Angry Liberals launch Coffee Party (What???)

Originally posted by endisnighe
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?

Does the United States government feel the same way I do about what? If you're talking about my concern of larger domestic terrorist attacks then, absolutely yes, they do!

Like myself, the persons that I have spoken to in the United States Federal Government, see the issue much the same way I do: The radical right-wing terrorist, wannabe revolutionaries will not bring down the government through violence, but there is a potential that they will kill many people. For that reason they must be stopped before they can carry out their attacks.

The people I have talked to also agree with me that the primary motivators of the anger are fear and ignorance. The people on the extreme right-wing have no interest in listening to the progressives in DC, or anywhere else for that matter. To them, liberalism seems to be some kind of disease, and socialism is something even worse.

This is not the climate to unify a nation, America is breaking down into factions among the people. I'll simply warn you now though, if the extreme right-wing does become violent, there will be no coming back for your movement. The white-supremacist threat in the US was utterly destroyed (about bloody time) after the Oklahoma City bombing. The public would not support them after the lives of so many innocent people (including many children) were takes, and the government finally used the event to crack down nationwide.

Beware would-be terrorists, your movement dies the second you life a hand in anger.

reply to post by links234

This is not a Democratic movement, but one that espouses fiscal responsibility and placing the country back on track with progressive values.

Wouldn't fiscal responsibility and progressive values in the same sentence be an oxymoron?

reply to post by links234


There are several points in the past were the Constitution has be circumvented. Congress passing off duties to the Federal Reserve and the IRS to name two of the progressive movements. The abandonment of the Gold Standard deficit spending to name two conservative ones.

Ideally what the people would want is for the government to become respectable again, which is fairly idealistic. But they also want a return of economic independence that was inflated by the post-war boom.

The sad reality was that US manufacturing untouched by WWII and we had to produce for the entire western world until their infrastructure was rebuilt. Once the rest of the world recovered, the US found production levels unsustainable.

Government takes much of the blame, but that blame is not entirely misplaced with the global marketplace strategies that eroded domestic production from outsourcing to bailouts that benefited the few over the many.

We may never see the 80's style greed of corporatism where everyone had opportunity to a share of the pie again. But what we see in today's greed is a far uglier monster that unfortunately may result a dependence on socialism and a controlled decline of birthrate to re-stabilize the country.

The thought of America having to resort to a serfdom or quasi-slave status as a stop-gap until we can rebuild ourself is the true fear. Unfortunately, far too many in positions of power would like just such an arrangement and would think nothing of making it last longer than it should.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by links234

 

This is not a Democratic movement, but one that espouses fiscal responsibility and placing the country back on track with progressive values.

Wouldn't fiscal responsibility and progressive values in the same sentence be an oxymoron?

It's comments like this which explain exactly why we need something like the Coffee Party Movement. You sir, are ill-informed and being driven by your views of a duality political system and the propaganda you have eaten!

To answer your question, historically, no you're actually very wrong. President Clinton had the largest budget surplus in American history, and that is just one example.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Oh how I LOVE when someone states Clinton had a surplus!

When you steal from the SS funds and Medicare/Medicaid revenues to cover your spending, IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HAD A SURPLUS.

Please quit using government numbers to argue points, as we all know, the government makes their figures up as they go.

What is the real unemployment rate again? 9.7% or 25%?

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


LMAO, Clinton only attained a surplus because the economy was kicking ass with the dot com era and tax revenues exceeded expectation. So if there was really any surplus at all then Clinton just fell ass backward into it.

Also, if Clinton got to pass his Progressive Liberal agenda that he promoted in his first term then there probably would have been no surplus.

As usual, Americans wised up to the BS Liberal agenda he was pushing and gave the Conservatives a majority in Congress.

Thank God we have enough Americans still smart enough to put an end to this Progressive horse crap every time they get a good taste of it. Unfortunately for you Brisitsh folks you have been beaten down by the Progressives to the point that you can barely breath without your government telling you how to do it right and taxing you for it.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Coffee Party...

I would guess Communistic Oppression Faking Freedom Everywhere for Everyone

While not as pretty as Commie Outcasts Feeling F****ing Everyone Excludes them, it stays within the T&C.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Ahabstar]

Here's your "communist".





I don't know but he seems to be fairly pragmatic to me - conservative even.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

As usual, Americans wised up to the BS Liberal agenda he was pushing...

Yet more people voted for Gore...hmm...

I realize that your comment was regarding congress but while it was a Republican congress the people wanted a Democratic president.

Originally posted by links234

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.

Quick answer: I strongly believe the opposite of everything you wrongly believe in.

It's not the job of the government to establish social programs. You can't force your neighbors to pay for social programs just because you want them, that's criminal theft and violates the 10th amendment. The election of 2008 was against Clinton and an old feeble 'Republican' candidate and intentionally excluded Ron Paul from participating. What was rammed down our throats was wasteful stimulus programs, bailouts, corporate nationalization, taxation camouflaged as a Healthcare plan, threat of Cap and Trade based on junk science, and every single bill passed this year was filled with earmarks (a.k.a.; Corruption). The majority of the people have turned their backs on the idealism that comes from the Whitehouse and the criminal leaders of Congress. Trickle down economics created a bubble and low unemployment in late '80s and the dot com bubble. The stimulus was a waste and cost over 5x the benefit, $25,000 was taken from us to pay for each $4,000 cash for clunker credit. Trickle up doesn't work, if you needed stimulus to buy a home it was irresponsible for you to have bought it, and to buy it now you caught a falling knife investment. I have relatives who can turn a $100 cash gift into $1,000 debt due to short-sighted uneducated thinking, that's trickle up for you. Stimulus for home buying now is the same addled thinking by Congress that brought us subprime mortgages which collapsed the economy in the first place. Congress and social programs work against us, not for us.

reply to post by Dbriefed


I think it's safe to say that you and I aren't going to agree on much of anything except our disagreements. You're saying that my ideals are wrong because of what I see as either distorted facts or misrepresentations on your part.

You feel like these things were forced upon you, I don't. I welcomed the stimulus and the CARS program. I am still willing to pay higher taxes to give you, my neighbor, free healthcare or, at the very least, a less financially devastating health care system. Whether you think you need it or not.

I'm all for cap and trade, weed out the companies that are detrimental to society, I don't call the professional opinion of thousands of climatologists junk science. A handful of misrepresented reports does NOT cancel the facts of thousands of other reports from thousands of other scientists.

You support the 'trickle-down' effect yet oppose the bank bailouts? What sort of sense does that make? Am I misunderstanding? The money was given to the banks in the hopes they would redistribute it to the populace through loans, giving money to few to distribute it to the many. That's what I understand it as. It didn't work out so well.

I didn't need the stimulus to buy a house, but I certainly welcomed the check after my decision. As did millions of other people. It gave the people the power to buy, no matter how you look at it. It put taxpayers money where it belonged, in taxpayers pockets.

All in all, I make good money, I have health/dental/vision insurance. I'm not on welfare, I'm not on food stamps. I have used those programs in the past and they helped me and my family. I pay taxes, I occasionally pay extra taxes. I give to charity when I can.

When a majority of the population collectively agrees to pitch in a little extra for various programs to help everyone (read, social programs) then yes you can be forced to pay more with the rest of us. That's how democracy works. Don't give me the 'this is a republic' spiel because it's a DEMOCRATIC republic. You vote, that's democracy. You don't vote, don't complain.

I don't understand how Tea Party Patriots can simply ignore people. It seems callous to me, to look down on the lower class with disdain and honestly believe they're just not trying hard enough...or something. Praising the wealthy for being 'successful' yet ignoring where a lot of them make their money then further ignoring how they keep that money.

I understand where you're coming from on a lot of issues, I just think you're being a little self-centered. Looking out for you and you alone, that's the American way, right? Individuals should succeed before society can improve.

I see progress, you see failure. I see inaction, you see success. I think we can do better, you think we're doing just fine.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


We Brits actually like a bit of government involvement now and again, which is why 70% of us are screaming for the return of a nationalized rail system. We tried privatization, and in this specific field it has not worked, so we want a good public service back. We're even willing to pay for it with, of all things, taxes!

As for the American people getting wise as you put it to progressives, perhaps you've been watching a bit too much Glenn Beck. President Obama was elected by a much wider margin than Bush's re-election which the now-former president called "a clear mandate from the people." So if Bush winning Florida and Ohio is a mandate, what does it mean when Obama wins Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico?

Sorry mate, but us progressives are still quite strong in your country too.

As for "using government numbers" as endisnighe put it, well terribly sorry but it did happen. I'm half expecting him next to just tell me not to talk about facts because, as we all know, they are at odds with his world-view.

You can banter on and on vomiting forth pre-digested talking points and stating vague prejudices or stereotypes as facts all you like. It really does not change the fact that your hyper-right-wing sect draws very little popular support and cannot win elections. Get over it, Ron Paul's Revolution failed miserably for a reason.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


So you are now putting words into my mouth in the FUTURE?

Sorry, but all the facts in the world do not mean a thing if you COOK the books.

What I SAID ABOUT NOT RUNNING A DEFICIT IS THE TRUTH!

Quit trying to sneak a barb to ME, in a comment to someone else.

How about posting a comment to ME!

Would you like me to post the proof Clinton did not run a Surplus during his years?

As for OBAMA getting a mandate from the people, YES he did, to quit the corruption in our government.

How is that going so far?

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Wow, this whole post here could be a copy and paste from a thousand other different sites.

Yeah, still trying to paint everyone as terrorists and wackjobs for standing for the LAW OF THE LAND!

Keep it up, people see the truth and no matter how often you attack or obfuscate, it will NEVER change the TRUTH!

Most ideologies are a way of describing how the world works and how it should be run. They provide their followers the opportunity to gain power and prominence when they succeed in ruling some part of the world. If your faction loses the civil war or the election, though, you pretty much get nothing out of being a member. Progressivism is unique in that its positions are not a worldview but a set of signals. By taking progressive positions on various issues, you let others and yourself know that you're smart, compassionate, classy and so on. Just about any progressive position is much easier to explain in terms of signaling than in terms of philosophy or politics. For example, the support for mass immigration makes you seem compassionate towards peasants from poorer countries and smart and skilled enough that they won't compete for your job. Sure, your own underclass will pay for your compassion, but that's OK - you can then signal compassion for them by supporting education. That might seem contradictory or ineffective, and that might be true if we thought of this as policy goals. When understood as signaling, though, these positions are coherent and effective.

That's why progressivism is so popular and victorious - it helps its followers gain status even when it doesn't achieve crap or makes the world a worse place. Of course it's not quite that simple. Sooner or later even the peasants figure out that caring about Brazilian rainforests is nice - anyone under the age of 30 probably learned about that in school, plus we have big TVs with all those nature channels. Caring about it does you little good when everyone else cares, too, so status-seeking progressives must constantly find new issues to support. Again, this is where mass immigration is the perfect progressive issue - because your own peasants suffer most of the negative consequences, it'll take them a longer time to get around to supporting it compared to some foreign rainforests that won't affect their lives much.

The upside of this constant forward movement is that unlike status-signaling fashion in clothes and cars, progressivism is not a cycle. That's good - otherwise progressives would impose prohibition on us every 20 years...

That's basically why progressivism succeeds, why it must keep progressing, and why it's ultimately not self-contradictory. But isn't this post full of hypocrisy? I mean, given the understanding that progressive views are good for one's status, why am I so reactionary? It's certainly not integrity, honesty or principle.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
Most ideologies are a way of describing how the world works and how it should be run. They provide their followers the opportunity to gain power and prominence when they succeed in ruling some part of the world. If your faction loses the civil war or the election, though, you pretty much get nothing out of being a member. Progressivism is unique in that its positions are not a worldview but a set of signals. By taking progressive positions on various issues, you let others and yourself know that you're smart, compassionate, classy and so on. Just about any progressive position is much easier to explain in terms of signaling than in terms of philosophy or politics. For example, the support for mass immigration makes you seem compassionate towards peasants from poorer countries and smart and skilled enough that they won't compete for your job. Sure, your own underclass will pay for your compassion, but that's OK - you can then signal compassion for them by supporting education. That might seem contradictory or ineffective, and that might be true if we thought of this as policy goals. When understood as signaling, though, these positions are coherent and effective.

That's why progressivism is so popular and victorious - it helps its followers gain status even when it doesn't achieve crap or makes the world a worse place. Of course it's not quite that simple. Sooner or later even the peasants figure out that caring about Brazilian rainforests is nice - anyone under the age of 30 probably learned about that in school, plus we have big TVs with all those nature channels. Caring about it does you little good when everyone else cares, too, so status-seeking progressives must constantly find new issues to support. Again, this is where mass immigration is the perfect progressive issue - because your own peasants suffer most of the negative consequences, it'll take them a longer time to get around to supporting it compared to some foreign rainforests that won't affect their lives much.

The upside of this constant forward movement is that unlike status-signaling fashion in clothes and cars, progressivism is not a cycle. That's good - otherwise progressives would impose prohibition on us every 20 years...

That's basically why progressivism succeeds, why it must keep progressing, and why it's ultimately not self-contradictory. But isn't this post full of hypocrisy? I mean, given the understanding that progressive views are good for one's status, why am I so reactionary? It's certainly not integrity, honesty or principle.

MY GOD, THANKS FOR POSTING THIS! I will use it to show the absolute what I do not know, obfuscation. Definitely bookmarked though!

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by links234

 

President Clinton had the largest budget surplus in American history, and that is just one example.

This is a correct statement. The one thing that Clinton actually did correctly was watch after the economy. He's the last of his breed.