I’m recruiting members for the TPN Invitation Army!
Our goal? Take America back, one heart at a time!
What we do:
1) We invite people to join TPN (one hundred per day).
2) We find new sources of fresh email addresses (by the thousands).
3) We win hearts and minds, one at a time!
That's all there is to it!
Friend me if you are interested and we'll see if you qualify for our army!
I'm looking for those who have been with TPN for at least a few months, follow the TPN rules, are secure and well-versed in their conservative beliefs, and (This is imperative!) are willing to dedicate five minutes of their time daily to send invitations to prospective TPN members.
I will provide you with 100 daily email addresses per week that you'll need, or you can provide your own.
And, I can help you with that, too!
Friend me if you think you want to do this! Let me know that you want to become a member of the Invitation Army group. Our Army has had a great deal of success already. The rate of growth of TPN has increased dramatically since we formed our group and that is with only a handful of members. We started just after TPN reached its milestone of 50,000 members. In just two months, we have added nearly two thousand new members!
Trolls need not apply!
Jeff Waller, TPN Moderator
I know now how Diogenes must have felt...
If the TPN would simply change (if needed) its platform on social issues just a little, people would flock to it. Simply saying something like "It isn't the job or business of the Federal Gov't to be involved in issues of this nature, it is the business of the states, of the people."
We cannot truly represent a party of liberty when/if we simply substitute our own social engineering programs for those of the left; a too-powerful central gov't is still too powerful, whether it's right- or left-leaning.
You use the word "social" as if the TEA party is too "socialist." It is the liberals that pretend to be moral people wanting to help other people through "social" programs, when they really just want to be in charge of the money.
To be "TEA party" is actually about as minimal "social" as one can be. The TEA party is not trying to impose any religion on anybody, just eliminate the government and the liberals from imposing their religion on us.
"To be "TEA party" is actually about as minimal "social" as one can be. The TEA party is not trying to impose any religion on anybody, just eliminate the government and the liberals from imposing their religion on us."
This is not true. If it were, we wouldn't have so many candidates getting tongue-tied when it comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Those should be non-issues for national, as opposed to local, elections. I'll pretend I'm a candidate for the U.S. Senate and I'm asked about abortion. "My personal belief is that life begins at conception; however, neither my personal beliefs nor yours are in the purview of the Federal Gov't. Abortion is one of many issues best left to the individual states to handle, not the Fed Gov't."
You say you oppose the federal government being involved, and yet you somehow reason that Roe v. Wade should stand? That makes no sense. What would make sense is that it be repealed, and then let the states decide individually.
Some pro-life candidates get tongue-tied. Others win elections. The argument that the ones lost because they opened their mouth is offset by the ones that opened their mouths and won. Your argument should be that we need candidates that know how to speak.
I never said R v W should stand. Show me the quote. Saying that I said something I did not say is a straw dog, it is fallacious.
I'm actually *against* R v W for the reason I specified:It isn't the fed gov't's business. It's the states' business.And while it would be nice if candidates knew "how to speak," that doesn't change the fact that any advocacy that such issues are the business of the fed gov't is an argument for a strong central gov't.
Jimmy, if people would change their own platform to ours, they would flock to us. That works both ways!
We're not here to be a "big tent". We're here to serve conservatism on a silver platter. Conservatism is one thing, not a mishmash of ideas where anything goes. Maybe you're in the wrong place, sir!
BTW: Your entire thread is off-topic....and I dare say, I would not want you in my Army.
Your argument is circular. You continue to make an assumption that most people favoring conservative principles in fiscal and other issues are doing so because they are basing their arguments on motives and/or beliefs on something religious. You have yet to show me proof of that -- no quotes or anything -- but you just keep pretending that it is fact.
I am not religious, so quoting me does not advance your point, if that is what it is.
I agree with you, Jimmy. But let me ask you this: will the advocates of social engineering ever loosen their grip on the Tea Party? I doubt they will.
I made comments similar to yours on another thread and they are being eviscerated by the social hardliners. Prophetically, that thread is called "Losing the War."
As long as we (conservatives) insist that social engineering is okay if only OUR issues are "engineered" then no, it will never change. I am not advocating taking less of a stand on principles, merely that such principles are not and never have been the business of the central gov't. Big gov't is big gov't, even if its OUR big gov't.
So you want to shrink government, shrink handouts, and take free food out of poor people's mouths, right? You are playing a game with words, because it is the liberals that want to "engineer."
Conservatives do not want to impose their beliefs on others -- that is liberal propaganda. Conservatives just want to be left alone. Some people call it freedom.
You may be correct that some conservatives feel as you do, but far too many are advocating federal laws outlawing abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization (though that's already a federal law, it should not be - the people of the states can easily handle this one too).
Any time one advocates a federal law on social issues, one is advocating for a strong(er) central gov't.