<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000
CanvasTabStop="true" name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>><FONT face="Times New Roman">Are you seriously
suggesting that Ron Paul and his followers aren't part of the Teaparty
movement??</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">No, I am not suggesting
that he and his followers are not part of the Tea-party movement ( I do not know
if any of them are or if all or what proportion of them are). What I am
suggesting is that the general movement is not a formally organized and
established organizational entity, for starters, I am suggesting that - to
the best of my knowledge, which I admit is limited - Ron Paul and all of his
followers are not formally members of or formally identify as being affiliated
with any formally established and structurally organized group that is named or
claims to be a formal Tea party organization, which is the criteria you set
forth for defining a Democrat. To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul
identifies with and belongs as a member to the formal Republican Party
organization, which is not formally identical to or affiliated with the existing
formal Tea-party organizations.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">I am not reduced to a
"no-true-Scotchman argument" if I no longer stay within the parameters of what
you have set forth as the arena for making arguments. You have changed the
definition of the argumentation from a very broad general assertion which you
later changed to more specifically defined assertion as set forth in your
challenge to Mort. On the one hand, you limit your definition of Democrats
to those who are officially and formally members of an organized group while
defining tea-partiers as being those persons who may be informally associated
with a relatively unorganized and unstructured mass movement. In addition,
you focus on elected officials or candidates who are formally members of the
Democratic Party organization or organizations when speaking of Democrats,
whereas you focus on people who are not necessarily elected officials or
candidates or even formally members of an organized and
identifiable tea-party organizations when you talk of tea-partiers.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">We can probably identify
the exact number of individuals who identify with the Democratic Party and are
defined as members of that party so as to determine the exact number of said
individuals who are anti-war; but can we do that with respect to individuals who
identify with the tea-party movement so as to determine the exact number of said
individuals who are anti-war. The same can be said with respect to elected
officials or candidates vis-à-vis their respective formally organized group or
organizational memberships. I do not accept saying that an elected
official or candidate that claims to be a tea-party supporter counts as a
tea-party membership if they run as a Republican or under the Republican Party
banner (or a Democrat or under the Democratic Party banner).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=galliher@illinois.edu
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:33 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:ls1000@live.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">Laurie Solomon</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A
title="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu">Brussel</A> ; <A
title="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">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><BR></DIV>Are you seriously suggesting that Ron Paul and his followers
aren't part of the Teaparty movement??<BR><BR>Aren't you reduced to a
no-true-Scotchman argument?<BR><BR>Look, I really wish there were a serious
antiwar movement on the left of the Democratic party. But there
isn't. Obama has seen to that.<BR><BR>If we want to oppose the war, we
have to talk to other people who oppose the war, not wait for liberal Myrmidons
to leap from the ground...<BR><BR><BR>On 10/21/10 4:21 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL119-DS14AF997FB385F5310197C5BD5D0@phx.gbl type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671">
<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><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><FONT face=Calibri><BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: rgb(245,245,245)">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">C. G. Estabrook</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:18 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=brussel@illinois.edu
href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">Brussel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A
title="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">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><BR></DIV>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 cite=mid:66CABF1F-FA73-42B4-B68E-0A247FA7D0B0@illinois.edu
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
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<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
href="http://Antiwar.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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
cite=mid:AANLkTimcYfa1ye2PA0=B1rvtp2Jsk+Zx-rSHUtJ=-gy7@mail.gmail.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">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 class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing
list<BR><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>