The Coffee Party

[MotF Bane]

The founding fathers were concerned about individual rights not being violated by the majority, which is why they required a Bill of Rights to make it extra clear.

Neither a 'pure democracy, which doesn't exist, or a representative democracy, necessarily have those protections; and both can have them, such as with the constitutional protections.

You seem to be confusing 'direct versus represenatative' with individual rights and constitutional safeguards.

Well, that's not working very well.

 

[Zebo]

The founding fathers were concerned about individual rights not being violated by the majority, which is why they required a Bill of Rights to make it extra clear.

.

Exactly and why they (supposedly) made it so hard to usurp those rights - 2/3! course libs don't believe in "shall not be infringed" pubs don't believe in "jury of peers" for jihadis and it's largely become guidelines instead of law.

 

[wiretap]

Most every nation has a constitution so that's redundant. Representative by definition is Republic, again redundant. Democracy comes in two forms Republican and Direct. The founders made our democracy republican rather than direct which does not stop majority rule, it merely slows it down. So yeah you want to change Constitution you need super majority of ELECTED state legislatures.

Obviously.. that mirrors exactly what I said.

 

[wiretap]

The founding fathers were concerned about individual rights not being violated by the majority, which is why they required a Bill of Rights to make it extra clear.

Neither a 'pure democracy, which doesn't exist, or a representative democracy, necessarily have those protections; and both can have them, such as with the constitutional protections.

You seem to be confusing 'direct versus represenatative' with individual rights and constitutional safeguards.

I merely pointed out the fact that the founding fathers made the argument against a flat out democracy where one group could vote away the rights of others.. I also said we had a Constitutional representative republic.. I am not confused about anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't care who calls it what.. the US uses some democratic processes, but it is not a democracy. The founding fathers made that very clear and argued/wrote about it extensively.

OK- we have that out of the way, right? We all understand the nature of our govt and the processes of democracy that underpin it, define it, facilitate the involvement of every citizen.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that people should be able to gather to talk of things political outside of the constraints of Party, and to truly listen to each other, as well. Which requires an atmosphere of tolerance and respect if any sort of wide ranging discussion is to actually occur, let alone a meaningful level of understanding.

Despite efforts to divide us into oppositional ideological camps, we're really more alike than different, and we won't be able to solve the real problems we face if we're more concerned with "Us vs Them" stuff than with finding solutions, regardless of the source.

It never hurts to listen, and if the Coffee party is about that, then I'm for it, and wish them well, even if I never attend.

 

[mumedina]

fuck, I signed up for one of the meetings before I learned that the person heading the campaign was one of Obama's campaign managers. I will still go just to see what it is all about..which I am sure will disappoint me.

 

[ranmaniac]

It's too little too late. The Coffee House party sounds more like the Obama damage control party. He came into office with a majority in the House and Senate, and within less than a year, he's crashed faster than Jimmy Carter, and couldn't even help save Ted Kennedy's seat. I'm sure millions of Obama supporters really thought there would be "Hope and Change" and all they got was "cash for clunkers" and even more debt on top of the mountain that Dubya help make. Ah well, at Obama got a Nobel prize...

That SNL video about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Jf9s23uF0

 

[Moonbeam]

fuck, I signed up for one of the meetings before I learned that the person heading the campaign was one of Obama's campaign managers. I will still go just to see what it is all about..which I am sure will disappoint me.

People often imagine they are practical and believe what they see but in fact people can only see what they already believe.

For example, I tell people all the time here that humanity is killing itself via it's own self hate, but nobody can see it. This can only be known by feeling how you feel and you would rather humanity go extinct than feel how bad you feel, so, even though you are part of the reason humanity will snuff itself out, you won't pay the slightest heed. The truth is hidden behind an instant dismissal of unlikelihood. There now, you can go back to sleep.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's too little too late. The Coffee House party sounds more like the Obama damage control party. He came into office with a majority in the House and Senate, and within less than a year, he's crashed faster than Jimmy Carter, and couldn't even help save Ted Kennedy's seat. I'm sure millions of Obama supporters really thought there would be "Hope and Change" and all they got was "cash for clunkers" and even more debt on top of the mountain that Dubya help make. Ah well, at Obama got a Nobel prize...

That SNL video about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Jf9s23uF0

A thief expects to get robbed. A liar thinks everything is a lie. The Coffee House party sounds like what you bring to the table, your own assumptions mechanically produced in your brain by association with the garbage you've collected.

 

[Zebo]

It's too little too late. The Coffee House party sounds more like the Obama damage control party. He came into office with a majority in the House and Senate, and within less than a year, he's crashed faster than Jimmy Carter, and couldn't even help save Ted Kennedy's seat. I'm sure millions of Obama supporters really thought there would be "Hope and Change" and all they got was "cash for clunkers" and even more debt on top of the mountain that Dubya help make. Ah well, at Obama got a Nobel prize...

That SNL video about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Jf9s23uF0

Hope you still got change after Obama is done.

Or alternatively that hope would be that Obama following through on his campaign pledges but the Change would be him tacking indistinguishable from Bush.

Lets review shall we.

Three new regressive taxes on the middle class the GOP like-named "Cadillac tax" (what's next "welfare Queens" Obama?) , the bank levy to come from general funds of investment banks, and the cigarette tax.

Voiced support of firing teachers in RI and privatize school systems. Check

Let insurance companies and pharma write health care legislation. Check.

Turns a blind eye toward torture and wire tapping. Check.

Escalate a never ending war into two more countries. Check.

Turn a blind eye to wall street greed and go soft on banking reform. Check.

Supported two more bailout of WS. Check.

Avoid dealing with outsourcing and talk up new free trade agreements. Check.

Lauded Reagan for his game changing politics and movment. Check.

No investigations into torture, into Iraq lies etc.

Like welfare reform, you needed a "democrat" to get away with this shit. Honestly I don't understand the rights problem with him.

 

[StageLeft]

Sounds vague and impotent.

 

[Craig234]

I merely pointed out the fact that the founding fathers made the argument against a flat out democracy where one group could vote away the rights of others.. I also said we had a Constitutional representative republic.. I am not confused about anything.

I've never seen *anywhere* the founding fathers ever seriously considered a direct democracy. Therefore, I'm not away of anywhere they rejected one over the issue of the tyranny of the majority.

I am aware they were concerned abotu the tyranny of the majority *in the context of a representative democracy* and that's why they very much wanted a constitution with rights protecting the minority.

That is confusing 'direct versus reppresentative' with 'tyranny of the majority' versus 'individual rights'.

However, if I'm ignorant of their considering non-representative direct democracy as you say, correct me.

 

[Craig234]

While I said that I dn't view them as a party, I'm glad to see them gather as a group of citizens to further a better political ideology, insofar as a stronger sense of community and 'greater good' - not trampling individual rights, as strong individual rights ARE a better society in large part, but to provide some balance to the riciculous, cultish ideology protecting a few of exploiting many to extremes, the corruption of individual rights and actual reduction of them.

They seem to have a good message from the OP and I'm glad to see that. But go go Root Beer.

 

[Craig234]

Oops.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We're a Democracy alright. We get to pick from a list selected for us at each election.

The two parties have seen to it that only in theory can someone outside of their control rise to political prominence with very rare exception.

We have freedom of choice, and that is provided by Hobson.

It's also interesting to see people speak from one side of their mouth about protecting the rights of individuals and with the other say that because their party wins an election they have the right of control out of the other.

Tyranny of the majority must not stand*


*unless we are the majority.

 

[wiretap]

I've never seen *anywhere* the founding fathers ever seriously considered a direct democracy. Therefore, I'm not away of anywhere they rejected one over the issue of the tyranny of the majority.

I am aware they were concerned abotu the tyranny of the majority *in the context of a representative democracy* and that's why they very much wanted a constitution with rights protecting the minority.

That is confusing 'direct versus reppresentative' with 'tyranny of the majority' versus 'individual rights'.

However, if I'm ignorant of their considering non-representative direct democracy as you say, correct me.

I never said they seriously considered, or ever considered and direct democracy. I said they strongly stated their cases against it. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, you need to brush up on your history lessons.

 

[umbrella39]

You been drinking?

1. The U.S. is a democracy, just not a direct one, as if one exists. Every branch of our government ultimately derives its power from majority rule.
2. I'm sure you like the gubments Peacemakers
3. Coffee is brown. Do all beans look alike to you too?
4. Iron fist & Liberty don't belong in same sentence.
5. I'm whiter than you. Think Brock Lesnar without penis tattoo.

He's been drinking something. The only thing left to do is to get a pool going where you pick the month and year that he finally snaps and the SS takes him away.

 

[Craig234]

I never said they seriously considered, or ever considered and direct democracy. I said they strongly stated their cases against it. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, you need to brush up on your history lessons.

When I say considered it, I incoude 'discussed it at length opposing it' as you suggest. Opposing 'tyranny of the majority' is NOT the same as opposing non-representative direct democracy.

If they spent a lot of time opposing it, that was time discussing it, and implies they saw some real issue that it might be adopted. They wouldn't discuss it if it weren't on somene's radar.

So, I await your evidence they spent much time denouncing non-representative direct democracy - not the issue of rights protected by the constitution from the majority in the context of representative democracy.

 

[wiretap]

When I say considered it, I incoude 'discussed it at length opposing it' as you suggest. Opposing 'tyranny of the majority' is NOT the same as opposing non-representative direct democracy.

If they spent a lot of time opposing it, that was time discussing it, and implies they saw some real issue that it might be adopted. They wouldn't discuss it if it weren't on somene's radar.

So, I await your evidence they spent much time denouncing non-representative direct democracy - not the issue of rights protected by the constitution from the majority in the context of representative democracy.

I can do that in a few simple words. [ All of their debate sessions they held when drafting the US Constitution. ] Of course not every one of them agreed with each other, but they were fighting for representation and stating their case against a direct democracy. Honestly, I don't know what you're arguing, this is basic history 101 learned in elementary school.

 

[Kirby]

Being for civil discussion and partcipation isn't a party. A party is about demagogues.

ffy

 

[Craig234]

I can do that in a few simple words. [ All of their debate sessions they held when drafting the US Constitution. ] Of course not every one of them agreed with each other, but they were fighting for representation and stating their case against a direct democracy. Honestly, I don't know what you're arguing, this is basic history 101 learned in elementary school.

I think we've repeated the 'provide evidence' 'no' circle enogh times now. I haven't cganged my opinion that you're confused, you haven't provided evidence or changed yours from just saying it's so.

The founders discussed the tyrrany of the majority in so many words - but never that I've seen in the context of any possibility of the Uniited States being a direct democracy, only representative.

 

[wiretap]

Wow.. you're the confused one. Never have I said they discussed the possibility of it being a direct democracy. I said they stated their cases against it, which is obvious in their writings/journals and the clearly apparent in their multiple drafts of the US Constitution, and very apparent in the final version of the US Constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Wow.. you're the confused one. Never have I said they discussed the possibility of it being a direct democracy. I said they stated their cases against it, which is obvious in their writings/journals and the clearly apparent in their multiple drafts of the US Constitution, and very apparent in the final version of the US Constitution.

No, you're the confused one. All of those things were against the majority *in a representative democracy* violating the rights of minority citizens and groups amd the need for constituional rights in the representative de,pcracy, as I have said all along. You claimed that it was against *direct* democracy, not the majority of citizens in a *representative* democracy with inadequate constitutional rights, but you have offered no evidence at all for your claim.

I'd predict you are are, if you say anything you haven't, going to deny ever taking that position.

To be clear, show me any evidence of significant founding fathers' disccusions that were specifically against the *direct democracy* majority, rather than applying to the abuses by the majority of citzens and their representatives in a *representative* democracy if there weren't adequate protections for individual rights in a constitution.

THe only place this is headed is you saying 'well that's what you meant all along' and denying you ever disagreed with the position I said was right as opposed to yours.

The distinction I've been making this whole time is between your claim they were talking about *direct democracy*, and not the democracy in the context of a representative government. You have disagreed every time I've made that distinction that you are not confusing the two and really mean direct democracy. I still await any evidence.

 

[wiretap]

I guess you've never read any Jefferson, The Federalist Papers, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Adams, Carroll, Henry, and a whole host of others. I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth saying "you're wrong... no you're wrong" because clearly you haven't read enough to even be capable of coming up with any names or examples.. you just cite broad generalizations.

 

[Tristicus]

I guess you've never read any Jefferson, The Federalist Papers, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Adams, Carroll, Henry, and a whole host of others. I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth saying "you're wrong... no you're wrong" because clearly you haven't read enough to even be capable of coming up with any names or examples.. you just cite broad generalizations.

It's Craig....