The Coffee Party in the focus.

[grannywils]

I know, and I apologize to everyone. I happened to have it on my desktop, and I did not know how much time I had, so I just copied and pasted it. Ordinarily I would not have done it that way. Sorry for any inconvenience. I was sending it to someone else, and it was just sitting on my desktop. Please forgive me.

[evilneko]

"we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

 

That's not a disturbing statement. Far from it.

 

That's just what political groups DO.

 

Meanwhile, here's a beauty of a quote about the Coffee Party...

 

From a right-wing mouthpiece who, from the sound of things, hasn't even looked into the Coffee Party.

 

If the Coffee Party's dangerous, then the Tea Party is the invading Mongol hordes. The Coffee Party's centrist position, while appealing to the disillusioned, is pretty much useless.

[JimboUK]

"we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

 

That's not a disturbing statement. Far from it.

 

That's just what political groups DO.

 

Meanwhile, here's a beauty of a quote about the Coffee Party...

 

From a right-wing mouthpiece who, from the sound of things, hasn't even looked into the Coffee Party.

 

If the Coffee Party's dangerous, then the Tea Party is the invading Mongol hordes. The Coffee Party's centrist position, while appealing to the disillusioned, is pretty much useless.

 

It's a very disturbing statement, suggesting a nations leader should not be obstructed is the sort of thing you'd hear in a dictatorship. Obstruction is a duty for the those who represent people with opposing views to the executive, there's no point in sending them to the capital if they just go along with the government when they get there.

[grannywils]

I think we may be discussing a matter of semantics here. To say someone will be held accountable for something (in this case "opposition) does not suggest that he should not be allowed to oppose. To me it implies that he will be expected to be able to back up his words/accusations/complaints with viable either proof/alternative suggestions, etc. depending on the opposition in question. I agree that in a democracy there is always room for opposing voices. What I believe is being referred to here is obstructionist behaviour. I also believe an awful lot of time is being spent on that one sentence which then tends to avoid many more important issues with respect to the people's rights and duties to become more involved, yes Aurielius on a "grass roots" level (in spite of your backside) on both sides of the aisle in order to determine just what will help us get back to where we wanted to be when we formed this "more perfect union".

[evilneko]

Got it in one, Granny. Following through on one's campaign promises, whether or not I particularly agree with them, is an admirable thing in a politician. Making promises and then forgetting them once in office is definitely something politicians should be held accountable for. All too often however, the people who put that guy in office have also forgotten the promises.

[ginnyfizz]

Got it in one, Granny. Following through on one's campaign promises, whether or not I particularly agree with them, is an admirable thing in a politician. Making promises and then forgetting them once in office is definitely something politicians should be held accountable for. All too often however, the people who put that guy in office have also forgotten the promises.

 

Oh come on, how often can you say that you agree with the entire manifesto of the party you vote for? If you really think that politicians tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they are trying to get elected (after all, Obama didn't) then you are very naive. And you have not been following my argument AT ALL, just not listening. My issue is with the

 

"and hold accountable those who obstruct them."

 

It is the duty of oppositions to oppose and obstruct, and it is just plain WRONG to even talk about holding opposition to account. That is, where the opposition is via peaceful means in the legislative chamber and via the media. If you go into politics, people are going to say rude things about you. Violent opposition is a different matter entirely. I will keep urging you to look at the consequences of governing in the manner advocated by the Coffee Party as they were put into practice by the Blair aka Bliar government in Britain, until I am blue in the face. As advocated by the Coffee Party, they thought that once elected that meant that they could do whatever the hell they liked. Whenever they could, they got measures put into law by executive order rather than debating on the floor of the Houses Of Parliament. When they had no option but to allow a debate and were handed their asses by the Upper House, the House Of Lords, they invoked the Parliament Act, which allowed them to bypass the view of the House of Lords and pass the legislation. By convention this should only be done in matters of national importance or where the security of the realm is at stake. The Bliar government did it in order to pass the bill to ban hunting with dogs.

 

- They took us to war in Iraq on the basis of lies and fabricated evidence, and without full debate and a vote in the House. We were not threatened with invasion, so yep there WAS time for such a debate.

- They turned Britain into a virtual police state, the Metropolitan Police in particular becoming little more than their stormtroopers. Yes, I personally have had one of their goons wrap his baton around my head for demonstrating in support of hunting, and literally all I was shouting was "No ban!". But I suppose I should count myself lucky that I didn't get shot eight times in the head like poor Mr Menezes.

 

- And back to just what they did to Dr Kelly, who popped up his head and cast doubt on the so called "evidence" for Saddam's WMD. This distinguished scientist was vilified, harassed, spied upon and attempts made in every way to discredit his integrity. Just for his daring to oppose the Government. He was found dead and it was said that it was suicide, but they made sure there was only a rigged enquiry rather than a coroner's inquest. No-one believes the truth has come out and a growing number of medics (who are sceptical that he could have slashed his wrists with the lack of blood at the scene) and politicians are now calling for an inquest.

 

THIS, my friends, is what happens when opposition is "held to account". In practice, it is CRUSHED. The Coffee Party seem to me to be advocates of totalitarianism, and THEY are the dangerous ones.

[grannywils]

Ginnyfizz: As you get to know me better you will know that I am the last one who will want to bring up the GW Bush years, but what you have just described is in large part exactly what went on in this country under Mr. Bush. It is not what is going on under Mr. Obama. However, I know that is not really what we are discussing. We are back to that "hold accountable those who obstruct" language. Since I have pointed out that I do not know enough yet about the Coffee Party, may I have your permission to extract some of your question regarding this matter and take it to one of the Coffee Party sites and pose it myself. I would like to clarify this matter for myself. Please let me know. Thanks

[ginnyfizz]

By all means, Grannywils, that is no problem at all!

[grannywils]

By all means, Grannywils, that is no problem at all!

 

 

Thanks, I'll get back to you when I have a definitive response.

[grannywils]

I went to The Coffee Party site and asked for a definitive response to what was meant by the term we've been discussing regarding being "held accountable": following are responses I received from two different people. The second one is parapharased, as it was quite lengthy, and I didn't want to be guilty of a second huge long post.

 

1. contacted my representative about a pending vote I follow up to either thank them (support), or to ask for, and expect, an explanation (accountability). I do this regardless of whether or not my position won the vote. It doesn't mean that I always get my way, but it lets those reps know that they will have to justify their vote to their constituency

 

2. No one I've encountered in the Coffee Party has a problem with rational opposition based on facts and legitimate concerns. The Coffee Party statement is not referring to that. It's referring to those who obstruct efforts for reasons of political gain. A classic example was provided by Republican Senator Jim DeMint when he said of Obama's health care reform efforts: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

 

When it's not business, and it becomes personal, that's not in the best interest of the country, and holding people who engage in such behavior accountable for working against the best interest of the country is exactly what every American should want to do.

 

I don't know if this will meet with everyone's satisfaction, but I wanted to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, instead of stumbling around trying to give you my best guess interpretation.