• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown

Thrilla said:
Tea Partiers are, by and large, socially conservative... Libertarians are, by and large socially liberal.
Click to expand...

Not really, no difference between the Tea Party and Libertarians.... I think there a few progressive republicans that have jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon just because they're opposed to or even hate Obama but for the most part the Tea Party is pretty much inline with Libertarian philosophy..

The Tea Party is nothing more than a limited government movement - which is also a philosophy Libertarians embrace....

The Libertarian party has been growing everyday thanks to the Tea Party being a bridge between the Republicans and the Libertarians -- Finally republicans (and democrats) are starting to see that traditional Libertarians/classical liberals are NOT a bunch of anarchists but just people who want limited government and who truly embrace civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
 
I love this. If you criticize the Tea Party it means you are too liberal. In a sense, the Tea Party is like a black president, if you don't like it then it is not due to its policies but because there is something wrong with you (liberal/racist). It is immune to criticism.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I hope that was sarcasm...

The guy's DOJ is like a black version of the KKK - they just believe the "pen" is mightier than the "noose"...
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't sarcasm. it was an explanation on why Tavis Smiley doesn't like Obama. And I'm figuring you lack the ability to differentiate that explanation from my personal views, which I didn't express

Basically: potato.
 
CriticalThought said:
I love this. If you criticize the Tea Party it means you are too liberal. In a sense, the Tea Party is like a black president, if you don't like it then it is not due to its policies but because there is something wrong with you (liberal/racist). It is immune to criticism.
Click to expand...

While I'm not a fan of the kneejerk nature of the reaction many are having over McCain's criticism, the reaction is still based on the perceived content of it. So I am unsure you can compare it to the assumption that one is racist for simply not liking Obama's policy
 
Mr.Nick said:
Not really, no difference between the Tea Party and Libertarians.... I think there a few progressive republicans that have jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon just because they're opposed to or even hate Obama but for the most part the Tea Party is pretty much inline with Libertarian philosophy..

The Tea Party is nothing more than a limited government movement - which is also a philosophy Libertarians embrace....

The Libertarian party has been growing everyday thanks to the Tea Party being a bridge between the Republicans and the Libertarians -- Finally republicans (and democrats) are starting to see that traditional Libertarians/classical liberals are NOT a bunch of anarchists but just people who want limited government and who truly embrace civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Libertarians see eye to eye with TPers on certain things ... we also see eye to eye with liberals on certain things... there's even a lil shared vision with Socialists thrown in the mix.

seeing eye to eye on certain things with others is not the same as saying there is no difference between them.

for instance,Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion in any case ( 63% think it should be illegal).... the same poll asked that question of those whom are Tea Partiers.. 88% think it should be illegal in all cases.
abortion is most certainly a social issue... and TPers are most certainly more conservative on that issue that Libertarians.
the drug war is another social issue where TPers take a conservative stance.

anyways, Tea Partiers are just conservative Republicans who got tired of fiscal mismanagement in the federal government and decided to form a movement.
while they do see eye to eye with Libertarians on a few issues, they are not Libertarians.... they are, by and large, just plain old conservative republicans
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
No, it wasn't sarcasm. it was an explanation on why Tavis Smiley doesn't like Obama. And I'm figuring you lack the ability to differentiate that explanation from my personal views, which I didn't express

Basically: potato.
Click to expand...

Well, you kinda did express your views in your post...

Do you support Obama?
 
Thrilla said:
Libertarians see eye to eye with TPers on certain things ... we also see eye to eye with liberals on certain things... there's even a lil shared vision with Socialists thrown in the mix.

seeing eye to eye on certain things with others is not the same as saying there is no difference between them.

for instance,Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion in any case ( 63% think it should be illegal).... the same poll asked that question of those whom are Tea Partiers.. 88% think it should be illegal in all cases.
abortion is most certainly a social issue... and TPers are most certainly more conservative on that issue that Libertarians.
the drug war is another social issue where TPers take a conservative stance.

anyways, Tea Partiers are just conservative Republicans who got tired of fiscal mismanagement in the federal government and decided to form a movement.
while they do see eye to eye with Libertarians on a few issues, they are not Libertarians.... they are, by and large, just plain old conservative republicans
Click to expand...

I understand social issues... However 75% of the tea party ARE Libertarians

I'm opposed to abortion because it's cold blooded murder - abortion is no different than murdering an unarmed individual that may impede you in some way or another...

Libertarians don't support murder...

As far as drugs - only the progressive republicans give a **** about the "war on drugs."

I don't believe even republicans (not the progressive type or RINO's) really give a **** if weed is legal or not..

I've been to numerous Tea Party rallies (at least 30) and I'm a member of my areas Libertarian chapter ...... I can tell you that the only issues that come into controversy between libertarians and conservatives is abortion and geopolitical intervention (war)...

IMO, one cannot be a Libertarian and be pro-choice..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well, you kinda did express your views in your post
Click to expand...

No, I explained another person's views. There is a pretty clear distinction there

Do you support Obama?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not particularly a fan. Not sure what that has to do with your generally over reactive and bizarre posting habits, though
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
No, I explained another person's views. There is a pretty clear distinction there



No, I'm not particularly a fan. Not sure what that has to do with your generally over reactive and bizarre posting habits, though
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought up Obama while previously making a tongue n cheek response that was confusing in the first place - now you want to get snooty with me for inquiring?

Maybe if you elaborated a little more on your intent instead of babbled in an attempt to talk **** we wouldn't be exchanging posts in this manner...
 
Thrilla said:
Tea Partiers are, by and large, socially conservative... Libertarians are, by and large socially liberal.
Click to expand...

I know that's the common distinction between the two, but many who profess to be socially liberal - such as Rand Paul, for example - are anything but that. You only have to check some of the so-called Libertarian posters on this forum to find more examples.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You were the one who brought up Obama while previously making a tongue n cheek response that was confusing in the first place - now you want to get snooty with me for inquiring?
Click to expand...

Huh? No, someone brought up Tavis Smiley and asked what his issue was with Obama and who he thinks African Americans should vote for. So I answered that question. And if you're confused by the process of someone asking a question, and another person answering that question, the problem isn't on my end

Maybe if you elaborated a little more on your intent instead of babbled in an attempt to talk **** we wouldn't be exchanging posts in this manner...
Click to expand...

Well that is my point: my intent would be clear with 99.9% of the socially functional adults in the world
 
Wiggen said:
I know that's the common distinction between the two, but many who profess to be socially liberal - such as Rand Paul, for example - are anything but that. You only have to check some of the so-called Libertarian posters on this forum to find more examples.
Click to expand...

depends. I would say if you had very rigid anti abortion views, but that you view it as a personal choice (not one the state should enforce), that you are "socially liberal" on the issue. Though admittedly the use of language is clumsy and confuses two very distinct positions, I'm just not sure how better to express it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What "emotionalism" do you speak of?

Passion for our existing civil rights as documented and outlined in the Constitution is considered "emotionalism?"

Stopping the progressive tyrants who want to destroy those civil rights is considered "emotionalism?"
Click to expand...

Are you asking for a list of Glenn Beck's and Palin's weird emotional statements?
 
Mycroft said:
Oh, I don't mind those things about Obama...though I can understand why you would. But even with the few good things he has done, he is still a failure. He's a failure to you because he hasn't done the ultra-left things you want him to do and he's a failure to me because he's been ineffective, he changes his mind at every turn, he lies and spins when it suits his agenda...whatever that is at the moment. And, above all, he doesn't feel any shame.

But hey...enough about Obama unless you want to start a new thread about how lousy he is. What do you have to say about McCain?
Click to expand...

And why should Obama feel ashamed over anything when nobody in this country feels shame or respects anybody who does?
 
rocket88 said:
Why is it that the people who defined the Republican party for decades (like McCain, Orrin Hatch) are suddenly RINOs, while the newcomers are the "true Republicans?"
Click to expand...

That's what I was about to post. Calling McCain a RINO is silly. He's been a GOP stalwart for a long, long time, and he got the GOP nomination for President. The Republican Party looked at the entire nation to decide who best represented the party, and they chose him. His is the Republican Party. Or at least he is what it was.
 
John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown
Click to expand...
John McCain is correct.
He knows that the American people know this and he wants to affirm what they already know.
John doesn't want to be associated with the crazy assholes in his party.
 
Jerry said:
We already know the tea party is responsible. That was clear from the beginning; common knowledge. So McCain isn't saying anything new.

McCain sounds like he's trying to criticize the tea party for the government shut down, but that doesn't make sense since shutting down the government was the right thing to do. The tea party did nothing wrong to then be critisized for it. McCain is trying to chastise people who do the right thing.

Last I knew, McCain was a tea party member, even ran for POTUS with a tea party VP. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...

McCain is anything but TEA party material and quite frankly never has been. Why he chose Sara Palin is unknown to all but him.
 
Nice to see the House uninvolved in these 'adult' Senate conversations..
It took Sen.Collins a while to clean up this stinky turd blossom the House laid..
Serious problems still remain but her bill IS the structure..
Senate Repubs are peeved at the Dems for reviving SQ #s along with the length of the debt agreement..
They're now using the 'Dems can't take yes for an answer' meme, knowing they still can't control the House.
Buck Ewer said:
John McCain is correct.
He knows that the American people know this and he wants to affirm what they already know.
John doesn't want to be associated with the crazy assholes in his party.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
McCain is anything but TEA party material and quite frankly never has been. Why he chose Sara Palin is unknown to all but him.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly all of his picks kept getting sunk by the various gop power brokers. And right around this time Palin hit some national attention with some very competent handling of public oil contracts and a corruption investigations of the Alaskan old boy network. So it was sort of a last minute hail mary that didn't pay off.
 
Grendel said:
That's what I was about to post. Calling McCain a RINO is silly. He's been a GOP stalwart for a long, long time, and he got the GOP nomination for President. The Republican Party looked at the entire nation to decide who best represented the party, and they chose him. His is the Republican Party. Or at least he is what it was.
Click to expand...

I find it humorous sometimes to see the lunatic fringe of the GOP determine who is and isn't a Republican. If the lunatic fringe are the true soul of the GOP, as opposed to just useful idiots who can be counted on to vote R because it's not D, why are all of the GOP presidential candidates "RINOs"? McCain was a "RINO." Romney was a "RINO." Bush was certainly no Tea Party type, they hated him and he WON TWO ELECTIONS.

The answer is simple. If a Tea Party type got the GOP presidential nominee, they would get destroyed in a general election, Mondale-style. It wouldn't just be a loss, it would be Hiroshima-level destruction. The vast majority of voters are hip to the Tea Party game, and they don't like it.

The Tea Partiers are the RINOs. They should mostly be called "nutbars who nobody listens to."
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
If I remember correctly all of his picks kept getting sunk by the various gop power brokers. And right around this time Palin hit some national attention with some very competent handling of public oil contracts and a corruption investigations of the Alaskan old boy network. So it was sort of a last minute hail mary that didn't pay off.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this. I just assumed McCain made the profound and unforgiveable mistake of inflicting Palin on American politics. If it was he rightwing cohorts, then I feel better about McCain already (though one conversation with the tea party harpy should have convinced him she shouldn't have been allowed to be within a 1000 miles of his campaign).
 
Kobie said:
I find it humorous sometimes to see the lunatic fringe of the GOP determine who is and isn't a Republican. If the lunatic fringe are the true soul of the GOP, as opposed to just useful idiots who can be counted on to vote R because it's not D, why are all of the GOP presidential candidates "RINOs"? McCain was a "RINO." Romney was a "RINO." Bush was certainly no Tea Party type, they hated him and he WON TWO ELECTIONS.

The answer is simple. If a Tea Party type got the GOP presidential nominee, they would get destroyed in a general election, Mondale-style. It wouldn't just be a loss, it would be Hiroshima-level destruction. The vast majority of voters are hip to the Tea Party game, and they don't like it.

The Tea Partiers are the RINOs. They should mostly be called "nutbars who nobody listens to."
Click to expand...

My conclusion is that the tea party is, in fact, the real heart and soul of the GOP and the conservative movement. Its knownothingism, its xenophobia and scapegoating is the real inspiration for conservative politics, and always has been. But with the demographic extinction of conservatism as a political force drawing nigh, conservatism has gone fundamentalists. That's always the case when a movement is losing and history is leaving it behind. It's why Moslem and Christian fundamentalism is on the rise -- they're losing out to modernization. Same with conservatism. The fundamentalism of the tea party will prevail against the remaining sane Republicans, and hasten the de-evolution of the GOP into a marginal, regional party.
 
head of joaquin said:
I hadn't heard this. I just assumed McCain made the profound and unforgiveable mistake of inflicting Palin on American politics. If it was he rightwing cohorts, then I feel better about McCain already (though one conversation with the tea party harpy should have convinced him she shouldn't have been allowed to be within a 1000 miles of his campaign).
Click to expand...


His campaign apparently found out about here the same way I did, from a report a PBS news show (now defunked called "now") did on here. Which was very positive and cast her as a very pragmatic moderate. And I think at that point, there options were so widdled down that they just needed to go with someone that wasn't completely insane

though it didn't seem to work out as planned ...
 
PBS had a two show during his early campaign that followed him on the campaign trail. He didn't show a lot of depth in his decision making. Pretty sure he just went on having heard good things about her from press she'd gotten. He wanted someone young to counter Obama and being female was the kicker.

Most of the show was, listen to advisors, nap, kiss a crying baby, nap, read a speech, nap and top it all off with a really good nap. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom