Party, party, party

February 26, 2010 12:05 PM

Festive Friday fun: three parties. Coffee, tea or weed?
posted by GrammarMoses (33 comments total)

yes please.
posted by The Whelk at 12:08 PM on February 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Weed party, definitely.
posted by fiestapais at 12:08 PM on February 26, 2010

Weed party at my place! You can all help me clear the ivy and crabgrass out of the flowerbeds!

What did you think I meant?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:19 PM on February 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

A third party is not a viable option.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 12:21 PM on February 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

The mission of the Coffee Party: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

That's crazy talk.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 12:28 PM on February 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm still registered with Pat Paulsen's Straight Talkin' American Government (STAG) Party.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:29 PM on February 26, 2010

¡Viva the Meadow Party!
posted by entropicamericana at 12:36 PM on February 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Publisher's description

Catch marijuana leaves and get George Bush, President of the United States of America, "High" enough by catching joint in order to finish the level and go to the next one.

Made in 2001, but so much more fun to play post-2008.
posted by gagglezoomer at 12:45 PM on February 26, 2010

Snark is my Anti-Drug.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:47 PM on February 26, 2010

Party party party hard,
Party in a dude's backyard.

Party party party nice,
Party hard to be precise.

Party party party hard,
I view partying with fond regard.
posted by signalnine at 12:48 PM on February 26, 2010

Andrew W.K., please call extension 89583...
posted by stenseng at 12:52 PM on February 26, 2010

Ugh, Daniel Hannan. I've seen him speak in a debate, and he didn't leave me feeling remotely impressed with his policies or his methods.

Arguing against the EU, he essentially attempted to mislead the audience. His point was re: the legislative process. He was attempting to argue that it was undemocratic, run by European bureaucrats etc. He completely failed to mention the co-decision procedure which allows elected MEPs (of which he is one) to have their say on proposed legislation. It's a huge part of the process, and something which is EU Law 101. Thankfully, someone pulled him up on it.

He was also the third of four speakers for his side of the argument (in broad, against the EU). He came after the leader of UKIP and the former leader of the UKIP, and completely failed to distance himself or tone down their anti-immigrant stance. I know Jon Stewart has poked fun at Keith Olberman for saying someone is bad because they failed to repute X, but I feel that sharing a platform with them is a slightly closer stance than someone from a crowd shouting something, and they essentially blamed everything on hordes of Eastern Europeans etc.

The more I see of him, the more I gather the impression that he'll be as contrary as possible in order to draw attention to himself (see also: slagging off the NHS). So I shan't be heading to Brighton for his tea party.

Further, from the site: British membership of the democratically unaccountable EU raises the issue of "no taxation without representation", which is rather odd coming from someone who's elected by the British people to represent them in the European Parliament.
posted by djgh at 1:00 PM on February 26, 2010

I'm starting the Costume Party, based around the tenet that government is better when everybody wears awesome costumes. Actually, everything's better with awesome costumes, government notwithstanding.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 1:16 PM on February 26, 2010

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am behind your notion, though I fear that most in government would go with the Toga Party, and bring about the fall of this modern Rome. Or things could go well and we'd just end up with folks re-enacting scenes from Animal House, with Obama thrown into the role of Dean Wormer.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:24 PM on February 26, 2010

I'm fond of the Surprise Party myself.
posted by Rarebit Fiend at 1:29 PM on February 26, 2010

I'm all feclemped. talk amongst yourself, I'll give you a topic:

Duran Duran is neither a Duran nor a Duran. Discuss.
posted by djduckie at 1:30 PM on February 26, 2010

If I had any weed, you can be sure I wouldn't be sharing it with a Bush.

(also: The UK has delusional wankers who want things without paying for them too? How very surprising... WIMPYBURGER)
posted by pompomtom at 1:32 PM on February 26, 2010

The real weed party
posted by Dick Laurent is Dead at 1:37 PM on February 26, 2010

The Tea Party people are ruining the good name of actual tea.
posted by GuyZero at 1:57 PM on February 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

A third party is not a viable option.

The Tea Party isn't a party, its name is a misnomer. It's a movement, a loose social structure meant to shift public opinion & change public policy without creating a formal political party complete with candidates, delegates, a platform or any of the things we typically associate with political parties. It's parasitic on its parent party, the Republicans.

I see no downside to creating an opposing force to shift public opinion & policy towards liberal causes & basic sanity. I am absolutely going to support the Coffee Party Movement. It's the only sensible move at this point.
posted by scalefree at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2010

"In defense of reason and common sense, for the sake of God and country."
That's rich.
posted by crazylegs at 2:18 PM on February 26, 2010

The mission of the Coffee Party: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

That's crazy talk.

It actually is pretty stupid. I mean, what exactly is the problem with a system where two sides present their ideas, we have an election, and whatever side wins then does whatever they said they were going to do?

The fixation on bipartisanship is what's actually insane. People more worried about people being polite to each other in D.C. then they are about tens of thousands of Americans dying due to a lack of health insurance, or hundreds of others going without needed medical care. All of those things are less important to the bipartisan fetishists then the "tone" in Washington.

The fact is, bipartisanship is ideological. It's an ideology that claims "both sides working together" is the end goal of government, and the results are always better the same way an ideological capitalists believe free markets and private companies are always better then the government, or ideological communists believe the government should run everything.

I am absolutely going to support the Coffee Party Movement. It's the only sensible move at this point.

How is sensible to support a political movement with no policy goals whatsoever? Except for, as far as I can tell, cutting down on medicare fraud (no explanation of how much it would cost to enforce) and something they're calling a "Don't ask don't tell compromise". (They also want public financing, which is good.)

Seems like a movement of people who's main interest is having political debates be more "polite" regardless of the actual outcome for Americans.
posted by delmoi at 2:40 PM on February 26, 2010

The fact is, bipartisanship is ideological. It's an ideology that claims "both sides working together" is the end goal of government

Agreed, it is an ideology. The other POV is that individual responsibility is the best solution to problems, that government should stay out of it. It's really at the heart of the divide - co-operative community oriented solutions -vs- individual responsibility and freedom solutions. Coffee or Tea.
posted by stbalbach at 3:18 PM on February 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I mean, what exactly is the problem with a system where two sides present their ideas, we have an election, and whatever side wins then does whatever they said they were going to do?

If only it was that simple.

I heard that Hannan clown on Glenn Beck this morning. Yes, I listen to Glenn Beck sometimes, and Limbaugh as well, to keep tabs on what the painfully influential far-right is currently blathering on about. I think today the word was "communists".
posted by Red Loop at 4:10 PM on February 26, 2010

I don't entirely get the point of the whole Coffee Party thing, but I think it's neat seeing it make an appearance here on MeFi because I am vaaaaguely acquainted with its founder, Annabel Park. I made an FPP about her a couple years ago (here) during the immigration brouhaha that went down in Prince William County, Virginia. This work is now a full-length, award-winning documentary film, 9500 Liberty.
posted by naoko at 4:13 PM on February 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Agreed, it is an ideology. The other POV is that individual responsibility is the best solution to problems, that government should stay out of it. It's really at the heart of the divide - co-operative community oriented solutions -vs- individual responsibility and freedom solutions. Coffee or Tea.

Uh, Republicans and democrats working together is not "Co-operative community oriented solutions" It's corporate lobbyists getting whatever they want behind the scenes while both sides excuse their behavior by blaming the other side and the need for "bipartisanship" At least that's how it goes in DC. The most "Bi-partisan" senators like Lieberman, Bayh, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, etc, consistently back the worst policies.

The actual opposite of the "Tea Party" is the liberal netroots, the Daily Kos/FDL types, which (of course) grew up during the bush administration as an opposition movement. The Teabaggers are practically a mirror image of that.

The teabaggers want right-wing stuff, the netroots want left wing stuff. Then in the middle you have the david broder, a lot of the media and now the coffeebaggers who don't actually care about policy and just want people to "get along" and "get stuff done" without actually caring what actually happens or whether the policies are good ideas or not.
posted by delmoi at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I still prefer the cocktail party. Plus, they do advocate for actually drinking what they advertising.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:43 PM on February 26, 2010

could someone add the "overthinking" tag?
posted by telstar at 5:23 PM on February 26, 2010

Don't forgot the Secret Sex Party.
posted by amuseDetachment at 5:28 PM on February 26, 2010

I mean, what exactly is the problem with a system where two sides present their ideas, we have an election, and whatever side wins then does whatever they said they were going to do?

Not to be impolite, but i must have been sleeping when the announcement was made that either party was going to actually follow through with campaign promises once they won.

Historically, from the very birth of this nation it has always been a war between the desires of the masses and the desires of the few elected 'representatives' of the masses (which, in most cases, first pledge allegiance to whoever has the money, and only consider the cries of the general populous when rumblings flow forth from towns into cities and threaten the stability of business as usual.)

Those who think the two major parties in this country differ much, if at all, should take a look at the policies enacted over the past 200 years. You might see that there is a particular trend: the rich get richer and the poor languish on until death becomes them.

Oh, of course a few of the huddled masses make a buck. And a fair share graduate to the middle classes to serve as a buffer.

But the game remains the same.

Two parties?

it doesn't matter how many parties we have when they all bow to the to same master.
posted by vantam at 12:57 AM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Those who think the two major parties in this country differ much, if at all, should take a look at the policies enacted over the past 200 years. You might see that there is a particular trend: the rich get richer and the poor languish on until death becomes them.

The fact that there is a trend doesn't imply that the two parties are the same. If you compare trends while each party is in power there are clear differences.

For example, under Democratic presidents since WWII, income growth for the poorest quintile has been insanely higher than under Republicans. In fact. income growth for the bottom FOUR quintiles has been better under Ds than Rs. And for the top quintile? Equal under Ds and Rs.

Democrats gave us social security, medicare, medicaid, desegregation, anti-discrimination laws, women's suffrage while Republicans fought each one.

Democrats have their flaws (Vietnam, being too often spineless in opposition, being too tied to banking and credit interests, dragging their feet on gay rights) but it's just ignorant to say that there isn't much difference between the two parties.

Especially since the Republicans have taken a HARD right turn since the days of that commie liberal Nixon who created the EPA. Before Reagan et al, Republicans used to talk up Austrian economics because it was convenient. Now they seem to actually believe it. Bush had just barely enough integrity and good advice (and concern for his legacy) that he signed the first bailouts. Do you think the next Republican would do that? Or would s/he go along with the tea partying base and let the economy come crashing down around us?

Just because the parties aren't different enough doesn't mean that they aren't different.
posted by callmejay at 7:19 AM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

tea, hands down.
who ever heard of a coffee or weed party?
my grandmother would be shocked at the low brow company which tea parties are no keeping.
posted by littlebiggy at 2:44 PM on February 28, 2010

Coffee Party = wannabe Astroturf
posted by wallstreet1929 at 4:57 PM on March 2, 2010