Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tea Party Questions
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 200 (635247)
09-28-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-28-2011 4:59 AM


I'm wondering if there are any conservatives/tea party people on the forum that can have an adult discussion about the tea party's position on various issues.
I consider myself conservative and am capable of having adult discussions...
but I'm not so sure about you. Are we going to be seeing much of this same childish stuff from you that we have in the past?:
quote:
So, the message is clear: This attack is about a war between the Jews/Christians and the Muslims.
The rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Too bad you died for our war. This is our country not yours. blah blah blah
quote:
So no one who is born again can have an intelligent opinion on good and evil.
Good to know.
I assume you are born again, since you position is clearly not intelligent.
quote:
Is it possible for a human being to do anything? Walk? Eat? Shit? Without the aid of a tiny invisible demon or elf?
Is that what we're suppose to consider as a valid line of reasoning?
I ate a sandwich a couple hours ago. Later, I plan to get rid of what's left of it out the back end.
Do I need permission from Liglog the Toilet Troll in order to do that? How would I know if I got the permission or not? After all, Liglog the Toilet Troll is undetectable.
Let me know ahead of time, mkay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2011 4:59 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2011 10:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 131 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 1:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 200 (635256)
09-28-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
09-28-2011 10:55 AM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
I want to have someone explain the 'logic' behind some of these positions.
Well, honestly, I think you're right where you said this:
quote:
It looks like the Tea Party doesn't have the first idea WHY they believe what they believe.
From the supposed TP's I've talked to, they don't arrive at these position through logic. They just liked them after they heard them and then continue to spread them.
quote:
It looks like the Tea Party has been fed their belief system by people higher up who have a very different agenda than what the Tea Party rank and file seem to think they are fighting for.
Who are the "higher ups" and what is their agenda?
Most of the TP spreadings I have seen have come from other TP'ers... I haven't found the ultimate source yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2011 10:55 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2011 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 200 (635370)
09-28-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Aware Wolf
09-28-2011 7:38 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
I'm just saying that they are hot to trot about what they consider "personal responsibility
Even for things that people aren't responsible for? That makes no sense.
Agreed.
Wait.... do you really think the audience thought the man to not be responsible? You had a good point but you seem to have caved early to avoid dispute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-28-2011 7:38 PM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-29-2011 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 200 (635376)
09-28-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rahvin
09-28-2011 7:56 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
That said...let's be really honest here: "personal responsibility" mostly refers to "how good you had it growing up." Many of the major influences over your life are determined before you're even old enough to make your own decisions at all, let alone be responsible for yourself.
sort of, but equalizing things like the state you were born in levels the playing field. and if you open the umbrella of personal resonsibility to include the parent-child relationship, then the whole thing makes more sense.
considering your children to be an extension of yourself; the way you raise them, or the way your parents raised you, becomes included in personal responsibility.
I don't have a problem with "personal responsibility" determining how successful you are. I think it's appropriate that one's choices in life should provide the opportunity to improve one's lifestyle.
and if those choices are extended beyond the single individual, to include the parent-child relationship, then i can transfer some of that to my own children as i should be able to do. i consider that to be a large part of my "success".
But I suppose I'm an idealist
as long as you don't become unrealistic
Fuck the Teabaggers, and fuck Wall Street.
sure, why not

sorry for the lack of caps, moose, but i'm not at home and this shift key is all fucked up... and its a shame that'd i even have to type this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rahvin, posted 09-28-2011 7:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 200 (635464)
09-29-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 2:06 AM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
You are saying that an American Citizen's rights should be determined by the whether or not some other American Citizen was responsible or not.
non sequitur

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:06 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 200 (635474)
09-29-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
Thanks for the tip, but I do know what it means.
What you said I was saying didn't follow from what I actually said.
Here's a tip: Spinning people's position into different ones so that you can ridicule them makes you look like an asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 12:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 200 (635479)
09-29-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Aware Wolf
09-29-2011 12:45 PM


My only point originally was that Nuggin's language in message 5:
- The same Tea Party is cheering the death of an uninsured man at the debates.
did not fairly capture the Tea Party's position.
And I agree with you and think you were explaining it well... until crash spun you just a little bit and then you immediately fell over
But you shouldn't even bother with Nuggin's phraseology, he does everything he can to villify his opponents (so much that it comes off as trolling to me); so don't waste your time**.
That doesn't mean that I agree with what (I think) the Tea Party's actual position is.
Of course not.

**ABE
You can see what I mean in Message 45
quote:
you attacking innocent children
quote:
You want a 5 year old child to get sick and die because his father didn't get a good enough job.
quote:
Don't be a fucking pansy and back track now. Own it or disown it.
Pretending you didn't just make the argument just makes you look like a fucking retard.
He can't be serious, can he? Anybody in their right mind can see that I wasn't attacking children... er maybe that's it, maybe he's just crazy. And what with all the foam I'm imagining comming out of his mouth, dontcha just picture him like you would Dennis Markuze?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-29-2011 12:45 PM Aware Wolf has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 200 (635481)
09-29-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
You were implying that the children who are American citizens should not receive healthcare if their parents didn't live up to your standard of being "personally responsible".
Nope, sure wasn't.
Here's a tip: You're an asshole.
You should be suspended for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 12:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 200 (635484)
09-29-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 1:03 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
You call me an asshole
Nope, didn't do that either.
Is english your first language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:03 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 49 of 200 (635488)
09-29-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 1:19 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
Nope, didn't do that either.
Welcome to the forum. You can page back up and see what other people have written.
Let me give you an example:
Here's a tip: Spinning people's position into different ones so that you can ridicule them makes you look like an asshole.
That would be a DIRECT QUOTE from YOU.
Yes, doing those things does make people look like assholes. Now, where did I call you an asshole?
Denying a child healthcare because their parent doesn't live up to your standard of "personal responsibility" is denying an American Citizen healthcare for the actions or inactions of another person.
That's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with my position, thus the non sequitur.
Given that that are NOT a non sequitor, we can only conclude one of two things.
False premise, it *is* a non sequitur.
So, don't get all pissy with me, Barbie. Stop crapping yourself. Stop crying. Be a fucking man and own up to your arguments or admit that you are just pulling this crap out of your ass
You should be suspended for that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 200 (635496)
09-29-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
Show me where in your position you are NOT talking about parents, children and the personal responsibility
Oh, I was talking about those things... what I wasn't talking about was denying a child healthcare because their parent doesn't live up to my standard of "personal responsibility". Nor was I saying that an American Citizen's rights should be determined by the whether or not some other American Citizen was responsible or not.
Both of those are things you made up to spin my position into a ridiculous one. Par for the course from you, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 1:31 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 200 (635509)
09-29-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Nuggin
09-29-2011 2:04 PM


Re: Tea Party vs Christian Coalition
Well, its been interesting to see you your mind works, but you have not accurately described my position here, and its clear to me that you've misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I'll break it down for you a little better later, because I have to get back to work now, but here's all the things I wrote:
quote:
sort of, but equalizing things like the state you were born in levels the playing field. and if you open the umbrella of personal resonsibility to include the parent-child relationship, then the whole thing makes more sense.
considering your children to be an extension of yourself; the way you raise them, or the way your parents raised you, becomes included in personal responsibility.
...
and if those choices are extended beyond the single individual, to include the parent-child relationship, then i can transfer some of that to my own children as i should be able to do. i consider that to be a large part of my "success".
I was trying to make more sense out of what crash said made none, to which rahvin continued on with because I thought they were zoomed in a little bit too far. The point I was trying to make was the second part, that I should be able to improve my childrens' lives through my own personal responsibility.
Futher, well.. shit. I really gotta go back to work... I'd like to explain this further... wait, you know what? Fuck it. I couldn't give any less of a shit about you. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:04 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2011 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 200 (636032)
10-03-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 1:19 AM


Would a catholic conservative be seen taking up Britain's corruption of the Balfour, which happens to be the worst Post-W.W.II crime today? This is of course absent in the Tea Party's radar, which says Britain enjoys an immunity of the gravest of crimes.
Sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 1:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 7:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 200 (636160)
10-04-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 7:51 PM


The tea party is a one-eyed jack in as much as it condones the corruption of the Balfour and accounts a 3-state as a 2-state and muslims as Palestinians - these are covert genocidal factors candy coated as rightious. It also stains all catholics who turn cheeks on such crimes against Israel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 7:51 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 200 (636282)
10-05-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taq
10-05-2011 11:24 AM


Re: Total lack of a plan.
Overall per capita spending (including private dollars) on health care is about double what you guys pay, and that doesn't even cover everyone (the uninsured are left out of this equation). For profit health care has resulted in a doubling of the cost, the exact opposite of what Republicans/TPer's claim should happen in a free market system.
But how much more money do we spend on research and other advances to medicine that the Canadians can just piggy-back off of?
Is it really an apples-to-apples comparison?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 10-05-2011 11:24 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 10-05-2011 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2011 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 10-05-2011 1:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024