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

[Laurie Solomon]

>Are you seriously suggesting that Ron Paul and his followers aren't part of the Teaparty movement??

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.

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.  

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).





From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:33 PM
To: Laurie Solomon 
Cc: Brussel ; Peace-discuss List 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups


Are you seriously suggesting that Ron Paul and his followers aren't part of the Teaparty movement??

Aren't you reduced to a no-true-Scotchman argument?

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.

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...


On 10/21/10 4:21 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote: 
  >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.)

  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.

  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.

  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





  From: C. G. Estabrook 
  Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:18 PM
  To: Brussel 
  Cc: Peace-discuss List 
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups


  Mort--

  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.)

  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. 

  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...

  Neither group is infinite, but they do differ in magnitude.  

  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.

  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.

  Unfortunately, no one's home.  It's been Obama's great contribution to the war effort to make that so.  --CGE 


  On 10/21/10 2:38 PM, Brussel wrote: 
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101022/fdd69c47/attachment-0001.html>