey</div>
<div>Bloomington-Normal<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Laurie
Solomon <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">ls1000@live.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div style="padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px;
padding-top: 15px;" name="Compose message area"
bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<div><font face="Calibri">><font face="Times New Roman">Make
a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing
to vote against funding the current war, for example
- not just those who say "I'm against war."
(Everyone is for peace - on their own terms.)</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font face="Times New Roman">While
the point about those who merely say that they are
something are often only so in their own minds and on
their own terms is a valid point to an extent, I might
point out that the same thing can be said for your
assertion that you are an (actual) socialist.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font face="Times New Roman">Having
said that, I also will not that you have just changed
the nature and terms of your original assertion that
there are more anti-war tea-partiers than there are
anti-war Democrats to one that restricts the
populations of each heading to specific
sub=populations that were never specified before. You
have restricted those that are considered for the
purpose of your challenge to not only members of a
formally organized group (e.g., the Democratic Party)
but to elected officials who are members of that
political party and not just the ordinary membership
of that political party or those who identify as
Democrats but are not formally members or participants
in the formal organization (e.g., ordinary voters who
identify as Democrats but have not direct affiliation
with the party and its machinery except to contribut
money to it and vote in elections for its
candidates). Similarly you have extended your
population of tea-partiers to those who are
informally or loosely associated with the loosely
defined tea-party movement , for want of a better
term, as well as those who are formally members of
formally organized and established tea-party
organizations. Moreover, you have arbitrarily
assigned several formally organized groups that may
have members who are part of or support the tea-party
movement and its members but which themselves do not
claim to be tea-party organizations or that all their
members are tea-partiers. Futhermore, none of the
formally associated people identified as formal
members of an established and organized tea-party
organization is an elected official who has actually
voted against funding the current war as opposed to
merely saying that they are willing to or would if
elected and placed in a position where they were given
the choice. As far as I know, neither Ron Paul or Tim
Johnson claim to be tea-partiers or formally belong to
a organized tea-party political party or established
tea-party organization. They are both Republicans, as
far as I know, and may have organized groups of people
who are their followers or they may associate or
affiliate with certain formal journals.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font face="Times New Roman">None
of this was specified in your original assertion but
only now are being specified. Somehow, you have
confirmed what Mort said you would do - changed the
nature of the assertion you made</font></font></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245,
245, 245);">
<div><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" target="_blank">C.
G. Estabrook</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:18 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="brussel@illinois.edu"
href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" target="_blank">Brussel</a>
</div>
<div class="im">
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss List</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP
Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">Mort--<br>
<br>
Make a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing
to vote against funding the current war, for example -
not just those who say "I'm against war." (Everyone is
for peace - on their own terms.)<br>
<br>
Send me your list, and I'll send you a longer one -
beginning with Ron Paul's and Justin Raimondo's people -
of those associated with the teapartiers who are against
this war. <br>
<br>
I remember, from a math class long ago, that this was a
way to prove the existence of multiple infinities, by a
process of iteration...<br>
<br>
Neither group is infinite, but they do differ in
magnitude. <br>
<br>
Furthermore, the ones I refer to are organized - into
Paul's R3VOLution, the Libertarian party, the
paleoconservatives around several journals - while there
is no organized Democratic party opposition to the
Democratic president and administration.<br>
<br>
Those of us with memories of a generation ago want to
believe that there is an anti-war movement on the left
wing of the Democratic party.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, no one's home. It's been Obama's great
contribution to the war effort to make that so. --CGE <br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/10 2:38 PM, Brussel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Karen,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ask Carl where he gets his data (re. his first
line below). Ask where most of the funding, who are
the biggest contributors, and where most of the PR
for the Tea party comes from. And so what conclusion
may one draw?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don't be surprised if he switches the subject,
refuses to answer, or cannot answer, because he
doesn't have reliable sources. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">Come on,
Karen. There are more anti-war teapartiers
than anti-war Democrats.<br>
<br>
Obama's co-option of the anti-war movement
meant that there is no parallel among the
Democrats to Ron Paul's movement of principled
opposition to the war, nor to that of
libertarians and paleoconservatives around the
website <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://antiwar.com/" target="_blank">Antiwar.com</a>
or the journal <i>The American Conservative</i>.
<br>
<br>
As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that fact.
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/10 9:30 AM, Karen Medina wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I did notice that there were very few "constitutionalists" around
before the scare tactic of "they are going to give health care to
undocumented immigrants" became popular.
Very few of the tea-partiers are in the anti-war movement.
All I am saying is that it is easy to count the ones that are consistent.
With the ones that are inconsistent, it is harder to count them, but
it is easy to tell if they have read the constitution.
-karen medina
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
<div class="im">
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>