The Coffee Party in the focus.

[Balagor]

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

 

This is probably the most reasonable lines I have read in this topic so far. I think I stick with the coffie club :thumbsup:

[ginnyfizz]

However...sometimes when there develops a huge personality cult around a certain leader *cough...Obama...Blair* and they really do start to think "L'etat, c'est moi", then the distinction between business and personal can get rather blurred. With due respect, politics is a very dirty business. The Blessed Margaret Hilda Thatcher had all manner of insults and scare stories thrown at her, and people wanting to break her, so I cannot see why Obama, or anyone else, should be exempt. My problem is that we still have the;-

 

"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. "

 

Just because someone opposes for reasons of political gain does not preclude their opposition from also being rational and based on facts and legitimate concern. Feeling passionate about something and expressing your concern does not of necessity make you a wild eyed lunatic and an Enemy Of The People. Until the Coffee Party withdraw any statement about what kind of opposition they are prepared to countenance without holding them to account (save only those who advocate violent opposition, who should be held to account), I will consider them to be disturbingly totalitarian. A political party should only seek to dictate its own agenda, and its policies when in Government, and it should accept that it will be opposed, and might even have a few rude, untrue and scurrilous things said.

[grannywils]

However...sometimes when there develops a huge personality cult around a certain leader *cough...Obama...Blair* and they really do start to think "L'etat, c'est moi", then the distinction between business and personal can get rather blurred. With due respect, politics is a very dirty business. The Blessed Margaret Hilda Thatcher had all manner of insults and scare stories thrown at her, and people wanting to break her, so I cannot see why Obama, or anyone else, should be exempt. My problem is that we still have the;-

New edit (mine) That doesn't make it right. And the Coffee Party did not exist then, and I doubt they would have condoned such behavior.

"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. "

 

Ok, but Ginny you left out the paragraph right before that where he describe what he was referring to: "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."

I don't think that was a rational statement. I guess maybe the oppostion does. And if that is the case, I cannot argue with you any longer on this one. I believe we've spent more than enough time on this particular phrase. I have had time now to look into the tenets of The Coffee Party. I believe them to be fair and reasonable. If you want to pursue them any further for yourself here is a link to their website:

 

Just because someone opposes for reasons of political gain does not preclude their opposition from also being rational and based on facts and legitimate concern. Feeling passionate about something and expressing your concern does not of necessity make you a wild eyed lunatic and an Enemy Of The People. Until the Coffee Party withdraw any statement about what kind of opposition they are prepared to countenance without holding them to account (save only those who advocate violent opposition, who should be held to account), I will consider them to be disturbingly totalitarian. A political party should only seek to dictate its own agenda, and its policies when in Government, and it should accept that it will be opposed, and might even have a few rude, untrue and scurrilous things said.

[ginnyfizz]

I would, but the "server cannot be found" nevertheless I did get directed to some links for delicious sounding exotic coffees...

[grannywils]

I would, but the "server cannot be found" nevertheless I did get directed to some links for delicious sounding exotic coffees...

 

I don't know if you tried to cut and paste or directly click on the link, but I noticed that on my post the whole name does not print out, even though for me it still works. But the link is coffeepartyusa.com with the www's in front. And yes, there certainly are some wonderlul sounding coffees to be found on the web.

 

[evilneko]

Nice strawman, ginny. You seem quite proficient in the construction of them. That, and the painting of herrings.

 

Now, about what I actually said, and by extension, what the Coffee Party--which is not a political party by any right--actually said...

 

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.

 

Neither sound like totalitarianism to me. If you want to see an example of that, take a look at some of the things that happened under Shrub's presidency, such as...

 

war in Iraq on the basis of lies and fabricated evidence, and without full debate and a vote in the House

 

...and the passage of USA Patriot which falls under the latter for both houses on this side of the pond.

 

And I don't really see how you can claim any kind of cult of personality thing going on for Obama without acknowledging one for Shrub as well. The main difference in how the media treats the two is that left-wingers like Olbermann (hell, ESPECIALLY Olbermann) are far more likely to criticize Obama than, say, Bill-O is to criticize Shrub.

 

And while I understand your intent, I think your fears are completely ungrounded. The Coffee Party doesn't reek of totalitarianism, it reeks of CENTRISM. Hell, I'm not even quite sure it reeks of even that. Their main goals seem to be getting people involved, period, in the political process, and limiting the influence of corporate campaign donations. Both of these are things that both sides talk about a lot (well, aside from the right wing not wanting you unless you're white, christian, and over 25). And you're seeing shades of totalitarianism in that?

 

The US is not the UK, nor is it the rest of the world. This mid-term election season, I fully expect the natural cycle to play itself out: Dems will lose seats, Republicans will gain. What will be interesting however is which Republicans win. Tea Party-backed candidates have won primaries in several states and I'm sure any American person with even the slightest interest in politics will be watching those elections closely. If your fears of a vast left-wing conspiracy (wtf?) have even the slightest justification, we'll see Republicans get trounced, hard. (then again, this may happen anyway--albeit not quite as severely--simply due to the kind of candidates coming up, I mean Ken Buck? Linda McMahon? Seriously?! Is that the best they have?)

 

Post-Bush, a democratic president was quite frankly, inevitable. If Hillary had won the primaries (mind you, she lost in part because she's farther left than Obama, is she totalitarian too?), she'd be in the office right now instead of Obama. The political climate in '08 was such that the dems could've offered up a literal lipstick pig, and even if Obama himself had run as a Republican, the pig would've won. No vast left-wing conspiracy here, just vast backlash against the right-wing one.

[grannywils]

Nice strawman, ginny. You seem quite proficient in the construction of them. That, and the painting of herrings.

 

Now, about what I actually said, and by extension, what the Coffee Party--which is not a political party by any right--actually said...

 

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.

 

Neither sound like totalitarianism to me. If you want to see an example of that, take a look at some of the things that happened under Shrub's presidency, such as...

 

war in Iraq on the basis of lies and fabricated evidence, and without full debate and a vote in the House

 

...and the passage of USA Patriot which falls under the latter for both houses on this side of the pond.

 

And I don't really see how you can claim any kind of cult of personality thing going on for Obama without acknowledging one for Shrub as well. The main difference in how the media treats the two is that left-wingers like Olbermann (hell, ESPECIALLY Olbermann) are far more likely to criticize Obama than, say, Bill-O is to criticize Shrub.

 

And while I understand your intent, I think your fears are completely ungrounded. The Coffee Party doesn't reek of totalitarianism, it reeks of CENTRISM. Hell, I'm not even quite sure it reeks of even that. Their main goals seem to be getting people involved, period, in the political process, and limiting the influence of corporate campaign donations. Both of these are things that both sides talk about a lot (well, aside from the right wing not wanting you unless you're white, christian, and over 25). And you're seeing shades of totalitarianism in that?

 

The US is not the UK, nor is it the rest of the world. This mid-term election season, I fully expect the natural cycle to play itself out: Dems will lose seats, Republicans will gain. What will be interesting however is which Republicans win. Tea Party-backed candidates have won primaries in several states and I'm sure any American person with even the slightest interest in politics will be watching those elections closely. If your fears of a vast left-wing conspiracy (wtf?) have even the slightest justification, we'll see Republicans get trounced, hard. (then again, this may happen anyway--albeit not quite as severely--simply due to the kind of candidates coming up, I mean Ken Buck? Linda McMahon? Seriously?! Is that the best they have?)

 

Post-Bush, a democratic president was quite frankly, inevitable. If Hillary had won the primaries (mind you, she lost in part because she's farther left than Obama, is she totalitarian too?), she'd be in the office right now instead of Obama. The political climate in '08 was such that the dems could've offered up a literal lipstick pig, and even if Obama himself had run as a Republican, the pig would've won. No vast left-wing conspiracy here, just vast backlash against the right-wing one.

 

 

So, Evilneko, are you reading my mind now? It would seem to me that everything you have just said is so obvious that it almost didn't need to be said (with the exception of the unnecessary accusation at the beginning). But obviously it did. So, thank you for saying it so well. And by the way, I love what you said about Keith Olbermann. He and all of the MSNBC reporters are known for, yes being left leaning, but also being the first ones out there to speak up when one of their darlings goofs up. And I don't ever hear that from Mr. O'Reilly or any of that crew (I cannot bring myself to call them reporters).

[ginnyfizz]

Politics is a dirty business, and opposition is vital. So long as opposition does not cross the line into outright threats or even acts of violence, I don't see a problem with it. And yes, I HAVE had a demo by political opponents outside my front door, when I had a famous politician around to tea, so I know of what I speak. And with due respect, all politicians are aiming for political gain, or they just aren't..err...politicians. Either The Coffee Party are being totalitarian in their dislike of opposition, or they are being wusses "Oh please don't be mean to us all you who disagree with us". Whilst very likely not being above the kind of smear tactics that they appear to deplore.

 

Now Bush...I was under the impression that if he had a personality cult, it was as a figure of ridicule and active dislike - that was certainly the case over here, and my US friends tell me Bush didn't stay popular at home for long. That doesn't alter the fact that Obama has a huge personality cult and has seemingly bewitched folks everywhere. Already a Nobel Peace Prize? WTF?

 

And I am well aware that Hillary is to the left of Obama, so yes, I would have the same misgivings about her.

 

But I certainly have not mentioned anything about a vast left wing conspiracy. Nor have I ever suggested that the US is the UK. I have merely highlighted that there are what I would consider worrying points of similarity between the policies of the current US administration and those carried out by our former government which, if unchecked, could leave the US in a similar poor state to the UK. And that I do not wish to see.

[evilneko]

He was popular enough to get re-elected in an election with, IIRC, the highest voter turn-out percentage-wise since 1972 and highest-ever by sheer numbers (though Obama's election surpassed that later). It was close, no doubt about it, but he still won both the popular and electoral vote.

 

And I don't really see any dislike of opposition in the Coffee Party. As I said, they don't seem to have much in the way of an agenda other than trying to limit the influence corporate money has on the political process (both in terms of campaign finance and other lobbying). Other than that they seem to be trying to get everyone--or at least as many people as possible--to participate in politics.

[Sinophile]

Both the tea party and the coffee party seem to be very new parties. It seems the coffee party does not like some Obstructionist tactics that the tea party uses, or the ways they carry out their methods. However, it seems that the coffee party can easily become hypocritical in their own practices. Personally, I think we should all have single-issue parties, such as the marijuana party. A lot of issues seemed to be overtly polarized when they don't need to be. For example, I am against child pornography, does anyone wish to debate my standpoint? As far as I am concerned, Project Chanology was the best grassroots movement in modern history, they took one issue(Scientology), and ran with it, with nominal success.

 

 

 

And I don't really see any dislike of opposition in the Coffee Party. As I said, they don't seem to have much in the way of an agenda other than trying to limit the influence corporate money has on the political process

According to Conservapedia, that isn't necessarily a good thing. They made this neat little graph that claims Obama has less cabinet members in the private sector than anyone else in the past 108 years since the industrial revolution.

http://conservapedia.com/images/thumb/a/a3/4135523219_e140763872_o.jpg/430px-4135523219_e140763872_o.jpg

 

Now Bush...I was under the impression that if he had a personality cult, it was as a figure of ridicule and active dislike - that was certainly the case over here, and my US friends tell me Bush didn't stay popular at home for long

.

All presidents since Kennedy have relied heavily on personality and charisma. I believe personality had become even more important with the advent of the internet. Bush had more of a "folksy" charm , He had an odd humility about him. He was somewhat of a Jess Foxworthy in the sense he didn't try to be snooty and sophisticated. Obama on the other hand seems to go for more of a Charlie Sheen approach(not a perfect analogy, but didn't know who else to compare him to).