StarGateWars Forums

Dovahkiin wrote:Some of those opinions expressed by the "tea partier" are strawmen. But the video is more or less accurate. Like I said, Tea Party is just another way of saying Republican.

Psyko wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:Some of those opinions expressed by the "tea partier" are strawmen. But the video is more or less accurate. Like I said, Tea Party is just another way of saying Republican.

True.

I would say the Tea Party is for staunch Republicans, whereas "Republicans" tend to be moving away from some of their traditional values.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian, but I'm a member of the Independent Party. Most people assume I am liberal because of the basic social issues, because only liberals would be okay with gay marriage and similar social issues.

Empy wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:Some of those opinions expressed by the "tea partier" are strawmen. But the video is more or less accurate. Like I said, Tea Party is just another way of saying Republican.

True.

I would say the Tea Party is for staunch Republicans, whereas "Republicans" tend to be moving away from some of their traditional values.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian, but I'm a member of the Independent Party. Most people assume I am liberal because of the basic social issues, because only liberals would be okay with gay marriage and similar social issues.

That's funny, I'm a Libertarian too except most people assume I'm a republican because of the non-social issues.

Dovahkiin wrote:Tea Partiers were, once upon a time, Republican libertarians with religious leanings. Now they're just Republicans.

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:Tea Partiers were, once upon a time, Republican libertarians with religious leanings. Now they're just Republicans.

Just Republicans...you mean like Ron Paul (libertarians), like Romney (establishment - mainstream), or like Rick Santorum ("radical")?

Someone who studies at Harvard Kennedy School of Politics told me that Tea Party were rather similar to libertarians except on society issues and sometimes international stance. Himself is a Tea party member apparently.

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@Jim, what's your opinion of the founding fathers of America and their views of liberty compared to America today?

When you reply please keep in mind that many things today are wholly unconstitutional and things are going on today which back in the founding fathers day would have been enough to start another secession/revolution against the power of big centralised govt.


Just curious

[KMA]Avenger wrote:You misunderstand, i'm referring solely to big govt and unjust rule which is the same today as it was back then. king George violated the British constitution (Magna Carta which the colonies were subject to) just as today the federal govt is violating the US constitution.

If the founding fathers were alive today they would be outraged as to how the federal govt have crapped all over the constitution and also at the peoples lack of duty since the US constitution clearly states that tyrannical govt must be thrown of and it's the peoples duty to restore the republic if the govt ever went against the constitution...which it has. so disregarding the religious and moral aspects of change differences between then and now and solely on the fact the govt is illegal just as King Georges govt was illegal...what say ye?