Coffee Party

Coffee party? What historical event is that based on, a Starbucks grand opening?

I would think none. Progressives don't normally look back, they look forward. Unlike so-called conservatives, who constantly look back for answers, even though there are no answers in our past.
Hey. Have you invented the wheel yet? I need to get to work.
 
Tea Party

smaller government
fiscal responsibility
common sense


Coffee Makers

bigger government
fiscal free-for-all
no common sense


Why are the coffee makers even bothering to form a group? All of their criteria is already in place.

People who have been bashing and mocking the Tea Party movement for the past year decide to form their own group and pattern it after . . . the same group they have been bashing and mocking for the past year.

OTAY-Buckwheat.jpg
 
It sure does help you recognize blind alleys that have already been explored. But it won't tell you what is down the unexplored alleys and streets. As for where Obama wants to take us, I suppose whether or not one wants to go will depend on what one sees, or think one sees, when one looks down that unexplored street.

Unexplored? We have countless nations who have done the exact same thing before us and it has always failed. What the heck is unexplored about it???? Do we think the laws of nature are somehow going to change this time around?

What do you think you see on the path Obama is trying to take?

The administration has been more then clear about their goals for health care. As have other members of this board. "We need to follow other western countries." No, we don't. We are Americans. We are leaders, not followers. and I sure as heck don't want to follow the path the rest of the world is on.
 
Yeah. How stupid to learn about what works and doesnt from people who have already tried things. We should just ignore them and make the same exact mistakes over and over again. That will show how smart we are.

Yeah, it is stupid when you don't know the difference between looking back for answers and learning lessons from the past. Two very different things.

So we cant ask "what is wrong with Marxism?" and look back at Stalin and Hitler to find the answer? we have to try it again?

Well to get anything from an examination you have to have the right questions. Putting a question that assumes the answer isn't helpful so you might want to rephrase it. "What is Marxism?" would be a good start. If you get to the conclusion that it's a form of social analysis predicated on German idealism which has a deterministic streak in it then you'd be on the way to working it out.

If you looked at Hitler you wouldn't get much out of it. If you looked at Stalin then you would understand it a bit more and you'd probably see how Marxist theory was distorted by too much emphasis on the determinism that Marx argued is a part of human history. By the way Stalin was an expert on dialectical (or historical) materialism, one of the reasons Lysenko was so successful in sucking up to him.
 
Yeah, it is stupid when you don't know the difference between looking back for answers and learning lessons from the past. Two very different things.

Yeah. I dont really see a difference between learning things.

I know you don't. Learning the lessons of history only enables you to not repeat the mistakes of the past, if you're smart. They don't help much in charting a course to the future. But if you think answers lie in the past, then you probably won't understand this either.

The more history I read the more I begin to understand that because humans have a limited range of responses to events - natural and artificially caused - which means that we will continue to do what we've always done. Now and then we break out of this tendency and we move forwards, but those are few and far between.
 
Yeah. I dont really see a difference between learning things.

I know you don't. Learning the lessons of history only enables you to not repeat the mistakes of the past, if you're smart. They don't help much in charting a course to the future. But if you think answers lie in the past, then you probably won't understand this either.

Sure it does. It gives you patterns. Should we reinvent the wheel? or should we build off what our ancestors have already given for us? Should we rebegin science in every generation or should we build off what our ancestors have given us? Should we continue to repeat their mistakes in government, or should we learn from what actually worksk and build off of it.

You can look to the future all you want, but until you know whats happened before, it wont help you very much.

Lots of thoughts come to mind here. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is one, but that's predicated on the notion of science and not superstition which tends to see us running on the spot and not standing on anything.

Another thought is that there's a reference to Hegelian dialectics here, that perhaps there's hope in the thesis-antithesis-synthesis cycle that may give us progress. But if we chuck human nature into that little equation we can see where we come unstuck.
 
Yeah, it is stupid when you don't know the difference between looking back for answers and learning lessons from the past. Two very different things.

So we cant ask "what is wrong with Marxism?" and look back at Stalin and Hitler to find the answer? we have to try it again?

Well to get anything from an examination you have to have the right questions. Putting a question that assumes the answer isn't helpful so you might want to rephrase it. "What is Marxism?" would be a good start. If you get to the conclusion that it's a form of social analysis predicated on German idealism which has a deterministic streak in it then you'd be on the way to working it out.

If you looked at Hitler you wouldn't get much out of it. If you looked at Stalin then you would understand it a bit more and you'd probably see how Marxist theory was distorted by too much emphasis on the determinism that Marx argued is a part of human history. By the way Stalin was an expert on dialectical (or historical) materialism, one of the reasons Lysenko was so successful in sucking up to him.
Marxism was the ideology. Past methodologies toward it failed. Should we expect three (or four or five) as a charm? Not I.
 
Unexplored? We have countless nations who have done the exact same thing before us and it has always failed. What the heck is unexplored about it???? Do we think the laws of nature are somehow going to change this time around?

What do you think you see on the path Obama is trying to take?

The administration has been more then clear about their goals for health care. As have other members of this board. "We need to follow other western countries." No, we don't. We are Americans. We are leaders, not followers. and I sure as heck don't want to follow the path the rest of the world is on.

The rest of the world is out of step? I don't think so. You see what's happened is that the US is where the rest of the world was many years ago when it comes to health care provision for the nation. The rest of the world, well the western world anyway, has moved on and developed progressive social policies regarding health care. The US is firmly stuck in the 19th Century on that topic. So I dispute your claim to leadership. I'd add that it's sad to see a nation so crippled by ideological disputation over what should be an issue free from ideology that it's fast becoming ungovernable. You know this is the beginning of the end when that happens for a nation.
 
The rest of the world is out of step? I don't think so. You see what's happened is that the US is where the rest of the world was many years ago when it comes to health care provision for the nation. The rest of the world, well the western world anyway, has moved on and developed progressive social policies regarding health care. The US is firmly stuck in the 19th Century on that topic. So I dispute your claim to leadership. I'd add that it's sad to see a nation so crippled by ideological disputation over what should be an issue free from ideology that it's fast becoming ungovernable. You know this is the beginning of the end when that happens for a nation.

Yes. the rest of the world is out of step. Because for the past 70 years, they've had us looking over their shoulder doing all the heavy lifting. If we start adopting their policies, the whole system will collapse.

Government is the problem. Not the solution.
 
So we cant ask "what is wrong with Marxism?" and look back at Stalin and Hitler to find the answer? we have to try it again?

Well to get anything from an examination you have to have the right questions. Putting a question that assumes the answer isn't helpful so you might want to rephrase it. "What is Marxism?" would be a good start. If you get to the conclusion that it's a form of social analysis predicated on German idealism which has a deterministic streak in it then you'd be on the way to working it out.

If you looked at Hitler you wouldn't get much out of it. If you looked at Stalin then you would understand it a bit more and you'd probably see how Marxist theory was distorted by too much emphasis on the determinism that Marx argued is a part of human history. By the way Stalin was an expert on dialectical (or historical) materialism, one of the reasons Lysenko was so successful in sucking up to him.
Marxism was the ideology. Past methodologies toward it failed. Should we expect three (or four or five) as a charm? Not I.

It was turned into an ideology, yes, in Marx's lifetime no less - which is why towards the end of his life he made the remark about him not being a Marxist. As a form of social analysis of 19th Century industrial Europe it was useful. We can learn from examining the failure of its application in various places, but to do that we have to keep an open mind.
 
The rest of the world is out of step? I don't think so. You see what's happened is that the US is where the rest of the world was many years ago when it comes to health care provision for the nation. The rest of the world, well the western world anyway, has moved on and developed progressive social policies regarding health care. The US is firmly stuck in the 19th Century on that topic. So I dispute your claim to leadership. I'd add that it's sad to see a nation so crippled by ideological disputation over what should be an issue free from ideology that it's fast becoming ungovernable. You know this is the beginning of the end when that happens for a nation.

Yes. the rest of the world is out of step. Because for the past 70 years, they've had us looking over their shoulder doing all the heavy lifting. If we start adopting their policies, the whole system will collapse.

Government is the problem. Not the solution.

You poor buggers, acting out of altruism always eh? Enough with the fiction. The fact is that in this issue the US is well behind.
You
 
Coffee Party, a great idea. Why are there three pages of derision, based on an idea? What scares the RW so much that they spend so much time on ridicule and mockery, and so little explaining how they would govern?
The answer is clear. Goverance requires vision, critical thought and committment. The RW is committed to one thing only - themselves. Much like the manager or CEO whose first question - usually not articulated - is, "how does this (change) effect me", conservatives have no vision beyond their own self interest.
 
Yeah, it is stupid when you don't know the difference between looking back for answers and learning lessons from the past. Two very different things.

So we cant ask "what is wrong with Marxism?" and look back at Stalin and Hitler to find the answer? we have to try it again?

Well to get anything from an examination you have to have the right questions. Putting a question that assumes the answer isn't helpful so you might want to rephrase it. "What is Marxism?" would be a good start. If you get to the conclusion that it's a form of social analysis predicated on German idealism which has a deterministic streak in it then you'd be on the way to working it out.

If you looked at Hitler you wouldn't get much out of it. If you looked at Stalin then you would understand it a bit more and you'd probably see how Marxist theory was distorted by too much emphasis on the determinism that Marx argued is a part of human history. By the way Stalin was an expert on dialectical (or historical) materialism, one of the reasons Lysenko was so successful in sucking up to him.

Could you perhaps put that in a clearer fashion?
 
Perhaps the coffee parties will work better than the past attempt of actual astroturfing?

Blogs | A New Way Forward

LOL! Just remember that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
 
I would think none. Progressives don't normally look back, they look forward. Unlike so-called conservatives, who constantly look back for answers, even though there are no answers in our past.

Yeah. How stupid to learn about what works and doesnt from people who have already tried things. We should just ignore them and make the same exact mistakes over and over again. That will show how smart we are.

Yeah, it is stupid when you don't know the difference between looking back for answers and learning lessons from the past. Two very different things.

:eusa_shhh:
 
Coffee Party Platform (a start)

We think the fact the richest nation on earth does not provide healthcare for all its citizens immoral.

We do not accept the argument that in any society, class, privilege, and wealth are the only determinants of good healthcare.

We think that access to good healthcare is a good and a foundation for any arguments on individual freedom.

How can any American argue that something that hurts children is just the way it is and the alternate too costly.

How can an America without healthcare claim to be a religious, caring, freedom loving nation.

UHC now!
 
It sure does help you recognize blind alleys that have already been explored. But it won't tell you what is down the unexplored alleys and streets. As for where Obama wants to take us, I suppose whether or not one wants to go will depend on what one sees, or think one sees, when one looks down that unexplored street.

Unexplored? We have countless nations who have done the exact same thing before us and it has always failed. What the heck is unexplored about it???? Do we think the laws of nature are somehow going to change this time around?

What do you think you see on the path Obama is trying to take?
mrz071309dAPR20090711014348.jpg


hist_hyperinflation.jpg


Depression-Food-Line.jpg


Riots.jpg
 
"Moving toward solutions to the problems.."

Hmmmm...

Sounds commie to me.

What we clearly need is more partisans pretending to be at deadlock in Congress, so we can keep the grassroot partisan dupes happy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top