• 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:
What does "intact" mean?


again, moments before birth do you or do you not support abortion?
Click to expand...

I support removing the fetus whole and alive. If it survives outside the mother then it is "born" if not, then it was aborted.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tap Dance Tap Dance Tap Dance.

Let me put it to you bluntly.

With regards to Libertarianism, should a libertarian in general view it as illegal for someone to kill a foriegner that is in our country but is not a citizen of it?
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...



It was a movement. I think if the racial makeup of the teaparty is so important, it would have been important when a left wing "grass roots" movement starts. no?
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

No that's absurd... the issue is the embryo is using a females body as a life support system, and no free individual is society is reduced to a life support system in any other scenario. The unborn shouldn't have special rights, and individual liberty is never compromised to physically support life any other time..
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It was a movement. I think if the racial makeup of the teaparty is so important, it would have been important when a left wing "grass roots" movement starts. no?
Click to expand...

When have I ever talked about the race of the tea party?
 
CriticalThought said:
I support removing the fetus whole and alive. If it survives outside the mother then it is "born" if not, then it was aborted.
Click to expand...



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?
 
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.



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...

What is the neocon view on people being foreign and tried in America again? Lots of them outright support torture, though the constitution bans it. They argue that foreigners aren't protected under the constitution, right? And the constitution doesn't apply to America when America is acting outside of it's boarders... something like that
 
Zyphlin said:
With regards to Libertarianism, should a libertarian in general view it as illegal for someone to kill a foriegner that is in our country but is not a citizen of it?
Click to expand...

If they have a visa, then they are here legally and are protected by our Constitution.

If they are here illegally, then they are not here legally and they are not protected by our Constitution.

Don't think I can make it much more clear.
 
SheWolf said:
He said fetus... fetus is not insulting, and is objective. Calling it a fetus isn't dehumanizing it, insulting, etc.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Child is a noun... and child can refer to any of those developmental stages.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You started as soon as you jumped into this conversation. :2razz:


;)
Click to expand...

My part in this conversation is about the social conservatism present in the tea party, that is all. Anyone calling the tea party racist is ignorant, sure there are racist in the tea party, but there are racist in alot of groups that aren't racist.
 
Your Star said:
But it is a focus of the members of the tea party, and candidates they have backed.
Click to expand...

As is environmentalism, gun control, and pro-choice for members of the Anti-War Movement. But again, I did not see people suggesting those things HAD to be discussed whenever there was talk of the Anti-War movement, individuals backed by the Anti-War Movement, etc.

There is a difference between something that is a focus of members of a group and a focus OF THE GROUP.

For example, this thread is asking what the "Tea party" is not what "the Tea Party Membership" is
 
CriticalThought said:
If they have a visa, then they are here legally and are protected by our Constitution.

If they are here illegally, then they are not here legally and they are not protected by our Constitution.

Don't think I can make it much more clear.
Click to expand...

So you think a libertarian should not be in favor of the Governemnt making killing an illegal immigrant murder?

IE...I'm saying to you "fetus" = "child with full rights" to these people and thus "abortion" = "murder". Your response is that the fetus isn't a citizen so he doesn't have right to life so its not murder and it shouldn't be illegal to kill them.

Therefore...

Would it stand to reason that Illegal Immigrants = Not a citizen and therefore similarly they don't have a right to life so its not murder and it shouldn't be illegal to kill them.
 
Last edited:
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...

For as long as it lives it is the responsibility of the parents to pay for it. Far greater incentive for parents to abort before the fetus develops lungs that way.
 
SheWolf said:
What is the neocon view on people being foreign and tried in America again? Lots of them outright support torture, though the constitution bans it. They argue that foreigners aren't protected under the constitution, right? And the constitution doesn't apply to America when America is acting outside of it's boarders... something like that
Click to expand...

Just the usual hypocrisy of the universal and liberal notions of the founding fathers not applying to all men because it doesnt suit people's visceral and emotion laden outlooks.
 
Your Star said:
My part in this conversation is about the social conservatism present in the tea party, that is all. Anyone calling the tea party racist is ignorant, sure there are racist in the tea party, but there are racist in alot of groups that aren't racist.
Click to expand...




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.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you think a libertarian should not be in favor of the Governemnt making killing an illegal immigrant murder?
Click to expand...

Depends, maybe that illegal would kill our husbands and rape our wives and children and take our land etc (arguments that pop up on political forums) etc...

/noncontribution
 
CriticalThought said:
For as long as it lives it is the responsibility of the parents to pay for it. Far greater incentive for parents to abort before the fetus develops lungs that way.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?!



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?
Click to expand...

If you lump all the minorities together, then yes.. there are more minorities on welfare, but we were mostly talking about black minorities. Furthermore, whites have the highest % of any other group. So whites are on welfare more often. Therefore, I honestly think that saying minorities are on welfare the most is kind of misleading.

I am not getting touchy, as I don't personally have a horse in this race. I just think it's fascinating to watch people react to each others comments... do you assume much?
 
Don't we have enough threads about abortion already? Do we really need to turn other threads into abortion threads?
 
Zyphlin said:
As is environmentalism, gun control, and pro-choice for members of the Anti-War Movement. But again, I did not see people suggesting those things HAD to be discussed whenever there was talk of the Anti-War movement, individuals backed by the Anti-War Movement, etc.

There is a difference between something that is a focus of members of a group and a focus OF THE GROUP.

For example, this thread is asking what the "Tea party" is not what "the Tea Party Membership" is
Click to expand...

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
 
Zyphlin said:
So you think a libertarian should not be in favor of the Governemnt making killing an illegal immigrant murder?
Click to expand...

A libertarian can believe what they want and vote how they want.

IE...I'm saying to you "fetus" = "child with full rights" to these people and thus "abortion" = "murder". Your response is that the fetus isn't a citizen so he doesn't have right to life so its not murder and it shouldn't be illegal to kill them.
Click to expand...

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?

Would it stand to reason that Illegal Immigrants = Not a citizen and therefore similarly they don't have a right to life so its not murder and it shouldn't be illegal to kill them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
A libertarian can believe what they want and vote how they want.
Click to expand...

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
 
CriticalThought said:
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...

Because that would mean they had the right to healthcare as a fetus independant of the parents, the woman being forced to the wellbeing of the fetus, kabaam expansion of the government. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom