Angry Liberals launch Coffee Party (What???)

Originally posted by lordtyp0

When one stacks additional meaning, they change the original meaning. The events that lead to the original Tea Party are radically different than now: They had no representatives-for starters.

So yes, adding or changing meaning is corruptive on original intent.

When The Tea Party movement was "in the hands of Paul", wouldn't that have made Paul a representative?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by lordtyp0

When one stacks additional meaning, they change the original meaning. The events that lead to the original Tea Party are radically different than now: They had no representatives-for starters.

So yes, adding or changing meaning is corruptive on original intent.

When The Tea Party movement was "in the hands of Paul", wouldn't that have made Paul a representative?

The representative comment was the original Tea Party-taxation without representation and all that. The modern movement is calling on that sentiment without right-they voted and selected representatives.

With meanings changed it seems like the sacrifices of the forefathers are reduced to mascot's and nothing more while the neo-cons ride the populist rage.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
The representative comment was the original Tea Party-taxation without representation and all that. The modern movement is calling on that sentiment without right-they voted and selected representatives.

OK. Get your point there on Federal representation. But a lot of us feel our representatives in Washington are not listening to us after they take office. And also with the Democratic talks of changing the Senate vote for the Health Care Bill from 60 to 51 to pass, a lot of feel this is an erosion of the Constitution, and deserves action.

With meanings changed it seems like the sacrifices of the forefathers are reduced to mascot's and nothing more while the neo-cons ride the populist rage.

At least out here in Denver, the neocons have not been welcomed into the regional Tea Party get togethers. Here's a good example from this past December.

Scott McInnis isn't the real tea party candidate, says rival Dan Maes

Yes, neocons are trying to get into the good graces of The Tea Partiers, as shown by Scott McInnis, but I don't think many will make it.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


But, consider all the 'chapters' that they have in fact hijacked. The movement has become synonymous with said hijacking. It wont be long until the Neo-Cons attempt to rebrand as the Official Tea-Party is complete. At which point they will claim all the non-conforming groups as members one way or another.

The progress of that end seems at this point: inevitable.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Well, I guess that is something us in the movement are going to have to handle. And, seeing as the movement is driven by the values of the members, and does not have an actual leadership, it will probably happen in some areas. We can only hope for a change for the better based on actual performance, rather than campaign trail lies of betterment as we've had up to now.

Okay, you two have pretty much derailed this thread. I will try to bring it back.

Okay, what exactly does this SUPPOSED grass roots organization represent?

Is it the Dems turn to destroy the movement of the TPM?

It is a coordinated effort between the Dems and Repubs since we all know the dems/repubs are just the two headed snake of the apocalypse?

reply to post by endisnighe


From what I've been able to find on The Coffee Party, their vow is to basically trust in the government the people have voted in, without question. Of course this will all go away once a Conservative, which doesn't necessarily mean a Republican, government is voted in.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Exactly, that is what I thought.

I am so pissed offed about what our two headed snake has been doing!

I do not even know where to begin. I have contacted a couple of campaigns so far here in my home state. Still waiting on replies, they seem to be understanding our positions.

We shall see this year. It will be the final test.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by endisnighe

 

From what I've been able to find on The Coffee Party, their vow is to basically trust in the government the people have voted in, without question. Of course this will all go away once a Conservative, which doesn't necessarily mean a Republican, government is voted in.

That sounds more like the Lube Party.

Lost
Underperforming
Babies
Everywhere

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Which is why I have a problem taking them seriously as a movement. I am sure the Coffee Party will gather the same kind of activists that follow the flavor of the week causes.

Some of us progressive liberals are tired that the conservative minority is steering the country away from what we voted for in 2008.

It should be noted that the TEA Party was not a Republican movement, but one that espoused fiscal responsibility and placing the country back on track of traditional values. While conservative in nature, it did attract quite a few liberals and Democrats.

This is not a Democratic movement, but one that espouses fiscal responsibility and placing the country back on track with progressive values. While liberal in nature, it should attract at least a few conservatives and Republicans.

A truly opposite movement to the TEA party, would be an advocation of fascism at best and complete anarchy at the extreme. Although, an extreme reduction government would ultimately end at anarchy as well.

Which is supposedly what the Tea Party Patriots are trying to do, not the bit about fascism, but bring us to anarchy. They want no government in their lives, at all. If they weren't so nationalistic they'd be total anarachists.

One of the definitions via Wikipedia:

A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).

Sound familiar?

The whole patriot movement today is the same thing that came up after Clinton got elected in '92, wait another year or two and we'll have another OK City. We already had one nut who flew a plane into an office building, thank whatever God you pray to that he only killed two people. He obviously wanted to kill a lot more.

The prevalence of the internet has fueled both movements and garnered a lot more publicity and membership than what the 1990's offered.

reply to post by links234


I couldn't agree with you more! Well done!

To add to it I would also point out that the primary thing the Coffee Party is advocating over the Tea Party is a civil discourse in political debate. The Tea Party Movement is, by all accounts, full of very angry people, and people that tend to like to vent that anger.

I find it amazing that even though the Coffee Party is bringing up some of the very issues that people here on ATS talk about on a regular basis, because it is a liberal movement the name calling and distrust start. So much for being "beyond the two party dichotomy."

Most sadly of all I believe links234 is right about where this right-wing anger is going. If I were living in the United States right now, I'd be more afraid of radical right-wing Americans than Islamic extremists! The man in Texas flying his plane into the IRS building has a lot of my fellow journalists feeling a very ominous tone. I'm afraid this could get a lot worse before it gets better.

It's the end of the world as we know it

[edit on 3/1/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by links234


And I agree with some of your points as well, but the back and forth goes farther back than Clinton. We can go back Vietnam protestors that were firmly against Nixon and were willing to tear the nation down. Some were more against Nixon than others, others were more interested in tearing down all establishment.

Despite growing up in the Reagan era, I am ready for massive change that I know can only happen by removing hat we currently have in government. I am keenly aware that it will most likely only happen by violent protest. I am also aware that due to my deteriorating health that I would not survive should it become a prolonged apocalyptic war.

As much as I have the knowledge to live off the land, I just do not posses the physical ability to last long in a harsh climate, gathering wood and splitting it for example. So while it would mean my death, it may be the better course of action than to let things continue the way they are...living as an emasculated people under the thumb of self-serving aristocrats.

It is why this country became separated from Europe in the first place.

Come the Next American Revolution , all these Liberal DemoSheeple will be eating Grass and be clothed in Rags ..... Signed .........John Connor .

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Jimmy, do you think the gov feels the same way you do?

Or in better words, do they understand the anger? Or are they just a bunch of IDJUTS! so to speak?

What I don't get are the anti-TEA party people. I suppose it's people who want to pay more taxes? People who are happy government ignores the will of the people? People who like our feeble useless congress that rams corruption-laden bills down our throats? People who like elected officials who care more about idealism than what the public wants? People who like the wasteful and destructive Trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus for Tycoons?

WTH?

Who backs these anti-TEA people, Incumbent Congressmen and Wall Street Tycoons?

reply to post by Ahabstar


The anti-establishment groups of the 1960's were leftists, Weather Underground and the RAF, etc. They wanted change from the percieved oppression of the military industrial complex. The communist movement was crushed during the McCarthy hearings of the '50's, these were anarchists and socialists rebelling against the status quo.

The rise of the patriot movement in the 1990's was different, this was a nationalist desire to go back to what they believed was a better time. The rhetoric echoed by the movement of today and that of almost 20 years ago are strikingly similiar.

The patriot movement confuses me a bit, they want strict adherence to the constitution...I have to wonder at what point in our history did we stop adhering to it? Do these patriots want to go back to that time, to turn back the clock? Are there just a few things they would keep? I could pick and choose topics I've heard floating around their movement but I want to hear some actual 'patriot' tell me.

reply to post by links234


links, look at the comment above yours!

Damn, I could not put it better.

I am not a member of the TPM, I did speak at two meetings. I am not a leader, I am an idealist.

What is it that people on the left want, more control by the very thing that has us in their control?

The reason I was asked to talk was because two of the organizers use to work for me.

They know I am anti establishment. That is what everyone is against-correct?

We as a united front of pissed off youth (well in my standards anyway) need to see the entity of control. Both sides are together. You HAVE to see that do you not?

reply to post by Dbriefed


Exactly!

Why is it that the youth of today cannot see the manipulation? I will not allow the parties to control me! Even though I am a old fogey!

Originally posted by Dbriefed
What I don't get are the anti-TEA party people. I suppose it's people who want to pay more taxes?

I would gladly pay more taxes if it went towards greater social programs and the betterment of our society. Education, science, infrastructure improvements and advancements, etc.

People who are happy government ignores the will of the people?

The only ones ignoring the will of the people are the ones ignoring the will of the majority who voted in November of 2008.

People who like our feeble useless congress that rams corruption-laden bills down our throats?

Feeble and useless forcing things upon you? Does that make you more feeble and more useless? Just how many bills have been 'rammed' down your throat the past year? I want specifics here.

People who like elected officials who care more about idealism than what the public wants?

What if that idealism is what the public wants?

People who like the wasteful and destructive Trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus for Tycoons?

It's generally agreed that most people didn't like bailing out big banks in hindsight, the money was given with the belief they would distribute it accordingly. This is called the 'trickle-down' effect in economics. The banks kept the money and made even more after they got it.

The stimulus, however, gave money to individuals and small business'. I now own a home thanks to it. This is akin to the 'trickle-up' effect. This has given money to various projects and small entrepreneur's across the country.