Tea Partiers are Nazis

Firstly, my opponent points out Bush's controversial statement about the US Constitution just being a piece of paper and that The Tea Party didn't protest it. While I have no doubt in my mind that he said this, my opponent fails to realize that The Tea Party didn't even exist during Bush's presidency as the movement it is today. This makes his comparison inaccurate. It was actually founded in 2009 in response to many of the policies enacted by previous presidencies. . http://en.wikipedia.org... In the end, Tea Partiers protest against Obama's big government policies just like they would have during previous presidencies had they existed. Secondly, my opponent mentions that the Tea Party Never protests war. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, Tea Partier views on many issues vary, war being one of them. Protesting these mixed issues could certainly lower morale and create tensions within the party. As another point, more and more Americans are becoming dissatisfied with America's involvement in several wars anyway. Both wars have also been receiving less attention from politicians in favour of more recent, bigger issues. It's an obvious choice to want to focus on protesting the issues the most people are focusing on such as healthcare reform. Thirdly, the issue of terrorism is mentioned. It is quite contradictory of my opponent to claim American intervention in other countries is bad while also condemning America for not caring about terrorist attacks outside US soil. For America to care about such attacks and want to do something about them would mean intervention which my opponent seems to be against. Instead, Americans have to work on countering these attacks on their own soil, which includes locking up many suspected terrorists in order to extract info. Many are not "innocent" as my opponent claims and in many cases that is almost impossible to prove, especially in a world where a terrorism threat is very real. Also, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for attacks because they carried them out. By doing so they obviously know they have nothing to hide by admitting to bombing civilians. Not only that, but they even promise to continue fighting so it's no mystery what their intentions are. I doubt they would be that stupid to openly admit to attacks somebody else carried out, especially when the world knows they have a goal of global Jihad. In a world where Al-Qaeda targets and attacks innocents America's paranoia is legitimate. Using my opponent's logic, fearing the Nazis during WW II would have been irrational when they were openly going around Europe conquering and killing civilians. Lastly, my opponent fails to fully comprehend that separation of church and state means very little to radical Muslims trying to implement Shari'a. Separation of church and state exists in most of the western world yet many countries are already introducing elements of Shari'a. Why? These same Muslims have found ways to take advantage of the rule of freedom of religion in order to implement their religious laws. Nobody can say they wouldn't try the same thing in America. There has been continuous debate in various states over whether to introduce Shari'a or not. One such case is Oklahoma where a bill forbidding Shari'a was blocked by a judge. . http://www.politico.com... I am almost out of character space so I'll stop here and wish my opponent good luck in the final round. Voters, please vote fairly and good luck to both of us!