• 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!

The Tea Party Is.....

What is the Tea Party to America?

  • Total voters
    69
ReverendHellh0und said:
So now its "lungs"


they begin to develop at 4 weeks.


Also if the host person (Iwouldnt call that person a "mother") wanted to abort her baby at the vaginal crossing, according to your "libertarianism" that's her business. try to be at least a little consistent.
Click to expand...

I'm being totally consistant. At any point in a pregnancy, a woman can abort her baby. When the baby is aborted it will be removed whole and alive. As long as the baby lives, the parents will be expected to pay for it. If the baby dies after it has been aborted then that is it, but if it survives then it will be considered "born". If parents wish to ensure that the baby will not surive then they will have to abort it early, such as before it develop lungs and can survive on its own.
 
SheWolf said:
If you lump all the minorities together, then yes.. there are more minorities on welfare, but we were mostly talking about black minorities.
Click to expand...

Really? I wasn't talking about Black Minorities. Go look at my statement. It was absolutely clear. I said minorities. That was it. You were the one that seemingly took me making a factual statement about a group and deciding that it warranted a comment about racism. Odd how that can happen to people, no?
 
Your Star said:
The politicians the tea party, not the members, the tea party, have backed are generally social conservatives, and the tea party membership has a large segment that is socially conservative. I think its a valid point to bring up when discussing the tea party
Click to expand...

Wait what? So a movement isn't the members, but the politicians that those members had supported. So the Anti-War movement isn't a movement of voters but is made up of the politicians voted in in 2006 that were backed by them?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
and yet in thread after thread you claim I am not a libertarian?


Your all over the map, perhaps you should consolidate your opinions so you look like you have a clue. :prof
Click to expand...

Because you consistently want to violate other people's rights.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
fair enough.... Again, social conservativism is irrellevant these folks want certain economic conditions, and have backed less socialy conservative folks for more fiscally conservative ones.... Something you wont see on the cnn.
Click to expand...

There is a large segment of the tea party that is socially conservative, they not only want certain economic conditions met, but social ones as well, so it is not irrellevant to some members of the tea party, and that should be noted. Also most of their candidates have been socially conservative, something that would need to change before I take that they don't care about social issues just economic ones, seriously.

Speaking of CNN reminds me that Thrashers season is over :(

Phillips Arena is connected to the CNN center :prof
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait what? So a movement isn't the members, but the politicians that those members had supported. So the Anti-War movement isn't a movement of voters but is made up of the politicians voted in in 2006 that were backed by them?
Click to expand...

All of those factors come in to play when describing a political group.
 
CriticalThought said:
A libertarian can believe what they want and vote how they want.
Click to expand...

So its not unreasonable nor against Libertarian belief to think that Abortion should be illegal or that abortion is murder or that a fetus has the full rights as any other child?

True. If you don't like it then amend the Constitution and grant the unborn citizenship. If people believe they are truly alive, then how come they are not pushing as hard as they can to get them citizenship?
Click to expand...

Likely because in their minds keeping them from being murdered is slightly more important and thus the first battle they're waging.

Well I think both abortion and killing an illegal immigrant could be called "murder", but they shouldn't be protected by the Constitution since they aren't citizens.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, so you think it shouldn't be illegal to muder illegal immigrants.
 
Your Star said:
There is a large segment of the tea party that is socially conservative, they not only want certain economic conditions met, but social ones as well, so it is not irrellevant to some members of the tea party, and that should be noted. Also most of their candidates have been socially conservative, something that would need to change before I take that they don't care about social issues just economic ones, seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes, they as INDIVIDUALS want social ones as well. However, that doesn't mean the Tea Party wants social condiditons met.

Yes, most of their candidates are socially conservative. That is because most of their candidates are conservative and conservatives tend to, more often than not, be conservative Socially as well as Fiscally, Governmentally and Militarily. That doesn't mean that the Tea Party supports those candidates for any reason other than their Fiscal stances.

You can't get behind the Tea Party because most of the people strongly pushing the Tea Party's kind of fiscal conservatism also push some form of Social Conservatism. That's fine. That's a legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean the Tea Party is a Socially Conservative entity.
 
Zyphlin said:
So its not unreasonable nor against Libertarian belief to think that Abortion should be illegal or that abortion is murder or that a fetus has the full rights as any other child?
Click to expand...

You can believe that, but not before you believe that an individual's rights are supreme.

Likely because in their minds keeping them from being murdered is slightly more important and thus the first battle they're waging.
Click to expand...

That would all be solved by just giving them citizenship.

Gotcha, so you think it shouldn't be illegal to muder illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

I think it is better to deport them.
 
Your Star said:
All of those factors come in to play when describing a political group.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you said the Politicians are the Tea Party rather than the members being the Tea Party. whoops :)
 
Your Star said:
There is a large segment of the tea party that is socially conservative, they not only want certain economic conditions met, but social ones as well, so it is not irrellevant to some members of the tea party, and that should be noted. Also most of their candidates have been socially conservative, something that would need to change before I take that they don't care about social issues just economic ones, seriously.
Click to expand...


There was a large segment of the anti-war movement who were socialist and communist. yet that is not talked about. The majority of democrats don't support gay marriage, does that mean whenever we talk about any democrat we should bring up the fact that most democrats are anti-gay marriage?


It's a leap.


Speaking of CNN reminds me that Thrashers season is over :(
Phillips Arena is connected to the CNN center :prof
Click to expand...


Yeah but you should be used to that. look at me. ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, they as INDIVIDUALS want social ones as well. However, that doesn't mean the Tea Party wants social condiditons met.

Yes, most of their candidates are socially conservative. That is because most of their candidates are conservative and conservatives tend to, more often than not, be conservative Socially as well as Fiscally, Governmentally and Militarily. That doesn't mean that the Tea Party supports those candidates for any reason other than their Fiscal stances.

You can't get behind the Tea Party because most of the people strongly pushing the Tea Party's kind of fiscal conservatism also push some form of Social Conservatism. That's fine. That's a legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean the Tea Party is a Socially Conservative entity.
Click to expand...

I never said it was, I said it has some socially conservative members, and the majority of candidates they have backed have been social conservative.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, they as INDIVIDUALS want social ones as well. However, that doesn't mean the Tea Party wants social condiditons met.

Yes, most of their candidates are socially conservative. That is because most of their candidates are conservative and conservatives tend to, more often than not, be conservative Socially as well as Fiscally, Governmentally and Militarily. That doesn't mean that the Tea Party supports those candidates for any reason other than their Fiscal stances.

You can't get behind the Tea Party because most of the people strongly pushing the Tea Party's kind of fiscal conservatism also push some form of Social Conservatism. That's fine. That's a legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean the Tea Party is a Socially Conservative entity.
Click to expand...

So if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and flies like a duck and looks like a duck, you are saying it might be NOT a duck?
 
CriticalThought said:
You can believe that, but not before you believe that an individual's rights are supreme.
Click to expand...

But if you think the child has rights equal to any other individual its a matter of whose rights should be defended more.

That would all be solved by just giving them citizenship.
Click to expand...

If everyone thought the way you do, yes.

I think it is better to deport them.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that you apparently think, based on libertarianism, it should be perfectly legal to murder them. You may not prefer that option, but you seem to think that it should be perfectly legal.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, they as INDIVIDUALS want social ones as well. However, that doesn't mean the Tea Party wants social condiditons met.

Yes, most of their candidates are socially conservative. That is because most of their candidates are conservative and conservatives tend to, more often than not, be conservative Socially as well as Fiscally, Governmentally and Militarily. That doesn't mean that the Tea Party supports those candidates for any reason other than their Fiscal stances.

You can't get behind the Tea Party because most of the people strongly pushing the Tea Party's kind of fiscal conservatism also push some form of Social Conservatism. That's fine. That's a legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean the Tea Party is a Socially Conservative entity.
Click to expand...

The teaparty has no roots in social conservatism, it was spawned directly from economic conservatism...as you said there is individuals that are socially conservative but the teaparty is a fiscal conservative movement primarily
 
Zyphlin said:
However, if you someone else needs an organ and you offer to give them your kidney you can't 3 months later once its in them go "wait, no, I changed my mind. My Body, My Choice! Give me back my kidney! You have no rights to it".
Click to expand...

You can't change your mind once you make a reproductive decision either... abortion, adoption, or carry. Carry you can change, but only up to a certain time frame.

Which, for those that are pro-life and view the fetus as a child with full rights as anyone else, that's what you're essentially doing. By engaging in sex that results in the conception of a child you are essentially inviting that child to use part of your body. If you don't want to send that invitation don't engage in the paperwork, in this case the sex.
Click to expand...

Using birthcontrol is explicitly stating it's not invited... Having an abortion, is saying it's not invited. These "keep your legs closed" arguments have no bearing on the rights or liberty aspect of this debate. I am a grown woman. If I chose to have sex with my husband, that's my damn business. The government should absolutely have no role in shaming me for having an organism.

The keep your legs closed argument sounds more like punishing and shaming a female for having sex, more then it's about protecting life...

If there was a registry to give away kidneys and you signed up it wouldn't garauntee your kidney is picked. You could even protect yourself a bit by saying specifics like only to children to try and steer who and where its given out. You might have your name on that list for months or years and never be picked. Or you could by be picked the very first day you got on that list. But once you're picked and your kidney is in someone else, your ability to have a say over it is gone.
Click to expand...

Not every woman's womb can guarantee a baby a life either... she could miscarry, but that isn't stopping the pro life movement from trying to see that every woman at least tries. This would be like requiring every single citizen to be an organ and tissue donor.

That's essentially how they'd be viewing sex. You can have sex, but know the consequences. You can have safe sex, and it will reduce your chances, but know the chance is still there. But if that chance happens and you get pregnant, you're knowingly engaging in it with knowledge that pregnancy results in you accepting a child inside you and that child has rights.
Click to expand...

You see... you're just explaining your personal POV of sex and how sexual behavior should be. That doesn't mean I'll ever agree with you, because I won't. Acknowledging some risk exists, is not the same as accepting that risk... That's how it everything is in life.

If you don't lock your house or car and thief comes and steals the contents, the police still investigate it as a robbery... The police doesn't ask if it was locked, then say, "well, you didn't lock it up, so you invited the thief. No robbery here. Have a good day."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
There was a large segment of the anti-war movement who were socialist and communist. yet that is not talked about. The majority of democrats don't support gay marriage, does that mean whenever we talk about any democrat we should bring up the fact that most democrats are anti-gay marriage?


It's a leap.
Click to expand...

Got any data to back that up?
Also on the democratic majority being against SSM? I wouldn't be surprised but I've never heard about that.

I think it is brought up with regarding the tea party is because that it is new, and people want to understand it, know there views about everything. I personally think it's short-sided to vote for a candidate based on one issue alone, like I would never vote for a candidate that is for SSM, and against the 1st amendment, even though SSM probably the biggest political issue I care about. So that is why I want to know what the members of the tea party think on other issues, and I think it is valid to ask those questions.

Yeah but you should be used to that. look at me. ;)
Click to expand...

Hey look at your first half, you should have expected this, we had hope :lol: :(
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So if the unborn child can survive outside of the womb, you support only its extracation where it lives?


who pays for the care of this infant?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the pro life government pay for it, since they are supposed to protect it's life?
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not saying its insulting, or dehumanizing. But its his attempt to imply that it is something other than a child who would have rights.



How am I being emotional? I'm not even arguing a position I hold, as I am not one that believes with certainty that the child/fetus within the womb should be considered a child with the full rights as any other from the moment of conception. But I am pointing out the ridiculousness of deeming one a libertarian or not based on their abortion views by looking at it only through ones own narrow view of what is or isn't a viable way to view the organism growing inside the woman at the time.



Absolutely rue. However, as was shown recently with the essentiall/non-essential government worker debate, while there are not just various definitions for words but various uses for such words. Typically, in the abortion debate, many people use "fetus" when simultaneously arguing that it has no rights while many people use "child" when simultaneously arguing that it does have rights and thus why I used the language I used when responding to his argument that was doing the former....using the word fetus while sumultaneously arguing that it has no rights.
Click to expand...

Saying it's a fetus is no different from saying a toddler is a toddler instead of a child... Nothing is wrong with saying fetus. It denotes to the developmental stage. People need to seriously get over semantics.
 
from rev

There was a large segment of the anti-war movement who were socialist and communist. yet that is not talked about.
Click to expand...

1) I would love to examine the data on that - lets see it
2) what constitutes "large segment"?
3) you and others on the far right seem to have no trouble talking about it so the allegation - baseless or otherwise - is hardly being kept a state secret
 
Redress said:
Don't we have enough threads about abortion already? Do we really need to turn other threads into abortion threads?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think we found something out about the TP by discussing abortion in this thread... and that is that the majority of people supporting the TP are socially conservative, and many of the Libertarians in the thread are not siding with most of those TPers.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, they as INDIVIDUALS want social ones as well. However, that doesn't mean the Tea Party wants social condiditons met.

Yes, most of their candidates are socially conservative. That is because most of their candidates are conservative and conservatives tend to, more often than not, be conservative Socially as well as Fiscally, Governmentally and Militarily. That doesn't mean that the Tea Party supports those candidates for any reason other than their Fiscal stances.

You can't get behind the Tea Party because most of the people strongly pushing the Tea Party's kind of fiscal conservatism also push some form of Social Conservatism. That's fine. That's a legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean the Tea Party is a Socially Conservative entity.
Click to expand...

see the bold.. if that were true, they'd support Romney
 
haymarket said:
So if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and flies like a duck and looks like a duck, you are saying it might be NOT a duck?
Click to expand...

No, but since you're using cute expressions from youth let me reach back there as well.

You have a square and you have a rectangle.

The Rectange is the Tea Party. The Square is a Social Conservative Tea Party Member.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. It is entirely possible to be part of the rectangle without being part of the square. And just because a square can be a rectangle doesn't mean that it'd be accurate ot call the Rectangular "square" in shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom