• 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
So all libertarians must be pro-choice? If I am incorrect please correct me, but doesn't libertarianism support maximizing personal liberty? If someone believes that an unborn child has the right to life and they believe that it's an encroachment on that unborn child's liberty to electively kill it how is that against libertarian principals?

One of my issues with Libertarians that seek to be holier than thou. If one views that the fetus is actually legitimately a human child and thus covered by all the standards rights an individual has, its perfectly within libertarian philosophy to prohibit abortions on that basis. Would a Libertarian suggest that someone who states that it is okay for the Police to interject if a Parent is attempting to kill their 3 month old isn't a libertarian? If no, then suggesting someone who believes as I just stated isn't a libertarian would be entirely hypocritical and narrow minded.
 
Mostly tea partiers seems to make the association of white=racist. Rev won't even admit that he belongs to a movement comprised mostly of dissatisfied white people.
Most who oppose the Tea Party make the association that white=racist. I have no problem with it being a majority white group. We live in a majority white country, is America racist over that? I believe demographics do not make a group racist, but actions do.
Really? You are going to stick with that line of reasoning? Okey dokes.
Did you watch the video?
 
So all libertarians must be pro-choice? If I am incorrect please correct me, but doesn't libertarianism support maximizing personal liberty? If someone believes that an unborn child has the right to life and they believe that it's an encroachment on that unborn child's liberty to electively kill it how is that against libertarian principals?

Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?
 
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?



So when does the unborn child gain it's liberty?
 
I have no problem with it being a majority white group. We live in a majority white country, is America racist over that? I believe demographics do not make a group racist, but actions do.

Thank you. Now if only Rev could understand something so simple and not get uber defensive about it.
 
So when does the unborn child gain it's liberty?

When it becomes a citizen. As per our Constitution, that is when it is born. If you want it earlier than that, then you should probably amend the Constitution to grant citizenship sooner.
 
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?

Why would it be ok to infringe upon someone's right to murder another person? Murder is wrong, it robs someone of their personal liberty. Why would it also be wrong for a libertarian to believe that unborn life possesses liberty and that it would also be wrong to kill it? Someone may have the personal believe that murder is ok, but I don't know any libertarian that would argue that murder is right and that we shouldn't infringe upon someone's personal decision to murder another person. In essence, it's wrong to rob someone of personal liberty and people shouldn't have the legal choice to do so. Believing that abortion is unjust murder of an unborn child would fall under keeping murder illegal because it robs someone of personal liberty.
 
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?

AND the bolded shows you why you're not attempting to even try and come at the topic objectively.

There is no scientific, definitive, unquestionable way of determining without question or on some grand high authority when a fetus is or is not a "child". That is an entirely opinion based issue where facts, both anecdotal and scientific, can be used to argue on either side of the issue. While there is a definition for it legally under the law, its far from uncommon for a Libertarian to disagree with the precedence the law states now. Viewing the situation in such a way that the ONLY way to view it as an "unborn fetus" rather than an "unborn child" means you're not attempting one iota to actually honestly address the issue from the variety of legitimate view points and thus can't make an honest call on whether or not one could be libertarian and be pro-life. THEIR personal belief that it isn't a child is no better or worse than your personal belief that it is or isn't a child. Thus, by NOT acting you could just as much be failing to protect the rights of another life as you could be to infringing upon their rights. Which leads the libertarian that believes it to be a child to come into the quandry of do you gamble on the childs potential rights, which if you're wrong means its violated by their death, or do you gamble on the parents potential rights, which if you'er wrong means its violated by their right to bodily soveriegnty. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the gamble is more apt to be made in defference to the first situation as "death" would be the worst consequence of violating an individuals rights as possible.
 
When it becomes a citizen. As per our Constitution, that is when it is born. If you want it earlier than that, then you should probably amend the Constitution to grant citizenship sooner.




So then you are for killing the baby as long as it doesnt cross the vagina line?


I find that savage and barbaric. Perhaps you would volunteer to do it yourself instead of expecting others to do so...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Next person to call, infer, or accuse someone else of being a "troll" gets a boot from the thread. Stick to the topic, cut the personal attacks. This isn't the basement, take your pissing fueds elsewhere
 
Why would it be ok to infringe upon someone's right to murder another person? Murder is wrong, it robs someone of their personal liberty. Why would it also be wrong for a libertarian to believe that unborn life possesses liberty and that it would also be wrong to kill it? Someone may have the personal believe that murder is ok, but I don't know any libertarian that would argue that murder is right and that we shouldn't infringe upon someone's personal decision to murder another person. In essence, it's wrong to rob someone of personal liberty and people shouldn't have the legal choice to do so. Believing that abortion is unjust murder of an unborn child would fall under keeping murder illegal because it robs someone of personal liberty.

Here you are talking about "murder" but as far as the will of the people is concerned, which as you may recall is the Constitution of the United States, the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born.
 
Here you are talking about "murder" but as far as the will of the people is concerned, which as you may recall is the Constitution of the United States, the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born.

Are you suggesting that "rights" are only bestowed upon citizens and the constitution doesn't protect non-citizens?

Are you suggesting that its constitutionally okay and libertarians should be fine with murdering non-citizens that visit this country because they're not citizens under the Constitution?
 
Here you are talking about "murder" but as far as the will of the people is concerned, which as you may recall is the Constitution of the United States, the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born.

That is your belief and you are entitled to it. However, under the same logic foreigners are not citizens either so are they not under the protection of the will of the people in our country? Is citizenship the only thing that should determine that a life is valuable and protected? Other's believe that the Constitution promotes Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and that abortion is the ending of life (of the unborn), liberty (of the unborn), and the pursuit of happiness (of the unborn) and that abortion violates the Constitution.
 
AND the bolded shows you why you're not attempting to even try and come at the topic objectively.

There is no scientific, definitive, unquestionable way of determining without question or on some grand high authority when a fetus is or is not a "child". That is an entirely opinion based issue where facts, both anecdotal and scientific, can be used to argue on either side of the issue. While there is a definition for it legally under the law, its far from uncommon for a Libertarian to disagree with the precedence the law states now. Viewing the situation in such a way that the ONLY way to view it as an "unborn fetus" rather than an "unborn child" means you're not attempting one iota to actually honestly address the issue from the variety of legitimate view points and thus can't make an honest call on whether or not one could be libertarian and be pro-life. THEIR personal belief that it isn't a child is no better or worse than your personal belief that it is or isn't a child. Thus, by NOT acting you could just as much be failing to protect the rights of another life as you could be to infringing upon their rights. Which leads the libertarian that believes it to be a child to come into the quandry of do you gamble on the childs potential rights, which if you're wrong means its violated by their death, or do you gamble on the parents potential rights, which if you'er wrong means its violated by their right to bodily soveriegnty. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the gamble is more apt to be made in defference to the first situation as "death" would be the worst consequence of violating an individuals rights as possible.

Call it a fetus or a child, I don't care, the will of the people is the law of the land and it takes the form of the Constitution. Until the Constitution recognizes the unborn as citizens and thus worthy of the protection of the will of the people, it doesn't matter what you call it, the mother's right to property takes precedence. It's a matter of law, not a matter of morality or principle.
 
Call it a fetus or a child, I don't care, the will of the people is the law of the land and it takes the form of the Constitution. Until the Constitution recognizes the unborn as citizens and thus worthy of the protection of the will of the people, it doesn't matter what you call it, the mother's right to property takes precedence. It's a matter of law, not a matter of morality or principle.

Again, as I ask in a previous post, are you suggesting Libertarians are fine with foriegners being murdered because they're not citizens? That there is some mandatory philosophical point of libertarianism that believes rights extend only to citizens?
 
The Tea Party is a movement against expanding government and federal spending. Since most of those that feed off welfare are minorities its serves to reason that most Tea Partiers are White since its counter productive to protest the government to take away your income.

Welfare receiptients by and large are a group of disatisfied non-white people.

I actually don't think this statement isn't going to help you look or sound less racist... Most of the statistics I have seen say that whites are a higher % of welfare recipients. In all honestly, I'd say this is an old race baiting tacit the GOP used... Trent Lott, welfare queen, and the GOP has admitted to the southern strategy and has apologized for it.

Welfare Statistics By Race | Reference.com

Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.

Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.



Summary

According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.



Argument

Here are the statistics on welfare recipients:
Traits of families on AFDC (1)

Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4
People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time

I think a lot of people are opposed to able bodied people being lazy and living off of welfare.. that's not just the TP or something that makes republicans upset. Kicking those people off of welfare isn't in the TP mission statement, so I'd say you're grasping at straws trying to defend the lack of minorities with this argument.

Not only that, you have Joe the Plumber... former welfare recipient and GOP spokesman.
 
And the tea party movement is a largely conservative movement. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.

The issue is when you start talking about specific portiosn of it. The Anti-war movement isn't about environmentalism, and the Tea Party movement isn't about social conservatism.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that anti-war types tend to support pro-environmental issue candidates. Again, it is part of the package. The anti-war movement is largely a liberal group, and that carries some baggage with it. If they support candidates with positions other than "war is bad", then it is not unfair to point out that they support candidates who support those other issues. That is part of the cost of supporting specific candidates.

Contrast it to what some groups do, which is grade candidates by how well they represent whatever issue the group represents, but does not actually support candidates.
 
That is your belief and you are entitled to it. However, under the same logic foreigners are not citizens either so are they not under the protection of the will of the people in our country?

If they aren't here by Visas, then they are illegal and thus they have no rights that are protected by our Constitution.

Is citizenship the only thing that should determine that a life is valuable and protected? Other's believe that the Constitution promotes Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and that abortion is the ending of life (of the unborn), liberty (of the unborn), and the pursuit of happiness (of the unborn) and that abortion violates the Constitution.

People are entitled to believe what they want to believe but they are not entitlted to violate another individaul's rights simply to protect the rights of someone who is not even recognized under law simply because they believe they should have rights. If you want to change it then amend the Constitution.
 
Again, as I ask in a previous post, are you suggesting Libertarians are fine with foriegners being murdered because they're not citizens? That there is some mandatory philosophical point of libertarianism that believes rights extend only to citizens?

Why would a libertarian wish to kill another individual if that individual was not messing with the libertarian?
 
that requires a DNR, or brain death.





3rd trimester? 2nd trimester?

Minors don't have DNR orders... it's up to their parent/guardian to decide.

zygote, embryo... early stage fetus..

Most abortions occur between 4 to 8 weeks... I don't have a problem with that..
 
As to the poll question, the Tea Party is ultimately good for America as it helped to focus the last set of elections on fiscal issues and fiscal responsability and continue to push it that direction. I imagine as a movement it will die down either when:

1. We get into a good financial situation in this country (not soon)
2. We have a government primarily made up of conservatives
3. We have a strong public swing against fiscal conservatism
4. We have those that were elected in with tea party backing not living up to expectations

I think instance one is unlikely to happen very soon. I think issue two is possible and will end up largely like the anti-war movement under Obama, it will still be present but the coverage and focus will be less and the outrage will be less (human nature, see numerous other posts I've made). Issue three is possible as casual political observers make up the largest portion of the voting base I believe which leads to an easy shifting of the sands about what's the hot button topic of choice. Issue four will likely result in a short intense ramp up followed by it mostly going the way side.

I think once it reaches one of the above points it'll either go out with a wimper and stay on the back burner, ala the anti-war movement, or it may be hijacked and used for other purposes as a niche thing ala the feminist movement.
 
Back
Top Bottom