Helping Code Pink "More Proof Ron Paul Supporters Are Not Conservative"

[moostraks]

You know, moostracks, if instead of going on the attack and personally insulting me, you would have spent your time trying to clarify what you were talking about, this would have gone a lot smoother. I never realized that you wanted to work in the Democratic Party instead. You should have just said that and I would have understood.

But, what I said in my initial post still stands. If we are trying to get a liberty candidate elected in the Republican Party, then it's not a good idea to carry a Code Pink sign in one hand and that candidate's sign in the other. In the same way, that holding a tea party sign while working for a Democratic liberty candidate wouldn't be bright either.

Is that fair?

It would be fair to those who want to work the other side. I still don't know where I fit. I am one of those left outside. I cannot support Republicans because of the war issue and I cannot support Democrats over the abortion issue. I guess I am irrelevant. I can see the damage being done when all we do here is argue over strategy and it breaks my heart because we get nowhere on the issues we agree upon. I wish you would reread my first post today to you and try to lighten up on me attacking you. I think you are so frustrated you see things that aren't there or I really am just too tired to be coherant...

 

[moostraks]

I edited my post, so you may want to go read that. But, I will remind you that this thread was about what may have happened at the REPUBLICAN National Convention; not the Democratic National Convention. So, you coming in here and having a temper tantrum because you do not want to work in the Republican Party is a complete FAIL.

lay off with the loaded words you really are just trying to push buttons...

eta...I don't think you heard some of the folks here but let me try again. They worked in the Republican party for the express purpose of getting Ron Paul elected. By sending Code Pink in (if in fact it was a RP supporter) they were attempting to teach a lesson in blowback. Initially I thought maybe as a means to be disruptiveand they were disgruntled Republicans and then yes you would be right but the more I thought over it there is a large possibility (if it were a RP supporter) that they were likewise looking to spit on the Republicans with a group they feel some alliance with, so strategy would be to use it for the two party wedge to make inroads elsewhere. It would send the message that the Republican party has lost supporters they could have had if they would have been respectful. Someone threw the first punch and it wasn't the RP supporters.

 

[angelatc]

Y

But, what I said in my initial post still stands. If we are trying to get a liberty candidate elected in the Republican Party, then it's not a good idea to carry a Code Pink sign in one hand and that candidate's sign in the other. In the same way, that holding a tea party sign while working for a Democratic liberty candidate wouldn't be bright either.

Boehner has referred to the TEA Party as a bunch of knuckle draggers, and heavens knows that there's a lot of people here who absolutely and immediately denounce anything the TEA Party does.

The problem is partially that because the Paul campaign is distancing themselves from the antiwar movement, the IVAW becomes irrelevant if they don't occasionally join forces with left-leaning anti war groups. There's no other anti-war candidate out there.

I have to wonder of Code Pink gets even 25% of the squawking from the left for hanging out with Kokesh.

 

[acptulsa]

Obama just had a 35 million mansion bought under the table by him in Oahu with the move in date being January 2013. You may be wrong in your assumptions.

This is the joint...

http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Hon...een-on-Hawaii-Five-0-Fantastic-Kailua-estate/

Rev9

Let's see. A retired president gets a pension of $191,300 per year. So, he should have it paid off in only 183 years--if he does without utilities and doesn't bother to pay his taxes.

I presume he has managed to get himself a food stamp card...

 

[moostraks]

I did not say that you said "the [R]epublican party was the [N]azi party."

I said that you "all but explicitly" accused a group of people of being the moral equivalent of Nazi collaborators (and then hypocritically criticized them for being judgemental - a point I notice you have completely ignored).

And that is *exactly* what you did. And you're doing it again here: "It [is] a matter of making a correlation between something most people find [...] morally repugnant [i.e., working within the Nazi party]" and working within the Republican party (whose behavior is "heinous").

You do not get to say that you "correlate" moral revulsion at the idea of working within the Nazi party with moral revulsion at the idea of working within the "heinous" Republican party - and then turn around and say that you are not implying that working within the Republican party is the moral equivalent of working within the Nazi party. That is *exactly* what you are implying, whether you wish to recognize it or not.

You also need to do some serious work on clarifying the antecedents of your pronouns. You use the word "they" three times in the same sentence to refer to two different groups of people. You also use the word "between" without follwing it, at some point, with a conjuction such as "and" (as in "between [something] and [something else]"). In fact, your whole second sentence is a wretchedly jumbled train-wreck of words. (These things make one look rather foolish when one presumes to lecture others on their reading comprehension skills.)

And just for the record: Yes. Yes, I might very well be willing to work within the Nazi party - if I thought I could do anything to mitigate or counteract its evil. Oskar Schindler did. So did John Rabe. So your attempt to play the Nazi card is a fail.

1-Point out the sentence you had a problem with as I am not seeing it. Sorry if I was not expressly clear. I reread the post you were arguing and I am not seeing the sentence to which you were referring. Usually I type while breatfeeding and it has been two years since I had a decent night's sleep. So clarity might be at a low point from time to time.
2-If you are repulsed by the analogy then it was effective at portraying the point. You are going in the weeds on your argument.
3-If you would work with the Nazi party and not feel repulsed by furthering their ideals for a few crumbs then your moral compass is so far off from mine we will never find agreement.

eta-I can describe the pain of childbirth by likening it to a horrible stomach ache in trying to describe the cramping. It does not diminish the strength of the women who give birth but rather brings something unfamiliar to a frame of reference that is familiar. Childbirth is not equivalent to stomach aches but they are similar.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Boehner has referred to the TEA Party as a bunch of knuckle draggers, and heavens knows that there's a lot of people here who absolutely and immediately denounce anything the TEA Party does.

Yes, they do. Personally, I think some of them are low-hanging fruit. But, whatever. It oftentimes seems strange to me that some of the same people on here (not you) who have ripped Republicans and anyone else who isn't a full-fledged libertarian, up one side and down the other, are so shocked when those same Republicans do not rollout the red carpet for them.

The problem is partially that because the Paul campaign is distancing themselves from the antiwar movement,

I didn't notice the campaign distancing themselves from being against war.

the IVAW becomes irrelevant if they don't occasionally join forces with left-leaning anti war groups. There's no other anti-war candidate out there.

Oh, I understand. But, it also makes them not very useful in getting through to Republicans. But, hopefully they are helpful in getting through to Dems and others.

I have to wonder of Code Pink gets even 25% of the squawking from the left for hanging out with Kokesh.

Didn't Kokesh just get through denouncing Ron Paul?

Assuming that didn't happen, I would imagine that there would have been plenty squawking if Ron Paul looked like he had a chance in hell and was pulling Democrats away from Obama.

 

[moostraks]

You can draft privates, but the breakdown is in the officer ranks, and the NCOs are getting screwed over in the process. The problem is in the organization with institutional structural failure, not in the lack of manpower. You can't draft equipment that is being used well beyond repair and rebuild cycles. That come back to point 1 - medium to large scale war is not sustainable because of the expense of the American way of war.

The thin blue line is really thin. Look at security for the conventions - they import police from several states, look at a major riot, and see how many agencies end up supplying personnel. The system can barely handle one major incident at a time. Escalate that by a factor of 3 or 4 and it breaks.

I understand the points you are making. I can also see that there is still some time before utter collapse would occur. So every death from wars promoted between now and when the collapse occurs is on the shoulders of those professing loyalty to the offending party.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I understand the points you are making. I can also see that there is still some time before utter collapse would occur. So every death from wars promoted between now and when the collapse occurs is on the shoulders of those professing loyalty to the offending party.

Actually, I think it would be on those people and anyone else who is not working to get the foreign policy changed.

 

[moostraks]

Actually, I think it would be on those people and anyone else who is not working to get the foreign policy changed.

I think it has become so wrapped up in the identity of the party(s). Each is bombing for their own reasons. May those who work to change foreign policy be blessed in their endeavors I just think it is a deciding factor for many who are looking at the short list of goals and don't want to be identified with promoting them. If I say I am from a particular party one immediately forms a mental identity. The whole purpose for membership is for furthering this identity. If there was more flux on this issue then anti war people would probably choose to affiliate more readily. It seems the anti war crowd is being silenced by ostracizing them.

 

[sanssq]

Left" and "Right", "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been distorted by the media and the political machines. Since the media loves big government, both "sides" now mean different versions of big government. Ironically, there is very little difference between these versions and thy both collaborate.

 

[FrankRep]

Left" and "Right", "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been distorted by the media and the political machines.

Those labels have no concrete definitions and their meanings change over time.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think it has become so wrapped up in the identity of the party(s). Each is bombing for their own reasons. May those who work to change foreign policy be blessed in their endeavors I just think it is a deciding factor for many who are looking at the short list of goals and don't want to be identified with promoting them. If I say I am from a particular party one immediately forms a mental identity. The whole purpose for membership is for furthering this identity. If there was more flux on this issue then anti war people would probably choose to affiliate more readily. It seems the anti war crowd is being silenced by ostracizing them.

I call myself a Ron Paul Republican. Anyone who would be asking me what political party I am in, would understand that designation.

Beyond that, I don't care what people think. I know who I am and for what I stand and do not need anyone's blessing.

 

[Revolution9]

Let's see. A retired president gets a pension of $191,300 per year. So, he should have it paid off in only 183 years--if he does without utilities and doesn't bother to pay his taxes.

I presume he has managed to get himself a food stamp card...

He got a huge slush fund of over 2 billion at The Vatican Banque. Food stamps are underwritten or whatever the fuck it is called.. by Goldman Sacks..so yeah..big food stamp card.

Rev9

 

[pcosmar]

Those labels have no concrete definitions and their meanings change over time.

Thank you. and I agree.

They are used as often to degenerate as to describe. And yes,, they have become pretty much meaningless.

 

[moostraks]

I call myself a Ron Paul Republican. Anyone who would be asking me what political party I am in, would understand that designation.

Beyond that, I don't care what people think. I know who I am and for what I stand and do not need anyone's blessing.

But you do care what they (rank and file Republicans) think about what other Ron Paul supporters do. You highlighted a portion of the thought but the point was in the unhighlighted text:

The whole purpose for membership is for furthering this identity.

They (rank and file repubs) want the brand of strength through force pushed. Antiwar is a sign of pacifism and weakness. They beat their chests and crow about American exceptionalism as a right to abuse others. You might want to change foreign policy but the so called liberty candidates in the party are even questionable on the issue. So as the republican party continues to beat the war drum a blooming membership implies some form of agreement with war policies and gives the perception that the public agrees with their behavior and that in turn draws like to like. This is in part why many are leaving the party. There was one antiwar candidate and if membership drops maybe it can signify a true disgust from the public kwim?

 

[Occam's Banana]

1-Point out the sentence you had a problem with as I am not seeing it.

HERE "It was a matter of making a correlation between something most people find so morally repugnant they would not want to associate with it because they cannot seem to be able to grasp the reaction of those who do not want to associate with the republican party because of how heinous they view the republican partiy's behavior."

2-If you are repulsed by the analogy then it was effective at portraying the point. You are going in the weeds on your argument.

I am not repulsed by the analogy and it wasn't effective at illustrating anything (except your intense dislike of the Republican party - which I happen to share, BTW).

HERE you (1) implied that working in the Republican party is morally equivalent to working in the Nazi party and (2) chided other people for "casting judgement."

THEN I pointed out that you were being hypocritical (because you yourself were "casting judgement" by using the Nazi analogy - while telling other people not to cast judgement).

THEN you claimed that you had not implied what I said you had implied.

THEN I pointed out (1) that you *had* implied it, whether you realized it or not, and (2) that you *still* hadn't adressed my original point (about hypocrisy).

So I am not clear on what "weeds" you think I have gotten into.

3-If you would work with the Nazi party and not feel repulsed by furthering their ideals for a few crumbs then your moral compass is so far off from mine we will never find agreement.

Who said anything about not feeling repulsed?

Oskar Schindler was a well-connected, influence-wielding member of the Nazi party. He was disgusted & horrified by what the Nazis were doing. And it is *precisely* because of the fact that he *was* a member of the Nazi party that he was able to use his connections & influence to save the lives of over a thousand Jews.

Do you dismiss the lives of over 1,000 human beings as nothing more than "a few crumbs?" If you are really serious about what you said above, then you must.

Do you think that Schindler should have given in to his feelings of repulsion, and that he should have quit (or never have joined) the Nazi party - thereby dooming over 1,000 men, women & children to horrible deaths? If you are really serious about what you said above, then you must.

If your moral compass tells you that Oskar Schindler ought to have refused to have anything at all to do with the Nazi party once he realized just how evil it was - well, then, I guess you're right: your moral compass is so far off from mine that we are virtually on seperate planets.

Running away from evil because you are repulsed by it is not moral - it's cowardly.

 

[moostraks]

HERE "It was a matter of making a correlation between something most people find so morally repugnant they would not want to associate with it because they cannot seem to be able to grasp the reaction of those who do not want to associate with the republican party because of how heinous they view the republican partiy's behavior."



I am not repulsed by the analogy and it wasn't effective at illustrating anything (except your intense dislike of the Republican party - which I happen to share, BTW).

HERE you (1) implied that working in the Republican party is morally equivalent to working in the Nazi party and (2) chided other people for "casting judgement."

THEN I pointed out that you were being hypocritical (because you yourself were "casting judgement" by using the Nazi analogy - while telling other people not to cast judgement).

THEN you claimed that you had not implied what I said you had implied.

THEN I pointed out (1) that you *had* implied it, whether you realized it or not, and (2) that you *still* hadn't adressed my original point (about hypocrisy).

So I am not clear on what "weeds" you think I have gotten into.



Who said anything about not feeling repulsed?

Oskar Schindler was a well-connected, influence-wielding member of the Nazi party. He was disgusted & horrified by what the Nazis were doing. And it is *precisely* because of the fact that he *was* a member of the Nazi party that he was able to use his connections & influence to save the lives of over a thousand Jews.

Do you dismiss the lives of over 1,000 human beings as nothing more than "a few crumbs?" If you are really serious about what you said above, then you must.

Do you think that Schindler should have given in to his feelings of repulsion, and that he should have quit (or never have joined) the Nazi party - thereby dooming over 1,000 men, women & children to horrible deaths? If you are really serious about what you said above, then you must.

If your moral compass tells you that Oskar Schindler ought to have refused to have anything at all to do with the Nazi party once he realized just how evil it was - well, then, I guess you're right: your moral compass is so far off from mine that we are virtually on seperate planets.

Running away from evil because you are repulsed by it is not moral - it's cowardly.

Wow what a waste of my time this is! I already explained how making a point by using something most people can reference is not the same as saying the issues are equal but merely similar in reactions. Do you think saying a stomach ache is like labor pains makes the two matters equal? I am still not equating the two matters but merely the revulsion (the reaction) in question to give a frame of reference for posters who cannot seem to get why their particular chosen path is so uncoscionable to others. It ain't hypocritical to tell others to have peace on their path and wish them luck (as I have) while disagreeing with their decision and asking for them to be less judgemental of others. (And for the record I have been sitting on the fence about the GOP. It is people who keep making such a stink over loyalty that have me evaluating the issue on many levels. Well, that and some exposure again to rank and file republicans that nauseate me...)

The sentence you are complaining about causing confusion was after the point you made in which you were confusing matters. So your reading comprehension problem was on something that was written clearly. As a person who usually goes to some length to be clear, I screw up on a sentence like that once in a blue moon, in the midst of what I do while posting, well, I am surprised it ain't more often. That was pretty ugly, I will give you that...Lol! Most of the theys are consistent but the thought was a running stream of conscience without a reread before posting. Sue me...

Your point about Schindler is an interesting one. However, (*my opinion alert*) joining evil makes one culpable for the evil to which one has allied with no matter how much justification you try to make for the position. How much harm one does by going along with certain grey issues to get in a position of respect such that one can be trusted and then perform the big switcheroo is the problem. Respected guest of the SS doesn't get to be so without having the ability to stroke feathers. How much harm that ego stroking could be traced to have caused may outweigh how one views the good done. We each seek our path in this world in this world and have different opinions on how we should operate. We (you and I) are on two different pages.

BTW it ain't running away when one chooses to not support a bad group and it certainly isn't cowardly. Talk about peer pressure!

 

[pcosmar]

Code Pink Protesting at DNC.
First stories,, because you asked,,

A surreal start to the Democratic National Convention
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/slideshow/A-surreal-start-to-the-Democratic-National-48386.php
http://www.wbtv.com/story/19439038/protesters-gather-in-frazier-park-prepare-to-march-into-uptown
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/200213/2/Protestors-March-In-Charlotte-Ahead-of-DNC

Others marched for peace. Alli McCracken with CODEPINK traveled to Charlotte after protesting at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

"It's time to get the corporate money out of politics and end the wars abroad. We need to hold the Obama Administration accountable for all the wars he is perpetuating that started in the Bush Administration," said McCracken.

I'm sure there will be more.

 

[AuH20]

But you do care what they (rank and file Republicans) think about what other Ron Paul supporters do. You highlighted a portion of the thought but the point was in the unhighlighted text:


They (rank and file repubs) want the brand of strength through force pushed. Antiwar is a sign of pacifism and weakness. They beat their chests and crow about American exceptionalism as a right to abuse others. You might want to change foreign policy but the so called liberty candidates in the party are even questionable on the issue. So as the republican party continues to beat the war drum a blooming membership implies some form of agreement with war policies and gives the perception that the public agrees with their behavior and that in turn draws like to like. This is in part why many are leaving the party. There was one antiwar candidate and if membership drops maybe it can signify a true disgust from the public kwim?

It actually is quite honestly. It's the equivalent to hanging a sign outside your door proclaiming that there is a plenty of jewelry inside and that you are unarmed. Only a fool would rashly commit themselves prematurely to either absolute position, whether it be dove or neocon intellectual. Go start looking for fights around the world and you're bound to run into a superior opponent. Cower from the sight of your own shadow and you're bound to sheared in time by a nearby predator. That's why I am not anti-war. I classify myself more as an anti-imperialist.

 

[moostraks]

It actually is quite honestly. It's the equivalent to hanging a sign outside your door proclaiming that there is a plenty of jewelry inside and that you are unarmed. Only a fool would rashly commit themselves prematurely to either absolute position, whether it be dove or neocon intellectual. Go start looking for fights around the world and you're bound to run into a superior opponent. Cower from the sight of your own shadow and you're bound to sheared in time by a nearby predator. That's why I am not anti-war. I classify myself more as an anti-imperialist.

Pacifism is being so antiwar you would allow self harm not the same thing but they do have similar goals an end to the war violence. So all pacifists would be antiwar but not all antiwar would be pacifists. If I cannot trust my government why should I offer myself or my children based upon their word the fight is necessary? The cowards are those that wage wars because they lack the intellect to work out disagreements through a means other than brute force. The non-resistant believers came to America and were able to survive without weapons and violence and continue to thrive to this day.

"Of the tyrant, spies and informers are the principal instruments. War is his favorite occupation, for the sake of engrossing the attention of the people, and making himself necessary to them as their leader."
-- Aristotle (384-322 BC)