gdp's Comments

Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette : Angela Keaton

Wed, 25 May 2011 12:03:29 +0000

I would support antiwar.com, except that Justin Raimundo, friend of human freedom, has banned me making comments.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : The Conservative Awakening

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:04:18 +0000

Just to hammer in the nail, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Teabaggers, who are now running the Republican Party, are in any way, shape or form opposed to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Antiwar.com Blog : Ron Paul on the Effects of Our Wars

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:00:55 +0000

So why, if he believes all this, is he a member of George Bush's political party (not that Barack Obama's is any better)? And how about a bit of a backhand to the military industrial complex that keeps it all going.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : The Conservative Awakening

Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:22:51 +0000

Justin, next time you see one of your old math teachers, ask for your money back because you can't add. 24% of conservatives "believe we should continue to provide the current level of troops to properly execute the war." 39% believe we can reduce the troop lelevels but continue to fight the war effectively. That means that a whopping 63% of all conservatives believe we should continue the current policy of mass murder. And it's interesting that 65% of Teabaggers hold the same set of opinions. And non-Teabagging conservatives the figure is 61%. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a consensus among conservatives that the killing should go on. They'd just like it a little cheaper.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Getting Beyond 'Left' and 'Right'

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:32:49 +0000

What kind of insane racist are you. Crawl back in your hole and go to sleep.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : The Biggest Threat to America

Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:49:37 +0000

So Justin labor and labors and comes up with the biggest threat to America is (really) capitalism! Any socialist teenager can tell you that. The Federal Reserve and all the ponderous mechanisms of control or noncontrol, are endemic to capitalism itself. Capitalism requires a state to regulate itself: something larger and more powerful than the corporations in order to regulate them for their own good. Sort of like a playground monitor. Any notion that capitalism has fastened on itself a leech called "the state" is a fantasy.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Anti-Interventionism, Then and Now

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:23:38 +0000

Justin says: "The League was a left-right coalition, along the lines of what I envision for the antiwar movement of today." That's not what you said previously. You said, above, "... go and look up the Anti-Imperialist League, who opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies -- they were all laissez-faire libertarian types" No "all" means "all." Not "some" or "two or three." You distorted the facts. "Two prominent leaders of the League, Moorfield Storey and Edward Atkinson, were officials of the League as well as prominent advocates of laissez-faire." Okay. But, again, you said "all." You deliberately attempted to portray the Anti-imperialist League and the mugwumps as hot-beds of laissez-faire when they were no such thing. "For a more complete version of the League's history and activities I refer you to my talk archived on the Mises Institute web site, "Anti-Interventionism in American Politics, 1898 to the Present Day." I listened to it. It contains serious distortions of history. If you provide a transcript, I'll point them out. Just for openers, it fails to point out that (1) the most consistent opposition to US imperialism is the Left, not the Right. And (2) it completely shuts out the racism, anti-labor and pro-capitalism of the Right. You're ideal of an anti-interventionist movement is the America First Committee. I would think twice about that. (Yeah, I know about Norman Thomas.) Also, you scant the organized anti-war movement, such as the War Resisters League, Woman's International league for Peace and Freedom, etc. Not too many laissez-faire types there. As to the Anti-imperialist League being a left-right coalition, this was a period when American politics as reflecting the American class system, was considerably more fluid than currently. It was not difficult for a movement to straddle the Bryan Democrats, the AIL, the Populists, the Socialist Party even the mugwumps (if you're Mark Twain). If you think that the Left is going to go into a coalition with the Right, which opposes every value the Left holds, because the Right, this week, opposes the current US intervention, you are sadly mistaken.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Anti-Interventionism, Then and Now

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:46:14 +0000

So let's take a look at what Justin said, above: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing -- go and look up the Anti-Imperialist League, who opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies -- they were all laissez-faire libertarian types, known as "mugwumps," and expressed all sorts of politically incorrect views that cardboard cut-out "progressives" of today would find appalling." A little knowledge is indeed dangerous, especially when it's dead wrong. (1) He says that the Anti-Imperialist League "opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies." Correct. Cool. (2) He then says that "they were all laissez-faire libertarian types." I assume he means the members of the Anti-imperialist League. Well, first of all, the AIL had about half a million members at its peak, so I don't know how Justin knows that "they were all laissez-faire libertarian types." Secondly, if you look at the leadership of the AIL, it included a bunch of people, including such "types" as Jane Addams, Mark Twain, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, William Dean Howells and Samuel Gompers. None of them, of course, were "laissez-faire libertarian types." in addition, W.E.B. DuBois and Frederick Douglass wrote for the AIL. Neither of them are known to be ... . So, incorrect. Not cool. (3) Then we get to the mugwumps themselves, who were involved with the AIL. If you look at the prominent mugwumps: Charles Francis Adams Jr., Henry Adams, Carl Schurz, Andrew Carnegie, William Graham Sumner and Mark Twain, none of them could be said to be "laissez-faire libertarian types," except perhaps for Sumner. One of the reasons Justin mentions the mugwumps's "all sorts of politically incorrect views" is that most of them were racist to the core. So, incorrect. Not cool at all.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Anti-Interventionism, Then and Now

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:33:34 +0000

Justin I pointed out some big fat mistakes you made in your article. How about a response?

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Anti-Interventionism, Then and Now

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:46:10 +0000

Your revisionist history deserves a full reply, but let's start by getting a few facts straight. In your attempt to cast libertarianism back to Adam, you claim that the Anti-Imperialist League was composed of "laissez-faire libertarian types, known as "mugwumps.'" That statement is false on two accounts: first of all, there were many prominent leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League who were not mugwumps. These include Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers, William James, William Dean Howells, John Dewey and Edgar Lee Masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Imperialist_Lea... And, there were plenty of mugwumps who were far from being "laissez-faire libertarian types," including Henry Adams, Carl Schurz and Mark Twain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugwump We'll deal with the right-wing support for every war the US has ever been in, plus its active racism and flirtations with fascism, love of McCarthyism, etc., quite soon.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Anti-Interventionism, Then and Now

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:01:07 +0000

I love it: Raimundo still can't tell the difference between a liberal, a stalinist and a leftist. He's worried that his precious Right is being taken over by foaming-at-the-mouth tea baggers, so he concocts a revisionist history of the antiwar movement, with the Right as the heroes. Well, he deserves to be answered at length, and this isn't the place. I'm only an amateur, but I'll try to write something for, say, Counterpunch.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Clegg!

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:17:58 +0000

I guess Justin will never stop looking for a savior inside the ruling class. Clegg is just one more capitalist shill who will continue the policies of his predecessors.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Populism, Left and Right

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:06:18 +0000

Let start with the observation that the Left and Liberalism are the same thing. Liberals I'll define, badly, as "compassionate capitalists." Keep the banks and corporations, but spank them ever so lightly after they get their trillions. The Left is socialist. We do not believe in the preservation of capitalism, with or without compassion. Confusion between these two political groups is just one of the many pieces of foolishness in this latest piece by JR.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:41 +0000

Socialism is a society run democratically (not Democratically) by the working class. How then can you define the Democratic party as a party of any kind of socialism? Where are you getting your definition?

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:57:59 +0000

(1) Leaving abortion to the states means that in reactionary states women would be deprived of this right, which in turn undermines this right for all women. He's hiding behind states rights, which is a typical right-wing dodge. (2) Sigh. I've heard this "right of association" BS since the 50s. It's a fig leaf to cover racism. It's a question of values. For the Right, property rights trump civil rights. (3) The current crisis has its roots in massive speculation based on the removal of curbs on this kind of activity and a genuine loss of oversight. I don't read much Rothbard or Mises. I put them in the same category as Howard Scott and Alfred Lawson as guides to economics. (4) As an elector, he could have stood up against the stolen election by doing anything other than what he did. (5) Yeah. As a recipient of social security, small though the amount is, and medicare, weak though it is, I appreciate the defense they give me against the rapaciousness of this country's economic system. You got a problem with that?

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:32:09 +0000

I'd still like to know why people think that Ron Paul is some kind of apostle of whatever. (1) RP opposes a woman's right to abortion; (2) RP opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act renewal; (3) RP failed to oppose the repeal of the Glass-Stiegel Act, which led to the current economic crisis; (4) RP as an elector in 2000, voted for the bogus presidency for George Bush; (5) RP wants to abolish social security.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:58:03 +0000

It's clear that you and Ron Paul have a notion of rights that let's Paul off the hook for his backwards and disgraceful political positions. Paul was also against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was against a woman's right to control her own body with regard to abortion.

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:07:47 +0000

For people who don't think Ron Paul is a shill for the Establishment, just remember that he was an elector from the State of Texas in 2000 when the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to George Bush. He could have very easily protested at that time. But remember what he did: he voted to seat George Bush. "Americans, [Ron Paul] said, ["]have misunderstood the definition of "rights," which are God-given and include "life, liberty and the right to keep the fruits of our labor." Those rights include neither education nor health care.["] http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul657.html

Antiwar.com Original Articles : Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:51:38 +0000

I believe that libertarians have as many fantasies about Paul as liberals have about Obama. Paul is a thoroughly compromised capitalist politician. His complaint about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is at root that they are damaging capitalism. He is a racist, anti-abortion, and has spent his life helping the Establishment run its game. The big boys are a little peaked right now, so Doc Paul will make a home visit if requested. When he quits the Tweedledee (or is it Tweedledum) capitalist party, starts supporting strikes, calls for the nationalization of the banks and resistance to and roll-back of foreclosures, he might be worth llistening to. For the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_... RED DAVE