CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Tea Party
Americans live in a nation of incredible incredibility. Often times it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, even in the main political movements. Today, I want to examine the legitimacy of an increasingly popular movement known as "The Tea Party." Now, seeing as there is no central axis by which the Tea Party rotates and media coverage is almost entirely on biased lines *coughFoxCNNcough*, I imagine this is going to be one difficult thing for either side to argue. Go!
Ah the Tea Party, where to begin? The Tea Party claims to defend the Constitution with the same vigorousness that Nazis claimed to defend the ideals of Germany. Given this baseless comment that is likely to anger someone, I'll get down to business...
Defenders of the Constitution:
The Tea Party boasts its unyielding support to the Constitution. Yet in its jab to fight off illegal immigration, it is willing to kill the Constitution itself. Yes, I'm talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. One effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it grants birthright citizenship to people born in the United States- even if their parents were not citizens. The problem with repealing this piece of legislation is that then there is NOTHING defining the conditions by which American children are citizens. Future generations may be legally deprived of citizenship rights by simply removing this Amendment. Not only is that absurd, but what could possibly harm the Union by making people into citizens? Even amending it as opposed to repealing it is absurd. Citizens are documented and have to pay taxes. The way I see it, the Fourteenth Amendment HELPS the illegal immigration problem rather than accelerates it. I think this is a Tea Party sham to simply rally the angry support of thoughtless masses. The United States Court System is founded on the belief that a hundred guilty should walk free before a single innocent is imprisoned. I think we should apply this respect to human rights and decency to all aspects of our nation. There is also a call among many Tea Party supporters to repeal the 16th Amendment. While I see no reason why that can't be done while limiting the rights of Americans (and in fact support it to some degree), it is another to add to the list of Constitutional repeals yet to be enacted by the "defenders" of the Constitution. Furthermore, some Tea Party members are calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which is the citizen's right to a DIRECT election of their senators. That's not necessarily taking away Democracy, as Senators would then be appointed by popularly elected state legislatures, but it is a severe limit on it. So much for the great defenders of the Constitution.
Racism:
Now here's one criticism of the movement I don't necessarily think is true. Yes, there have been racists in the Tea Party, but they also show up in other groups. Aside from previously mentioned Fourteenth Amendment repeal, there is nothing to support the evidence that this movement is racially geared. By simply pointing to many black Tea Party members, one can deduct that racism is simply not the case of the movement, only (by some degree) to its sometimes loud and obnoxious supporters.
Traditionalists:
Conservatives in this nation have always been proud to call their roots back to the founding of America, but have since ignored the fact that so can American Liberals. The Tea Party takes this to a new extreme by adopting stances held by the Confederate States of America, to be expected when you look at the support base, (which, I must remind you left the Union and lost the war, thus losing the right to call its ideas concrete American. Say what you will of reconstruction, as a southerner I hate the way it was handled too, but it could have gone a whole lot worse) as opposed to the United States of America. The idea of shifting power from a federal level back to a local level is nothing short of Confederacy, and inconsistent/ineffective I may add. For evidence on the ineffectiveness of Confederation, I need only point at the United Nations and the United States under the Articles of Confederation.
Nationalism:
Love for a nation is only good in the hands of its citizens. In the hands of politicians, it's empty words that need to be proven and a waste of time. This is something liberals in America are guilty of as well. In fact, this may not be an argument against the Tea Party in of itself, but of nationalism as a whole. My suggestion to any political movement is to stop kissing citizen ass by telling us how much you love our nation. I assume an interest in politics is an interest in the well-being of the nation you live in. Hitler was a nationalist conservative, and even if you don't agree with him (like most sane people), you can't deny he loved Germany. Loving your country has little to do with serving it. This also goes for those who think military service means political wisdom/experience coughGrantcough. The Tea Party is especially big on this. I don't need to know how much Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh love this country to realize how bad they could screw it up.
1993: Senator Reid Wanted To Alter The 14th Amendment
WASHINGTON TIMES: “For all the brouhaha over Republicans wanting to review the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship/birthright clause, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, once supported revising the current interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause in 1993. Mr. Reid introduced a bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. The bill, which died in committee after it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, includes tough immigration provisions that would make many wonder where Mr. Reid truly stands on the immigration and border debate.” (Kerry Picket, “1993 Flip-Flop: Sen. Reid Introduced Bill ‘Clarifying’ Birthright Citizenship,” The Washington Times, 8/13/10)
S.1351 Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 8/4/1993) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 8/16/1993 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Referred to Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs.
· Sen Exon, J. James [NE] - 11/22/1993
· Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993
· Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 9/30/1993
TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP
SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
That's right...... Harry Reid sponsored the bill you now claim the Tea Party is killing the constitution with.
"That's right...... Harry Reid sponsored the bill you now claim the Tea Party is killing the constitution with."
You're making several base assumptions that are false here.
1.) I never claimed to like Harry Reid.
2.) I never claimed to keep the same ideals as the Tea Party. I think the Constitution has many improvements that can be made, and many things that should not be taken away. But I never claimed to be a "defender of the Constitution" as the Tea Party has.
1)Where did I claim you like Harry Reid? Please prove
2)No but you claimed, "Yet in its jab to fight off illegal immigration, it is willing to kill the Constitution itself. "
but you changing the constitution is " I think the Constitution has many improvements that can be made"
Why is it killing the constitution if the tea party wants to improve it but just improving it where you think it should be changed?That's quite arrogant.
Is it because they claim to defend the constitution and you don't?
If you don't support the constitution(not a defender-your words), why would you want to change it?Are defenders of the constitution not allowed to improve it? Who does improve it then, non-defenders?????
1.) Your argument uses Harry Reid as a rebuttal examining the legitimacy of the Tea Party, thus assuming that I'm supporting him. Bad assumption, we're not talking about him or the Democrats.
2.) You're taking things out of context. I never even said I supported the Constitution as it is, I am simply saying that the Tea Party claims to be the defenders of the Constitution and then attempt to push legislation to destroy it. We're here to examine the legitimacy of the Tea Party, don't put words in my mouth in assuming that I think my beliefs are the vanguard of the Constitution. I am not comparing myself to the Tea Party, merely examining their beliefs for their beliefs.
On your comment on arrogance. Changing the Constitution period is killing it as is. If I propose a change, it's still killing it as is. The arrogance is in assuming that I claim to be the things the Tea Party is not and claims to be.
Objectively speaking, I think the Constitution has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't claim to defend it, nor do I actively seek to uproot it. I am free from that kind of criticism by not making the claim that I'm a defender or a destroyer. Yet again though, MY beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion. Stick to the topic at hand.
1) The Harry Reid point is that you will pick and choose, as you first example of tea party extremism, the same tactics others have used but not label that as extremism.
If we use your definition,all parties have tried to kill the constitution, but you used that as your first and best argument that the tea party is extremists.All others are not extremists?All amendments to the constitution killed it according to you,were those who amended the constitution extremists too?How is it extreme if it has been done many times before?
" I think this is a Tea Party sham to simply rally the angry support of thoughtless masses"
Another example you used to prove extremism.
So what about racism as a sham to rally black voter masses?homophobe sham to rally gay voters? social security privatization to rally retired voter masses? Are those all the acts of extremists or just the tea party because they voice their beliefs?
While what you state about the tea parties may or may not be true,my point is for it to be labeled "Extremists", which is the side of the argument you chose,others could not be doing what they are doing for it to be extreme. In fact many do exactly what the tea party is trying to do but you just don't side with them.
How can the tea party's actions be seen as extreme when all parties have tried the same exact things?
You make a legitimate point. I know what I believe, but it's hard to put into words. At least I don't attack other people for believing differently. There are certain properties to the Constitution which should not be changed, certain truths and... I dunno... unalienable rights, which should be forever protected. The fact that we have an amendment process that is so difficult to fulfill is so that humane rights can be protected from change and outdated material CAN be changed. It's not a black and white world out there, no matter how much you try to paint it that way. Political extremes on any end of the spectrum are stupid and unhealthy.
That is more reasonable except, "At least I don't attack other people for believing differently." but you do,right here is just one example, "I don't need to know how much Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh love this country to realize how bad they could screw it up."
"Political extremes on any end of the spectrum are stupid and unhealthy." Exactly but when 70% of the nation calls for something on illegal immigration and you tie this to the "extremists" tea party,you are doing the very thing you don't want.
This is why amendments are allowed, the founders never thought an illegal alien would be allowed to enter the country,have a child at tax payers expense and then give citizenship to the child and rights to the parent to become a citizen just because of that birth.
Allowing amendments you want but then crying out "extremists" and "killing the constitution" when you do not agree is the whole point. Consistency,equal rights
Palin and Limbaugh are politicians. They put themselves out there for it. Everyone holds that double standards about them, especially them.
70% of the nation does not agree with the Tea Party's stance on illegal immigration and just because there's an absurd number of people that believe in a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea. Extremism isn't name-calling, it's the point of this debate.
About illegal alien's children. If they weren't viable for citizenship, then we never get to document them and then their children stay out of the system. Taking away citizenship from the children of illegal immigrants doesn't help- it hurts. A citizen is a documented person, eventually they'll be tagged for tax evasion like any other citizen. It's absurd to assume they won't pay taxes just because their parents weren't. They're parents can't because they weren't citizens but a citizen has to. I don't see how it helps to do otherwise. It's just bad, angry legislation.
Consistency is nice in theory, impossible in practice. Yes, some amendments betray the very reason for the Constitution and some of them kill those ideas. Even you can agree on that and if you can't, I can provide an example as to why you do.
I disagree with the put themselves out there for it,that argument is often used against public figures. When someone says I never put down other people's views but when shown an example states,"Oh they put themselves out there.", the first statement is false.You do put down people's views that "put themselves out there."
Almost fifty percent of Americans don't pay federal taxes right now (get back more than they put in), so saying "eventually they'll be tagged for tax evasion like any other citizen",uh no they won't. How it helps is the illegals would have not come here to give birth thus taxing our medical system.Whenever you look at the budget deficits and what illegals cost us it is eerily similar.
We are not going to agree on the illegal immigrant policies,I just find it odd that you if you agree with a policy it is improving the constitution which was meant to be changed but when 70% of Arizona and the nation agree with a policy that you do not, it is "killing the constitution" and it was not meant to be changed that way.
Changing the rules to fit only one side I believe is wrong.
The Tea Party is starting to lose credibility because of it's extremist views. I think most of the candidates they elected last November will be voted out next year.
I don't believe the Tea Party movement consists of only conservatives. I believe it is anyone who is ashamed and dissapointed in the U.S. government's wild and unconventional spending tendencies.
They do seem to be conservative extremists, but so would the founding fathers by today's society. Think back about two centuries ago when the United States was in it's infancy. There was prayer in public schools, the ten commandments in many courts, politicians made reference to God, execution was often the punishment of choice, there was very little government action in the business world, and things like homosexuality would have been condemned by society. I think they are legitimate because of their resemblance to this country's foundation (though unfortunately, little of it remains).
Prayer was in schools? That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment. See several of the cases where the Jehova's witnesses sued the US and won several educational suits by claiming that the first Amendment protected their religious rights equally to others.
The Ten Commandments were in courts - Okay. Several thousand years ago the Law of Hammarabi was the accepted law around the world. An Eye for an Eye is still unacceptable today. If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testemant in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says.
Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?
Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief.
Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass.
Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of african americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too.
Prayer was in schools? That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment. See several of the cases where the Jehova's witnesses sued the US and won several educational suits by claiming that the first Amendment protected their religious rights equally to others.
The Ten Commandments were in courts - Okay. Several thousand years ago the Law of Hammarabi was the accepted law around the world. An Eye for an Eye is still unacceptable today. If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testemant in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says.
Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?
Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief.
Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass.
Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of african americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too.
"That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment."
They did not force anyone to pray, therefore they did not infringe on anyone's rights to conduct their religion as they pleased.
" If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testament in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says."
That's not the theological understanding of Christianity, and if you have any understanding of the bible you would know that Levitical laws were not the same as the commandments.
"Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?"
Of course they do now. But Back then they weren't criticized for it and they genuinely believed in it.
"Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief."
Absolutely it should be the punishment of choice. Many wrongdoers don't feel remorse for their crimes, and keeping them alive wouldn't really be a punishment. But it was intended more as a crime deterrent than a punishment.
"Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass. "
Government didn't need to control business as much back then because they were much small and more dependant on each other, thus encouraging more cooperation. It's not true that they had NO control of business, but they had very little because they simply didn't need it.
"Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of African Americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too."
That's more of a personal attack than a refutation of my argument, but I personally think we should enslave by condition of incarceration, not by race religion or anything else.
How could you compare Barack Obama to Vladimir Lenin? That's making a mountain out of a molehill. Barack Obama has not 1. created a communist state (despite what many Tea Partiers think, we still do have a stock market) 2. we do not have nationalized banks (something which Lenin did) 3. we do not have nationalized wages, farms, "single payer" or "universal healthcare" or a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Secondly, the Tea Partiers are easier to compare to the Nazis because they have expressed NATIONALISTIC(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and have expressed RACIST sediments, including calling several prominent members of the government "niggers" "spicks" and "faggots". As well, in Germany the Nazis were a single ethnicity, how many black people do you see in the Tea party?
Okay, good point Homosexuals are not a race, but that is arguing semantics. They hate on homosexuals, okay buddy?
The Tea Partiers have not openly expressed their hatred for Jews...oh..wait. Anne Coulter, member of the Radical right has said that "Jews need to be perfected.""Better people than camel-riding nomads have shown they respect force." "Ethnic profiling is the only reasonable security measure that has been thwarted in the war on terrorism." Is she not a member of the Tea Party? If not, how about Rush Limbaugh? "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”‘halfrican American’ ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ . Okay, Limbaugh's not a Tea-Partier? How About Sarah Palin? "So Sambo beat the bitch!”This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination."
Read this, then come back for some more if you want a beating.
You seem to be watching a lot of liberal news. You do realize that these people's jobs are to find out everything that mainstream conservatives say that might be offensive? Just because a few people said seemingly racist things, does that make the whole Tea Party movement racist? I think not.
I swear I recalled saying come back for a beating. Well, here I go.
"Mark Williams posted a fictional letter to President Abraham Lincoln from “Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew, NAACP head colored person:
“We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored people and we demand that it stop!”
"Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo — taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston — in which he holds a sign reading “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.”
"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot,"
Perhaps the best argument for my cause, the best example:
"“I’m afraid if he wins, the blacks will take over. He’s not a Christian! This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?”
“When you got a Nigger running for president, you need a first stringer. He’s definitely a second stringer.”
“He seems like a sheep – or a wolf in sheep’s clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin – she’s filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she’s gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House.”
“He’s related to a known terrorist, for one.”
“He is friends with a terrorist of this country!”
“He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama.”
“Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody’s still kinda – a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but… I dunno, it’s just kinda… a little unnerving.”
“Obama and his wife, I’m concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that.”
“I don’t like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash… because we’re not!"
There are racists and bigots on all sides of politics, religious groups and races. I think that pointing out a few people that may or may not be conservative, tea partiers and republicans doesn't discredit the whole group, just like you probably wouldn't label all democrats and liberals racist if a few of them obviously where. Right?
(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee
"I'll have those nggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
"You fcking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.
I) "will not let the white boys win in this election." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election
"There are white nggers. I've seen a lot of white nggers in my time." -- Former Klansman and Current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate" in March of 2001
"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in "Democrats Do the Dumbest Things
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
Your argument might carry a bit more weight if he hadn't pointed out several key leaders. If you have any examples of people who don't fit the bill in the Tea Party and are notable leaders- please share.
The Tea Party isn't nationalistic like the Nazis were. They are patriots. There's a difference: Patriots love their country, nationalists love their country's government/leader. The Tea Party loves the United States, but they don't want it's government to have more power. They want a lot less governmental power. The Nazis on the other hand, were always wanting more powers in their government because they thought they would be more successful. The Tea Party knows better because a government that has too much power becomes a threat to the rights of it's citizens.
They aren't fascist. Fascism wants the government to control everything. The Tea Party wants less economic regulation. They are not socialists either. They want a more free market.
To call the Tea Partiers fascists is an untenable stretch (akin to calling Obama is a socialist), but to imply the Tea Partiers are through and through libertarians is wrong. On social issues, Tea Partiers tend to the authoritarian hemisphere of the political spectrum (gay rights, marijuana, euthanasia, abortion, and so on).
I would further add that Nazis were certainly not socialists, insofar as any self-avowed socialist would come to define their politics. Admittedly, they did graft certain tenets of socialism onto the so called "Third Way" (that is, they stressed the community over the individual). But saying the Nazis were socialists because their name can be parsed into National Socialists is like saying the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a Democratic Republic.
Would you describe the Tea Partiers as the EXACT opposites of communists, if so they are then Fascists. Benito Mussolini, creator of Fascism even directly stated so. Congratulations, the Tea Partiers are conclusively fascists.
I'm stating, that if the Tea-Partiers claim to be completely the opposite of Communists they are by conveyance and definition, Fascists or in the least right wing extremists.
In calling the Tea Partiers NAZIs we're comparing them to people who had similar policies on Minorities and people who thought differently than them. I.e. The Tea Party has expressed openly racist, homophobic & nationalistic views, therefore they are similar to the NAZIs.
1. I never said they were, I simply stated that they harbor similar opinions on minorities. Come at me with the facts in the future. Nextly, it goes in steps. Harboring these policies eventually leads to massive, murderous action.
2. The Tea Party could be considered to be about race, widly because they do not, within their midst accept things which are private matters and uncontrollable. I can call someone who is against gay marriage a bad person, it's a civil right and by denying it you are denying someone else's liberty.
Being a patriot IS a bad thing when it blinds you. "The highest form of Patriotism is in itself DISSENT." - Howard Zinn
Harboring these policies eventually leads to massive, murderous action.
You can't prove that.
I can call someone who is against gay marriage a bad person, it's a civil right and by denying it you are deny someone else's liberty.
That is only one perspective.
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle."- George William Curtis
Love your country. Your country is the land where your parents sleep, where is spoken that language in which the chosen of your heart, blushing, whispered the first word of love..." - Giuseppe Mazzini
While I agree that the Tea Party is not all about racism and homophobia, I do believe many of the supporters believe so but don't voice it because it's socially unacceptable (my own father is an example of BOTH issues).
Being a patriot is not a bad thing, being dead-locked by ideology and passion as opposed to rational thinking and problem solving is just not good. Following someone else because they call themselves a patriot (or even prove it) is also stupid. No one attempts to influence their country because they hate it. Patriotism is good for the civilian, but does not belong in policy because it clouds truth and reason. Many will go against something just because it's "Un-American" or "un-patriotic." The truth of the matter is this: "American" and "Patriotic" are not synonymous with "correct." Whether it's a fatherland or a motherland, nationalism has the same effect when brought into Government.
A majority of Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Ever since Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, the government budget has routinely broken bank. Libertarians can rail about profligate spending habits, but in reality a good 60% of the budget includes things like Social Security and Medicare (a system which people pay into and are reimbursed by later in life) and interest on the national debt (which can't be absolved simply by changing the law or voting red). Even if we cut all discretionary spending (including the military), we're still operating in the red.
Breaking the bank has nothing to do with tax cuts. Whenever Reagan reduced the rate,MORE taxes were collected.Reducing the rate leads to MORE taxes being collected from more people because more are working. What President collected the most taxes? George W did.We spend way too much.
You're not looking at inflation-adjusted, population-adjusted tax receipts. Unadjusted, federal revenue grew by 80%. Adjusted for both population and inflation, real revenue gain was a wimpy 19%, compared to 24% during the stagflationary period of 1972-1980 (during which the debt-to-gdp ratio still decreased) and to the 41% real revenue increase during Clinton's term. As for unemployment, it shilly-shallied under Reagan from 6% to 10%--whereas the average rate during the 35 years preceding his term was about 5%.
Taste is subjective. Something may leave a bad taste in your mouth but it may also leave a sweet taste in some one else mouth. I don't particularly care for tea. ;)
BTW, it was possible to predict the tea party because that which you resist, persists. And if the tea party wins, there will be a liberal backlash right around the corner. So it all balances out ;)