Booze for Liberals

Drinking Liberally opens chapter in Hoboken, NJ

I personally think alcohol and politics don’t mix well, but one liberal drinking group disagrees. Drinking Liberally announced that they’ve opened up a chapter here in Hoboken – and you can find out more during the Presidential Debate next Wednesday, October 3rd at 7pm at the Hoboken Bar & Grill (230 Washington St.)

They have over 230 indoctrination zones chapters across the country. Here’s what they’re all about:

“An informal, inclusive progressive social group. Raise your spirits while you raise your glass, and share ideas while you share a pitcher. Drinking Liberally gives like-minded, left-leaning individuals a place to talk politics. You don’t need to be a policy expert and this isn’t a book club – just come and learn from peers, trade jokes, vent frustration and hang out in an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.”

What does “Liberal” mean to you these days?

21 Responses

  1. john14 says:

    I don’t know how anyone can look another person in the eye and say they’re voting for Obama. And what is left-leaning anyway? Sounds more like a group with disabilities.

    • curious says:

      That is funny John, because I feel the same way about people who are planning on voting for Romney….

      As for the meaning of left leaning, in case you were serious:

      In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social changes to create a more egalitarian society….

      Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-leaning
      [quote comment=”217331″]I don’t know how anyone can look another person in the eye and say they’re voting for Obama. And what is left-leaning anyway? Sounds more like a group with disabilities.[/quote]

      • MidnightRacer says:

        “create a more egalitarian society….”

        You’re basically saying an equal society without choosing a significant qualifier. Are you saying 1) an equal and free society built upon individual sovereignty and limited government, or 2) a controlled and engineered society without individual sovereignty and autocracy?

        There’s a divide here. There are those take equal to mean – equal opportunity – to make yourself whatever you wish, to earn as you please, to succeed as you try. Then there are those who will seize control, punish you for your success and reward those who did not earn it – this they call equalization of outcome. In the former, there equality is based upon freedom. In the latter, equality is based upon an intercepting authority with unlimited power by the gun who punishes the former.

        freedom vs control[quote comment=”217332″]That is funny John, because I feel the same way about people who are planning on voting for Romney….As for the meaning of left leaning, in case you were serious:In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social changes to create a more egalitarian society….Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-leaning[/quote]

      • trueblue11 says:

        earn as you please…then sell the company, make millions and farm-out the labor overseas, putting tens of thousands of U.S citizens out of work. what-it’s all about individuals making money, right? fuck everybody else.[quote comment=”217336″]“create a more egalitarian society….”You’re basically saying an equal society without choosing a significant qualifier. Are you saying 1) an equal and free society built upon individual sovereignty and limited government, or 2) a controlled and engineered society without individual sovereignty and autocracy?There’s a divide here. There are those take equal to mean – equal opportunity – to make yourself whatever you wish, to earn as you please, to succeed as you try. Then there are those who will seize control, punish you for your success and reward those who did not earn it – this they call equalization of outcome. In the former, there equality is based upon freedom. In the latter, equality is based upon an intercepting authority with unlimited power by the gun who punishes the former.freedom vs control[/quote]

  2. kooky kat says:

    OMG this sounds so awful. Note to self: stay the hell away from Hoboken Bar and Grill October 3rd!!

  3. HansBrix says:

    Either way it sounds like an event perfectly suited for those who want to reinforce the opinions they already have and otherwise remain in their bubble of unchallenged thinking.

    For people whose politics is their religion this is ideal – a liberal revival meeting where they can disparage Christian “religious freaks” (among others) with no sense of irony.

    • trueblue11 says:

      Hansbrix, that’s funny. re-read your first paragraph, “people who want to reinforce the opinions they already have and otherwise remain in their bubble of unchallenged thinking”
      that, my friend, is the wikipedia definition of “christian religious freaks”[quote comment=”217339″]Either way it sounds like an event perfectly suited for those who want to reinforce the opinions they already have and otherwise remain in their bubble of unchallenged thinking.For people whose politics is their religion this is ideal – a liberal revival meeting where they can disparage Christian “religious freaks” (among others) with no sense of irony.[/quote]

      • HansBrix says:

        You and your friends are probably dogmatic creationists and don’t even realize it.

        😆 [quote comment=”217341″]Hansbrix, that’s funny. re-read your first paragraph, “people who want to reinforce the opinions they already have and otherwise remain in their bubble of unchallenged thinking” that, my friend, is the wikipedia definition of “christian religious freaks”[/quote]

    • homeworld says:

      I think that’s called watching Fox News (or MSNBC)[quote comment=”217339″]Either way it sounds like an event perfectly suited for those who want to reinforce the opinions they already have and otherwise remain in their bubble of unchallenged thinking.For people whose politics is their religion this is ideal – a liberal revival meeting where they can disparage Christian “religious freaks” (among others) with no sense of irony.[/quote]

  4. MidnightRacer says:

    The left and right are voluntarily participating in a socially engineered rivalry.

    Since whenever it began, humans believe (in the natural world) that they’re physically week, and mentally overpowered. So camps formed and people gravitated to that which more easily manipulated them most. This is where the engineering of rivalry found its origin.

    Believe it or not, but both the left and right have their own deity; the right being the institution of religion, the left being the institution of religion. Wait did I make a mistake? Nope, the left is as religious as the right, but not to the same institution. Again, it’s a rivalry. For everything the right does, the left reacts yet never initiates. Let’s look at history:

    The right initiates morals, and the left reacts with the moral right of immorality.
    The right supports private enterprise, and the left reacts with collective communism.
    The right preaches, the left reacts with preaching against preaching.
    The right makes money, the left reacts with redistribution.

    If the right ceased to exist, the left would have nothing to which to react.

    Now here’s the kick in the nads moment:

    If the left ceased to exist, the right would no longer have religion (codependency).

    Going back to history, it was the left who initiated the establishment of the church (any religion). Whoever so preaches control do so with the ulterior motive of manipulating the individual into slavery…

    “the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the ‘sin’ of creating values”

    –– Leonard Peikoff

    The concept of sin was invented by the left, not for any moral reason, but to control. You sin, you pay, we spend. The right are susceptible to the most significant scam in humanity.

    If you ever wondered why the left have such control issues…

    • trueblue11 says:

      Brix, I’ve always denounced creationism, despite it getting beating into me by nuns.
      Racer, I don’t agree with your sociological theory of the left and right, but both of you have a nice weekend.[quote comment=”217344″]The left and right are voluntarily participating in a socially engineered rivalry.Since whenever it began, humans believe (in the natural world) that they’re physically week, and mentally overpowered. So camps formed and people gravitated to that which more easily manipulated them most. This is where the engineering of rivalry found its origin.Believe it or not, but both the left and right have their own deity; the right being the institution of religion, the left being the institution of religion. Wait did I make a mistake? Nope, the left is as religious as the right, but not to the same institution. Again, it’s a rivalry. For everything the right does, the left reacts yet never initiates. Let’s look at history:The right initiates morals, and the left reacts with the moral right of immorality. The right supports private enterprise, and the left reacts with collective communism. The right preaches, the left reacts with preaching against preaching. The right makes money, the left reacts with redistribution.If the right ceased to exist, the left would have nothing to which to react.Now here’s the kick in the nads moment:If the left ceased to exist, the right would no longer have religion (codependency).Going back to history, it was the left who initiated the establishment of the church (any religion). Whoever so preaches control do so with the ulterior motive of manipulating the individual into slavery…“the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the ‘sin’ of creating values”–– Leonard PeikoffThe concept of sin was invented by the left, not for any moral reason, but to control. You sin, you pay, we spend. The right are susceptible to the most significant scam in humanity.If you ever wondered why the left have such control issues…[/quote]

      • HansBrix says:

        I’m referring to Liberal Creationism where discussion, debate, and, ironically, scientific inquiry, particularly involving egalitarianism outside the law is actively discouraged if not forbidden. Ideally heretics are to be denounced as witches, publicly shunned,  and their careers burned at the stake where ever possible.

        Don’t know if that describes you/your viewpoint but it seems to be a common theme among the left.

        Btw if you were to witness someone berating a Muslim for beliefs resembling creationism would you applaud…or call it out as a hate crime?[quote comment=”217345″]Brix, I’ve always denounced creationism, despite it getting beating into me by nuns. Racer, I don’t agree with your sociological theory of the left and right, but both of you have a nice weekend.[/quote]

  5. MidnightRacer says:

    [quote]An informal, inclusive progressive social group. Raise your spirits while you raise your glass, and share ideas while you share a pitcher. Drinking Liberally gives like-minded, left-leaning individuals a place to talk politics. You don’t need to be a policy expert and this isn’t a book club – just come and learn from peers, trade jokes, vent frustration and hang out in an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.[quote]

    key words: like-minded, left-leaning, share ideas while under the influence, vent frustration, environment where it’s not taboo to talk

    (in other words, collusion)

    It must be hidden that the ideas for execution here involve actions which have to violate the rule of law as set by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning no other laws/policy can over ride it. Taxation was for the purpose of paying for the common defense amongst the states, congresspersons were only to come to the capital on a part time basis, and the federal government was severely limited as per enumerated powers as explicitly stated as restrictions in the Constitution. This is where the “vent frustration” comes from in the observation that they cannot legally do what they want. So the legal goal posts are illegally moved, media spins, and the sovereign individuals of the U.S. do nothing, Congress is complicit, because after all, the 1960’s is financially obligated to fulfill its objectives due to source of funding. Flexibility only lasts so long when you deal with these organizations.

  6. MidnightRacer says:

    [quote]An informal, inclusive progressive social group. Raise your spirits while you raise your glass, and share ideas while you share a pitcher. Drinking Liberally gives like-minded, left-leaning individuals a place to talk politics. You don’t need to be a policy expert and this isn’t a book club – just come and learn from peers, trade jokes, vent frustration and hang out in an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.[/quote]

    key words: like-minded, left-leaning, share ideas while under the influence, vent frustration, environment where it’s not taboo to talk

    (in other words, collusion)

    It must be hidden that the ideas for execution here involve actions which have to violate the rule of law as set by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning no other laws/policy can over ride it. Taxation was for the purpose of paying for the common defense amongst the states, congresspersons were only to come to the capital on a part time basis, and the federal government was severely limited as per enumerated powers as explicitly stated as restrictions in the Constitution. This is where the “vent frustration” comes from in the observation that they cannot legally do what they want. So the legal goal posts are illegally moved, media spins, and the sovereign individuals of the U.S. do nothing, Congress is complicit, because after all, the 1960’s is financially obligated to fulfill its objectives due to source of funding. Flexibility only lasts so long when you deal with these organizations.

    • xxrjxx says:

      MR,
      I have two reactions to your posts, not that you need me to tell you either one of them:
      1) you’ve posted some of the most intelligent messages I’ve seen; and
      2) I’ve given up trying to rationalize and reason with the irrational.

      Try having an argument based on logic rather than emotion and you quickly find that you have little common ground on which a discussion can be held. And therein lies a fundamental problem with politics today–people don’t focus on the fundamental principles and the acts/actions which should follow. Rather, they focus on the promise of actions, which inevitably are left in the dust of the election wastebin.[quote comment=”217358″]key words: like-minded, left-leaning, share ideas while under the influence, vent frustration, environment where it’s not taboo to talk(in other words, collusion)It must be hidden that the ideas for execution here involve actions which have to violate the rule of law as set by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning no other laws/policy can over ride it. Taxation was for the purpose of paying for the common defense amongst the states, congresspersons were only to come to the capital on a part time basis, and the federal government was severely limited as per enumerated powers as explicitly stated as restrictions in the Constitution. This is where the “vent frustration” comes from in the observation that they cannot legally do what they want. So the legal goal posts are illegally moved, media spins, and the sovereign individuals of the U.S. do nothing, Congress is complicit, because after all, the 1960′s is financially obligated to fulfill its objectives due to source of funding. Flexibility only lasts so long when you deal with these organizations.[/quote]

    • curious says:

      MidnightRacer
      Thank you for enlightening me about what I am going to discuss with other people at an event that is occuring in the future. Yes, of course it is taxation that I will be ‘venting frustration’ about.
      You and I obviously see the world through a very different lenses, but that is ok, because it what makes the world go around.
      I do have a fairly obvious suggestion though, that being if you are not interested in this event, you don’t have to attend.
      [quote comment=”217358″]key words: like-minded, left-leaning, share ideas while under the influence, vent frustration, environment where it’s not taboo to talk(in other words, collusion)It must be hidden that the ideas for execution here involve actions which have to violate the rule of law as set by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning no other laws/policy can over ride it. Taxation was for the purpose of paying for the common defense amongst the states, congresspersons were only to come to the capital on a part time basis, and the federal government was severely limited as per enumerated powers as explicitly stated as restrictions in the Constitution. This is where the “vent frustration” comes from in the observation that they cannot legally do what they want. So the legal goal posts are illegally moved, media spins, and the sovereign individuals of the U.S. do nothing, Congress is complicit, because after all, the 1960′s is financially obligated to fulfill its objectives due to source of funding. Flexibility only lasts so long when you deal with these organizations.[/quote]

  7. HansBrix says:

    Yup. For those who won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject nothing beats an echo chamber.

  8. MidnightRacer says:

    responding with my opinion

    xxrjxx (#15) said:

    “2) I’ve given up trying to rationalize and reason with the irrational.

    Try having an argument based on logic rather than emotion and you quickly find that you have little common ground on which a discussion can be held. And therein lies a fundamental problem with politics today–people don’t focus on the fundamental principles and the acts/actions which should follow. Rather, they focus on the promise of actions, which inevitably are left in the dust of the election wastebin.”

    my response:

    Not how I read it. Seems as though you’ve not given up by that very post, more passive and indirect maybe. The crux might be assuming there is a common ground. You will most likely never see the state title Co-Dictator in any governing model. You will never see an autocratic usurpation adhere to the restrictive enumerated powers U.S. Constitution. So you will never experience a left-leaning discussion which accepts individual sovereignty. However, you sound on point with principles (sovereignty) vs promises (slavery).

    curious (#16) said:

    “Thank you for enlightening me about what I am going to discuss with other people at an event that is occuring in the future. Yes, of course it is taxation that I will be ‘venting frustration’ about.
    You and I obviously see the world through a very different lenses, but that is ok, because it what makes the world go around.
    I do have a fairly obvious suggestion though, that being if you are not interested in this event, you don’t have to attend.”

    my response:

    Well, thank you for the presumptive disinvitation. It’s ironic that the event promotes an open invitation to a closed collective. Read the open invitation;

    “An informal, inclusive progressive social group”
    (inclusive yet exclusive)

    “like-minded, left-leaning individuals”
    (ah, the individuality of like-mindedness)

    “an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.”
    (Got Guilt?)

    But that’s not the point. Seriously though, I challenge any of you to discuss individually policy, whatever, without violating the individual sovereignty of others. See how far you get.

  9. MidnightRacer says:

    You know what, I’m just gonna go ahead and write it…

    3-Card-Monty

    folded card #1:

    What is Liberalism? It’s not what you think. Liberalism is founded upon both liberty and equality (liberalism = liberation). So how do you contradict that? You engineer egalitarianism as the equality of outcome, meaning you artificially execute governance by eradicating individual liberty (self ownership), and the state decides how much of your earned merit you get to keep. This is card #1.

    folded card #2:

    Liberalism liberated the slaves, who were previously defined as a property, meaning they had no individual sovereignty (self ownership). No longer were they told what to do and how to live by their governing masters. Now, as individuals, they had the liberty to make their life. How do you change that? You convince them that they should depend on the state to tell them how to live, what to think, who to vote for to ensure the state control their lives. In essence, you replace the ugly term slavery with the more accepted brand dependency. That’s card #2.

    folded card #3:

    Liberalism means the freedom from collectivism. So how do you convince otherwise? Most effective is to cause the destruction of a free system and blame the problems on the free system, then convince the people that in times of desperation, we must unite collectively to solve the problems that individualism creates. But are there only 3 cards?

    what’s up the sleeve:

    You destroy the sovereignty of nations by engineering catastrophe, offering the solution of a collective Final Solution, then you install no hope, and no chance of change from the audacity of planetary control.

    ––

    Liberalism is the liberation on the free person against control by the state. Yet, Liberals® claim the solution is state control. Liberals® claim collectivism is the solution to the problem created by individualism. You do not have a choice, nor sovereign right to refuse the recruitment. There’s no “I” in TEAMSTER.

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

    –– unanimous D.o.I. of the 13 states

  10. LimaEchoEcho says:

    Anyone else know of any other places in town to watch the debate? Only places I heard of so far are Marty O’s on 1st and this place… Zimmer is supposedly going to be at Martys (rumor has it).

  11. LimaEchoEcho says:

    Here are some of the watch parties in the area for tonight’s debate. While the debate begins at 9:00 p.m., the festivities start much earlier.

    Mayor Healy’s Watch Party: 8:30 p.m., Brightside Tavern, 141 Bright St., Jersey City

    Fulop’s Jersey City Westside Watch Party: 8:30 p.m., the Park Tavern, 575 West Side Ave., Jersey City

    Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer’s Watch Party: 8 p.m., Marty O’Brien’s, 94 Bloomfield St., Hoboken

    Jersey City Education Association GOTV: 6:30 p.m., JCEA Headquarters, 1600 Kennedy Blvd., Jersey City

    Drinking Liberally Watch Party: 7 p.m., Hoboken Bar & Grill, 230 Washington St., Hoboken

    Bayonne for Obama Watch Party: 8 p.m., 23 Maritime Way, Bayonne

    Obama Watch Party: 8 p.m., Nostalgia Cafe, 409 Martin Luther King Drive, Jersey City

    St. Peter’s University Watch Party: 8:30 p.m., MacIntyre Lounge, Kennedy Boulevard and Montgomery Street

    Hudson County Republican Club Watch party: 8:30 p.m., Golden Cicada Tavern, 195 Grand St., Jersey City.

Leave a Reply,