Skip to comments.Clueless AFP Portrays Coffee Party as a Major Political Force
Posted on 10/26/2010 7:45:34 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Somebody should send a message to the absolutely clueless AFP (Agence France-Presse) news agency: the Coffee Party today is about as signficant a political force as the Prohibition Party. However, in this AFP story by Edouard Guihaire the Coffee Party, which pretty much died almost at birth, is portrayed as a major political force on a par with the Tea Party. Perhaps Guihaire is new to America and has not woken up to the sad reality of the moribund Coffee Party which even our own liberal mainstream media has given up covering after an initial flurry of hype at the beginning of the year. So here is AFP laughably trying to convince its readers about the incredible political significance of the Whig... I mean Coffee...Party:
WOODBRIDGE, Virginia — A progressive infusion in US politics, the Coffee Party is brewing a strong counter-movement to the ultra-conservative Tea Party, just a week ahead of the US legislative elections.
Born in January in reaction to the bashing President Barack Obama's proposed health care reform was getting in Congress and the media, the Coffee Party first took shape on Facebook.
"It started on my personal Facebook page," said party founder Annabel Park, a small, soft spoken woman with a strong character.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
We MANUFACTURE the news.
just lock them all in Cartmans basement with a few dozen joints and a guitar. That should keep them quiet.
Let’s see. Boston Tea Party, 1773.
Boston Coffee Party? Alburquerque coffee party?
Somehow, I don’t think libs have much sense of history. The fact that important things happened before the founding of Starbucks has never entered their pointy little heads.
The Coffee Party are half baked beans.
That is a riot!
More “we said it therefore it’s true” from the lefties.
The reality is that the Coffee Party is decaffeinated and inconsequential.
An expat American, now a French citizen, I know wrote this to me the other day:
Birthright citizenship is so anchored in America's vision of itself as a haven for all peoples -- everyone, regardless of origin can become an American -- that messing with it opens up a massive can of worms. Bear in mind as well that the legal bedrock of birthright citizen, the 14th amendment, was one result of the bloodiest war in US history. I just don't see any movement to change it making any significant headway either legally or politically.
In the end I suspect that the current US controversy has more to do with the election as president of a man born in Hawaii of a Kenyan father than any serious consideration of the meaning of US citizenship.
As for France, the government and public opinion are grappling with the very nature of French identity. ... blah blah blah ...
I almost wrote back:
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Is this what you are trying to say?
"In America, this issue of national citizenship is a simple matter of racism because ya'll have a black President who you don't like for any known reason except that he is black, but in France, it's more complex (because we're France) and involves our national identify as a race, which of course isn't racism because it is, after all, France."
Did I sum that up correctly, or am I missing something here? It's always so enlightening to hear citizens of other countries that are so knowledgeable about our affairs, isn't it? Especially the French!
But suddenly, I remembered my rule of never wasting time arguing with idiots, and my hand became very heavy all of a sudden and I just couldn't muster the energy to hit the Send button.