[Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia andRacist Groups

Thu Oct 21 23:59:01 CDT 2010

You, ah, didn't answer the question...

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:50:15 -0500
>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia 
andRacist Groups  
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>Cc: Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>, Peace-discuss List <peace-
discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>   Again, no honest answer!  Same old rhetorical
>   gambit. 
>   Incidentally, they came out by the millions in
>   Obama's election. 
>   What is a Democrat? Someone who voted for Obama?
>   Someone who favors Gill? Someone who wants to vote
>   for Kucinich? Your evidently have only your own
>   bizarre/perverse definition. Perhaps you would
>   reveal it?. 
>   --mkb
>   On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:34 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>     Do you think that there are more anti-war
>     Democrats than anti-war teapartiers?
>
>     If so, where are they?
>
>     On 10/21/10 11:22 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>
>       Of course he has no data. Need one say more? 
>       --mkb
>       On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Laurie Solomon
>       wrote:
>
>         Actually, I will give him the benefit of the
>         doubt about having empirical supporting data
>         to back up his assertion that "There are more
>         anti-war teapartiers than anti-war Democrats"
>         ask for the exact number of tea-partiers there
>         actually are as compared to the exact number
>         of Democrat there actually are and the exact
>         number and percentage of those total number of
>         tea-partiers that are anti-war as compared
>         with the same for total Democrats and anti-war
>         Democrats.  If he has the empirical data (as
>         opposed to opinion or speculation) to support
>         his statement that "There are more anti-war
>         teapartiers than anti-war Democrats", he
>         surely will have no trouble supplying me with
>         the numbers and percentages as well as citing
>         the sources of that data.
>          
>         As for his statement, "As an (actual)
>         socialist, I deplore that fact", I cannot
>         question the part where he says he deplores
>         that fact ; but with respect to the first part
>         of the statement, I would suggest that he is
>         no more an  "actual socialist"
>         philosophically, ideologically, or practically
>         than he is a race horse, a palm tree, or a
>         rocket ship except in his own mind and his
>         self-attaching the label to himself and his
>         beliefs.  To be sure, his believes may contain
>         some elements drawn from the socialist
>         tradition and some of his actions may have a
>         socialist element to them; but that does not
>         make him an "actual socialist" whatever the
>         hell that means any more than standing in a
>         garage makes one an automobile.
>         From: Brussel
>         Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:38 PM
>         To: C. G. Estabrook
>         Cc: Peace-discuss List
>         Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report
>         Ties Tea Party to Militia andRacist Groups
>         Karen,
>         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?
>         Don't be surprised if he switches the subject,
>         refuses to answer, or cannot answer, because
>         he doesn't have reliable sources. 
>         --mkb
>         On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook
>         wrote:
>
>           Come on, Karen. There are more anti-war
>           teapartiers than anti-war Democrats.
>
>           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 Antiwar.com or the
>           journal The American Conservative.
>
>           As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that
>           fact.
>
>           On 10/21/10 9:30 AM, Karen Medina wrote:
>
> 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
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>           _______________________________________________
>           Peace-discuss mailing list
>           Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>           http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>     ------------------------------------------------
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Peace-discuss mailing list
>         Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>         http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss