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
There are many federal laws that sneakily twist religious-sounding ideas to justify that it is okay to take from some to give to others. Rather than spending all of our time criticizing conservatives that may be wrong without citing evidence of their "evil" intentions, we should spend an equal amount of time criticizing the imposition of liberal religion on us.
I can't understand how you think that bringing America back to the morals it once had is somehow social engineering. Actually, if I may coin a phrase, it is "social restoration".
You and Frank can carry on your dysfunctional conversation amongst yourselves.
The topic of this blog is the Invitation Army.
You tell me then. How is you wanting the fed gov't involved any less of a problem than the libs wanting the same thing (albeit with different results)? I do not see what's so hard about this. Either of us, liberal or conservative, wanting the central gov't involved is simply wrong-headed.
There seems to be a miscommunication here, or some misunderstanding at least, as to what I am saying. I'm NOT saying to abrogate your principles; I AM saying that the federal gov't has no right to tell any of us what those principles should be. As long as you and others think they should, we will never be a constitutional republic.
The point is they have already strayed from the Constitution, but you are arguing to just leave things where they are. In my opinion, you are advocating an unConstitutional idea, which you are free to do.
Very good point, Jeff. I won't belabor this topic after this post (promise!) Can you offer some guidance on who to invite? Just for example: Christian conservatives might not like the small-government libertarians here; small-government types might not like the Christian conservatives. I'm not sure what TPN's focus is...
Are you interested in joining the Army?
TPN's focus is stated on the main page:
Tea Party Nation is a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God-given individual freedoms written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country.
If certain people (and they know who they are) don't agree with those standards, then I am certain that they can find a nice, comfortable place where they think likewise. We don't begrudge people their opinions, but when they try to tell us that we need to change to suit them, then they are exposing themselves being narrow-minded and maybe even as trolls.
But there are even places on TPN where they can bat those ideas around, but this blog is not one of them. That's what I was trying to tell Jimmy. Sorry if I wrongly painted you with the same brush.
Sorry, Jeff, but I am trying to prove myself worthy of being in your army by not letting liberal talking points go unchallenged. Only when emotion is put aside can logic and reason be used to teach the lessons of history to the masses. I refuse to be shouted down, or quietly reasoned down, by nonlogical assumptions that others might assert they have divine knowledge of.
Cute, Frank, but I'm not religious. Therefore any comment that accuses me of being "social" is a lie. And no argument that is valid can really be "eviscerated," can it?
Liberal ideas are full of social ideas such as forcefully transferring property from some to benefit others. In advocating for a smaller government, the TEA party is actually much less social. That is why the word that they oppose is called "socialism" -- duh!
I think you are confused. When Frank and I speak of "social" issues we are not speaking of political philosophies. A social issue is one where someone other than those most immediately involved is controlled by a central authority. Given we must have gov't of some sort, the more local these issues are, the more freedom accrues to the people.
Perhaps you mean "fraternal" instead of "social." I can only go by the words used.
Social means the society, instead of the individual, being involved in the decision-making process, sometimes to the detriment of the individual.
If there was no law whatsoever about either abortion or marriage, then we would have no legal argument. Only when one person accuses the other person of being more or less moral does a conflict arise. The next step is to pass a law to force the other to conform. As you say, no law would be chaos and true survival of the fittest, but "progress" dictates that we have a couple of laws around, to protect our collective wishes, or rights.
This brings up the distinction between inalienable rights vs legal, or man-made, rights. Where does the first kind come from? Once an individual answers that question, it is obvious that the two terms are not synonymous. Laws can be made that oppose individual rights.
This might at first seem to mean that you could use this fact to argue that a woman should be free to have an abortion, but after further analysis one realizes that first you have to define the fetus as some "lesser form of life." That's a bummer, man.
"This might at first seem to mean that you could use this fact to argue that a woman should be free to have an abortion, but after further analysis one realizes that first you have to define the fetus as some "lesser form of life." That's a bummer, man."
You keep making the same mistake. You focus on the issue (abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and not the central disagreement. I am not saying that such things need no legislation, though a case can be made for saying that. I am saying that IF such legislation is needed, it should not be at the federal level.
As long as conservatives continue to insist on federal laws governing such things, we will continue to lose elections.
You are perhaps intentionally missing my point that the federal government is ALREADY involved in this issue. You are apparently okay with that, and you continue to say that returning the federal government to it's rightful place is a bad thing. I want the federal government out of it, so get rid of Roe vs. Wade, which tells me I MUST accept it. It is a legal requirement right now, but that does not make it Constitutionally correct (it's not in the Constitution at all, as you say).