Antiwar.com NEEDS HELP!
I spoke with a worker from the website Antiwar.com They have interviewed Ron Paul and published some of his Op-Eds. Antiwar.com is committed to the promotion of non-interventionist foreign policy through news articles and education.
However, according to a worker from Antiwar.com, they are loosing support from many of their large donors because they are publishing too many articles criticizing Barack Obama's foreign policy. Antiwar.com was kind of stuck in a moral dilemma about whether to "go easy" on Obama in order to maintain support form their large donors, or speak the truth and do the right thing and publish articles about Obama's interventionist foreign policy beliefs. Because Antiwar.com chose to do the right thing, they are now struggling for funding.
Please go to Antiwar.com and make a small donation and promote non-interventionist foreign policy.
Don't give Raimondo and company a penny.
I'm still angry at his insolent dismissal of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin in his October 31, 2008 column, where he endorsed Ralph Nader:
"As it is, the Paulian movement foundered, and became entangled in a sectarian battle with the Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr, over matters too inconsequential to detail. Instead of uniting the freedom movement, in his post-primary mode Paul and his organization, the Campaign for Liberty, divided his followers by endorsing the obscure Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the idiosyncratic Constitution Party–some of whose top officials and activists were key Paul campaign advisors.
Barr’s arrogance and ultra-sectarian attitude did nothing to help the situation, but there was no need for Paul to take such an unnecessary revenge. The smallness of the whole sorry affair is what makes it so pathetic–and it’s a tragedy that the Paul movement had to end this way, at least in this phase of its development. Since none of these candidates and parties conducted themselves with anything approaching wisdom, neither deserves the votes of serious conservative and libertarian activists–because we deserve better."
No WE deserve better than this sorry lot of ego-driven, leftward-leaning editorialists who call themselves 'libertarians'.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I was about to criticiz readers for not bumping this thread but
thanks for the warning. I thought Raimondo grew over his ego. I was mad at him when he endorsed Obama during the primaries and thought after the recent Obama criticisms that he grew up but I guess Raimondo is still Raimondo's own worst enemy.
Im not going to tell people not to donate but I now know better than telling people to actually donate
_____
Action is what defines men
_____
Action is what defines men
I Believe Your Missing the Point!
Antiwar.com's mission statement is as follows:
"This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight against intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency. We applied the same principles to Clinton's campaigns in Haiti and Kosovo and bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasized, "it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that nature includes an ever increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power."http://antiwar.com/who.php
In other words, the website is only committed to non-interventionist foreign policy. The website isn't focused on any one particular political ideology (ie. libertarianism). The website has 11 major columnists and many, many, many, other additional columnists (including Ron Paul himself). Those columnists only have non-intervention in common, their other political philosophies vary from libertarian, pacifist, "greens" and leftists just like the mission statement says. The idea is about unity! I don't personally agree with Ralph Nader, Green party, leftists, or the Constitution Party on a variety of issues. But I don't hold it against a website or publication that expresses those views.
To hold a grudge against Antiwar.com just because one of their many columnists, Justin Raimondo, who posted an Op-Ed that didn't disagree with Ron Paul's political views (which is what's really important) but just disagreed on his political STRATEGY about how to advance his cause is, to me, just silly and childish.
Allow me to quote again,
Allow me to quote again, since it's clear you simply do not understand:
"...there was no need for Paul to take such an unnecessary revenge. The smallness of the whole sorry affair is what makes it so pathetic–and it’s a tragedy that the Paul movement had to end this way..."--that isn't a criticism of STRATEGY.
It's an attack on Ron Paul--his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr was "pathetic", showed "smallness" on his part, and was "a sorry affair". And in case you weren't paying attention, he strongly implied that the Ron Paul movement is over.
There's nothing 'childish' about holding the S.O.B. accountable for foolish quotations he made in print less than one month ago.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I interpret that quote as
I interpret that quote as presented as a criticism of a strategy. It is a strategic decision when candidates endorse other candidates. Ron Paul's decision to diffuse his movement across the entire 3rd party political spectrum instead of focusing it on a single political party or candidate is also a strategic decision. Ron Paul's later decision to endorse Chuck Baldwin was also strategic. It is strategic because it is an attempt to persuade his followers to make the same decisions. Otherwise, there would be no point in making endorsements. Ron Paul would just cast his vote in November quietly just like most Americans. That was my point.
Also, my MAIN point was that this post was about supporting Antiwar.com because it does a lot to promote non-intervention on the internet. Then you complain about ONE article out of THOUSANDS of articles that was written by ONE columnist out of MANY (including Ron Paul himself) on Antiwar.com. Your attempt to attack Antiwar.com because of one article is childish. That would be like me saying that I can no longer support Ron Paul because some of his supporters are idiots (and some really are).
Bump...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6pAcBXt2j8
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world."
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
I enjoyed the video! Thanks
I enjoyed the video! Thanks for the bump. It takes real moral courage for Antiwar.com to stand up against it's large donors who believe they are non-interventionists by supporting Barack Obama. They don't seem to understand that Obama is pro-war because his large donors are pro-war. If Antiwar.com changes its message because their large donors want them to, then they are no different than the political status quo that they are fighting against. Fortunately, Antiwar.com realizes this and decided to not back down with their criticisms of Barack Obama; even if that means loosing a lot of financial support and getting into the red ink.
The man is trying to nominate Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for crying out loud. That shows loud and clear how committed he is to non-intervention and peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4&eurl=http://www.r...