Soulshiner wrote: Living in the 21st century has it's bonuses. Instead of posting notes and people's takes on what was said, the meetings should be videotaped and posted online, so everyone can see and hear exactly what was said and by whom. That way, they can show what transparency that they wail about President Obama not showing is. With all of this eyewitness denial, it is really starting to sound like politics as usual from this group.
If you would like to see what goes on and who says what, come on down. I'm pretty sure there will be a meeting notice posted on 285bound.com.
One other thing we are refering to notes taken by one individual, they are not meeting minutes. They were not voted on or approved by the membership as you would expect minutes to be. The only official word from the 285 Corridor Tea Party will come from the 285CorridorTeaPartygroup nick.
Here you go SS page 9
We don’t aspire to be the “conscience of Republican Party”, and as I stated many of the members are not Republicans. To the address the statement “Expand influence with Republican Party”, that is a true statement but within the scope of expanding influence to all fiscally conservative voters.
Followed by LJ's post in which she turned the phrase fiscally conservative voters into ultra-conservative principles. The same post in which she compared Nmysys to a certified insane assassin.
Funny, are you suggesting that someone like Michelle Bachmann, who is the one who started the Tea Party Caucus, and is running as a Tea Party candidate is NOT espousing "ultra-conservative principles"? (It will take me about 3 minutes to serve up a list of quotes to show she's a bat-sh*t-crazy ultra-conservative...) You want to keep suggesting that it's not ultra-conservative?
My exact quote was: "Based on what I've seen here on 285Bound, I have no interest in ANY group where the so-called "conscience" is determined by a bunch of ultra-right-wingers such as I find here." I stand by that. I didn't "turn" any phrase from one thing to something else... I expressed my basic contempt for the ultra-right-wingers I find on 285Bound and simply said I have no interest in ANY group of them that sets themselves up as the "conscience" for anything... Yep...
My other exact quote was: "I'm sure John Hinkley was "a very out spoken, passionate, individual, who cared very deeply about" assassinating Ronald Reagan, too... That doesn't excuse his behavior, and doesn't explain away the incessant personal attacks by Nmysys on anyone who doesn't agree with him.." I stand by that too....
One can only surmise that the reason people fail to understand what the TEA Party is, and what it is not, has its roots in their lack of comprehension of the reasons surrounding the event in 1763. There is a history surrounding that event and it is important to know and understand what that history is, why it lead to that event and what happened in the years that followed that event.
That event was the result of a resistance movement within the colonies just as the modern day movement that has harkened back to that event is a resistance movement. The consent of the governed that belong to this group is in jeopardy of being lost and they are at present peacefully making their discontent known and attempting to work within the existing framework to gain the attention of those elected to govern. If the government continues to tell the governed that it can govern without their consent the resistance will continue to grow, just as it did in the years that came after 1763.
The current government of this nation is as capable of losing the consent of the governed as most every other government throughout history was - make no mistake about that. At first it will lose the consent of a few, and then a few more, and then a few more; until it loses the consent of enough that they decide that a peaceable means of gaining their consent is no longer possible and other solutions are sought. That is what happens when the people of a nation decide to avail themselves of their right to alter or abolish a government that has lost their consent to govern. It doesn't matter if that government is a republic, a democracy, a monarchy or a theocracy - they can all fall victim to the loss of the consent of the governed.
Read the Declaration of Independence again and take notice of what exactly that document is. Not necessarily the words that it contains, but the purpose of the document itself. It is an explanation to the world about why the current action is being taken, it is not a request being made. It tells of the actions of their current government and why they can no longer be tolerated or will no longer be acquiesced to. It tells the world that the time for talk has passed. It tells the world they tried to reason with their government, they tried to get it to listen, but they were instead ignored and that this is the result of their government closing their ears and failing to listen to their discontent.
The current group of people are saying that they will no longer tolerate $1.5 Trillion dollar annual deficits. That they will not tolerate an increase in taxes to avoid $1.5 Trillion dollar deficits - they are Taxed Enough Already. Their discontent can only be addressed by the federal government reducing the amount of money it spends to the amount of revenue that the current taxes provide - that is what it will take to keep their consent to be governed by this government. The folks in Washington D.C. can choose to listen to them or they can continue to ignore them. One will act as a salve to the discontent, the other will add to the discontent that currently exists.
Only a few were discontent enough in 1763 to advocate separating themselves from England. Thirteen years later, however, the number who felt that level of discontent had grown to where further discussion of the matter was no longer an option.
Grady wrote: Now to address the comments made regarding our last meeting. I have no doubt those comments were made. But I can promise they weren’t made by Nmysys, myself or any of the regular members. We don’t aspire to be the “conscience of Republican Party”, and as I stated many of the members are not Republicans. To the address the statement “Expand influence with Republican Party”, that is a true statement but within the scope of expanding influence to all fiscally conservative voters.
I believe it’s more of a matter the GOP wanting to influence, use, and co-opt the tea parties rather than the other way around. At this meeting we had two leaders of the Park County GOP Central Committee, we regularly have attendees from the Jeffco GOP. They see a pool of politically active conservative voters.
At this meeting we did talk about recruiting and supporting conservative candidates to run for elective office. We also talked about attending caucus and making sure we recruit the fiscally conservative to register to vote if for no other reason than to have a say at the very grassroots level caucus elections. We do not specify any party. Next fall we will have “caucus attendee training” many voters who attended their first caucus these last few cycles simply had no idea how the process worked. We want to make sure people with our interests are active participants.
There it is! Thanks, Grady - and my apologies for not recognizing this earlier.
Grady wrote: Now to address the comments made regarding our last meeting. I have no doubt those comments were made. But I can promise they weren’t made by Nmysys, myself or any of the regular members. We don’t aspire to be the “conscience of Republican Party”, and as I stated many of the members are not Republicans. To the address the statement “Expand influence with Republican Party”, that is a true statement but within the scope of expanding influence to all fiscally conservative voters.
I believe it’s more of a matter the GOP wanting to influence, use, and co-opt the tea parties rather than the other way around. At this meeting we had two leaders of the Park County GOP Central Committee, we regularly have attendees from the Jeffco GOP. They see a pool of politically active conservative voters.
At this meeting we did talk about recruiting and supporting conservative candidates to run for elective office. We also talked about attending caucus and making sure we recruit the fiscally conservative to register to vote if for no other reason than to have a say at the very grassroots level caucus elections. We do not specify any party. Next fall we will have “caucus attendee training” many voters who attended their first caucus these last few cycles simply had no idea how the process worked. We want to make sure people with our interests are active participants.
There it is! Thanks, Grady - and my apologies for not recognizing this earlier.
