• 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
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

What would be wrong with that if it were true? Would a I be racist if I was a member of a group comprised of mostly dissatisfied black people? Would that make the group racist?
 
CriticalThought said:
If they aren't here by Visas, then they are illegal and thus they have no rights that are protected by our Constitution.
Click to expand...
So it's ok for people to kill illegal immigrants? Is it ok for the military to go oversees and target innocent civilians and kill them because they aren't protected by our Constitution? So unless a human life has a file in some bureaucratic office proving that the life is under the US Constitution as a legal citizen or as a visa holding immigrant that the life is invalid and worthy of death at the elective decision of another?
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.
Click to expand...
I would support that, however I believe the current form of the Constitution protects human life in the fetal stages. If we believe that gays should have the right to marry do we need to amend the Constitution? It's silent on marriage and sexuality, so is an amendment required to make gay marriage federally legal and recognized?
 
digsbe said:
So it's ok for people to kill illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

This is an outrageous statement to make. Are you assuming that if we don't have laws protecting illegal immigrants from being murdered that people will just start killing them for the fun of it?
 
SheWolf said:
I actually don't think this statement isn't going to help you look or sound less racist...
Click to expand...

Huh? What did I say that was racist? I thought we established earlier in this thread that pointing out the makeup of individuals in a group isn't racist or race baiting?!

Most of the statistics I have seen say that whites are a higher % of welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

Really? The states you just posted say 61.2% of all welfare recipients are minorities.

Say.......you didn't get incredibly touchy and start trying to disprove my statement while claiming racism just because I happened to point out the makeup of a group now did you?
 
CriticalThought said:
This is an outrageous statement to make. Are you assuming that if we don't have laws protecting illegal immigrants from being murdered that people will just start killing them for the fun of it?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that your point that "If they aren't here by Visas, then they are illegal and thus they have no rights that are protected by our Constitution." And that " the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born." Would also mean that it's ok to kill illegal immigrants because they are not protected under our Constitution (in your words) and just like a fetus isn't, that it's ok to kill them electively just like with an abortion?
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...




What about constantly pointing out that many are socialists or other such nonsense?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everybody can come off holier than tho... people have strong beliefs. You included.

It's a human, it's human offspring... saying it's a child is correct. Admitting that doesn't automatically make one pro life. The fact is NOBODY is entitlement to another free agents body in a free society. If I need a organ transplant, I am not entitled to another free individual's organs, blood, plasma, or any bodily support whatsoever for my survival. I am a human, I am alive, however, nobody else is society is required to keep me alive or aide in my survival.

I don't think being pro abortion rights is dehumanizing the unborn.. I don't think I am not recognizing their rights, nor do I think they are subhuman. However, I think pro lifers want to give the unborn special rights.

No free person is a life support system or has a duty to support the live of other people in society. I am not required to donate money to keep anybody alive, so don't expect me to donate my organs, including my womb for the same purpose.
 
CriticalThought said:
This is an outrageous statement to make. Are you assuming that if we don't have laws protecting illegal immigrants from being murdered that people will just start killing them for the fun of it?
Click to expand...



No its not, it's your position, hence why you are avoiding post #162. :prof
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between pointing out that most anti-war types support environmentalism and stating that the anti-war movement is also an environmental movement. Just like there's a difference between pointing out that most tea partiers are also social conservatives and suggesting that the Tea Party is not just a movement about Fiscal Conservatism but Social conservatism as well.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well yes, when discussing a candidate one should look at the whole of their platform, not just one segment of it that caters to a specific group.

That said, its as relevant to an indepth discussion of the tea party movement as talking about the anti-war movements stance on carbon emmissions is when talking about that movement.
Click to expand...

I never said that it was the main focus of the tea party, I was just saying that it should be noted.
 
I view the Tea Party much like I view libertarians. Lots of real good idea's in the platform, but too many unrealistic idea's to be viable in the long run.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why would a libertarian wish to kill another individual if that individual was not messing with the libertarian?
Click to expand...

I didn't say the libertarian would kill the person. I'm saying you're suggesting that a Libertarian is fine with another individual killing a foriegner that is here in the United States because that foriegner is not a US citizen.
 
mac said:
What would be wrong with that if it were true? Would a I be racist if I was a member of a group comprised of mostly dissatisfied black people? Would that make the group racist?
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. It wouldnt. Just as being a movement predominantly of white people does not mean they are a racist movement by default.
 
Your Star said:
I never said that it was the main focus of the tea party, I was just saying that it should be noted.
Click to expand...


then it should be noted that the anti-war movement was filled with communists and socialists, mostly white folks, probably with trust funds. :prof
 
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...

They think their cause is imperative... Just like an animal rights activist, anti gun activists, etc. thinks their cause is. That would mean all the other activist are justified in imposing their morality on us through the government.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
then it should be noted that the anti-war movement was filled with communists and socialists, mostly white folks, probably with trust funds. :prof
Click to expand...

Gotta a percentage of how many communist, socialist, white people with trust funds make up the anti-war movement?
 
Your Star said:
Gotta a percentage of how many communist, socialist, white people with trust funds make up the anti-war movement?
Click to expand...



Actually there were no statistics I can find by the media attempting to address that issue. Why do you think that is?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
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...
Click to expand...

Actually, as I have stated before, I am all for evicting the fetus intact.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Actually there were no statistics I can find by the media attempting to address that issue. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Because the anti-war movement is divided up into different individual groups, and the tea party is one large group that has people in political office because of their backing.
 
SheWolf said:
. If I need a organ transplant, I am not entitled to another free individual's organs, blood, plasma, or any bodily support whatsoever for my survival.
Click to expand...

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".

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.

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.

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
I didn't say the libertarian would kill the person. I'm saying you're suggesting that a Libertarian is fine with another individual killing a foriegner that is here in the United States because that foriegner is not a US citizen.
Click to expand...

I would most certainly not be fine with it. Just because they are not entitled to protection of the Cosntitution does not mean I would be fine with them being killed. I'm not fine with most abortions. However, it isn't my right to interfere in the rights of others simply because of my own personal beliefs.
 
Your Star said:
I never said that it was the main focus of the tea party, I was just saying that it should be noted.
Click to expand...

Its not any focus of the Tea Party, at least not in the form most people speak about "social conservatism" (IE gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion, etc)
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

He said fetus... fetus is not insulting, and is objective. Calling it a fetus isn't dehumanizing it, insulting, etc.

Fetus refers to a stage of development... it is not an antonym of child. You're not being objective, and you're *gasp* being emotional, which I think is hilarious since you accused me of it for mentioning rape before. I find you highly emotional in the abortion debate.

Zygote, embryo, fetus.... refers to developmental stages

Neonate, infant, toddler.... also developmental stages

pre teen, teen..... you get the picture

Child is a noun... and child can refer to any of those developmental stages.
 
Zyphlin said:
Its not any focus of the Tea Party, at least not in the form most people speak about "social conservatism" (IE gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion, etc)
Click to expand...

But it is a focus of the members of the tea party, and candidates they have backed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom