The Coffee Party

[metatron]

[...]

 

[amadeus]

They want to use civil discourse to arrive at logical solutions to today's problems in a non-partisan manner, while trying to increase civic responsibility in the young voters?

Yes, I am sure there is a lot of diverse political opinion in this group to serve as cheerleaders for government control.

 

[cardgame]

Which is why it is doomed to failure. You cannot have a political position solely of "I hate everything you stand for".

Unless your name is O'Donnel

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, I am sure there is a lot of diverse political opinion in this group to serve as cheerleaders for government control.

In other words, anybody who isn't a reactionary must be a liberal who advocates "big government"? No wonder the notion of trying to be non-partisan apparently sounds so unfamiliar to you.

 

[amadeus]

In other words, anybody who isn't a reactionary must be a liberal who advocates "big government"? No wonder the notion of trying to be non-partisan apparently sounds so unfamiliar to you.

Founders Annabel Park and Eric Byler were both campaign volunteers for Barack Obama in 2008 and Jim Webb in 2006. They support socialized medicine, forcing advocacy groups to turn over donors lists to the government to qualify for commercial airtime, increased spending in white elephant environmental projects, etc., etc.

Unless you're willing to change the definition of non-partisan to "dedicated Democratic Party activist," I'm not willing to accept your premise.

 

[JollyRoger]

if Rush Limbaugh can get 20 million listeners, why can't Al Franken?

Liberal media bias

 

[Formaldehyde]

Perhaps you would care to actually cite the source for your facts?


Link to video.

 

[amadeus]

Perhaps you would care to actually cite the source for your facts?

Okay?

Q: Did Annabel Park work for the 2008 Obama Presidential Campaign?

Annabel Park, who created the Facebook fan page and ignited the Coffee Party movement, volunteered for Obama in 2008 along with millions of her fellow Americans. She and her partner, Eric Byler, created a YouTube channel for filmmakers to contribute videos supporting Obama

http://www.newser.com/story/94274/coffee-party-national-vote-results.html

91.89% support the DISCLOSE Act, and most would not support exemptions in the act.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As the website points out, simply supporting Obama doesn't make her an evil Democratic Party activist who is advocating something other than what your own source actually states, and which I quoted above.

And who, besides corrupt politicians, wouldn't support full disclosure of corporate political contributions, especially those used for political ads? I can't imagine any legislation which should be less partisan and more obviously needed than that.

 

[JollyRoger]

And who, besides corrupt politicians, wouldn't support full disclosure of corporate political contributions, especially those used for political ads?

Justice Thomas.

 

[BuckyRea]

And who, besides corrupt politicians, wouldn't support full disclosure of corporate political contributions, especially those used for political ads?

The corporations making the political contributions. The "non-affiliated" interest groups who take all those contributions and use them to run thinly disguised (and factually dubious) attack ads in the middle of a election.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So what I'm gathering is, if you want non-partisanship, you're not allowed to support any candidates?

 

[Traitorfish]

So what I'm gathering is, if you want non-partisanship, you're not allowed to support any candidates?

An anarchist would suggest as much.

 

[Ajidica]

Amadeus, I'm curious. Would you consider a left-libertarian a proponent of increased government control?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Amadeus, I'm curious. Would you consider a left-libertarian a proponent of increased government control?

This reminds me, trying to explain left-libertarianism in Tennessee has got to be one of the most excruciating experiences of my life. Everyone here KNOWS what libertarianism means, and I believe many of them can't grasp anything other than left or right.

Of course, that really simplifies the average Tennessean to be true, but I felt like no one could grasp such a simple fact for a long time.

And hell, I don't even consider myself a left-libertarian evangelist. I would just clarify people when they said stupid stuff.

 

[amadeus]

So what I'm gathering is, if you want non-partisanship, you're not allowed to support any candidates?

No, but by this same standard we can say that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh aren't partisans, either. They have ideas, they support candidates, and they are not blindly bound to the party.

Amadeus, I'm curious. Would you consider a left-libertarian a proponent of increased government control?

Can you define for me what a left-libertarian is and supports before I tell you?

 

[Ajidica]

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies which promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the alleged coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[5][6] or as a synonym for socialist anarchism.[1][2][7]

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions which control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[8] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised."[9] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.[10]

fivechar

EDIT:
A bit more descriptive on left-libertarianism itself, rather than as a varient of libertarian socialism.

Left-libertarianism[1] names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory.

Some social anarchists and libertarian socialists, including Murray Bookchin,[2] are sometimes called left-libertarian.[3] Noam Chomsky also refers to himself as a left libertarian.[4] Left-libertarians in this sense may share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state."[5] However, left-libertarianism is perhaps used with particular frequency today to refer to either of two positions whose proponents draw radical conclusions from classical liberal or libertarian premises—one emphasizing links between self-ownership and egalitarianism, the other stressing the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and free markets.

 

[amadeus]

Anarchism in this mold seems as unrealistic in practice as a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society in the sense that there will always remain states and that trying to permanently dismantle them on a global scale would result in disaster. Nationhood, whether we like it or not, is to some extent necessary.

The Chomskyites, though, are just collectivists via statists by another name.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Anarchism in this mold seems as unrealistic in practice as a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society in the sense that there will always remain states and that trying to permanently dismantle them on a global scale would result in disaster. Nationhood, whether we like it or not, is to some extent necessary.

The Chomskyites, though, are just collectivists via statists by another name.

Because nations have always been around, right?

 

[Ajidica]

Anarchism in this mold seems as unrealistic in practice as a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society in the sense that there will always remain states and that trying to permanently dismantle them on a global scale would result in disaster.

Out of curiosity, can you point me to any examples of sucessful, long-term implementation of Libertarian policies?