• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Asked To Leave Norcal Tea Party Event For Open Carrying

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
While reviewing the YouTube comments, apparently the individual who asked him to leave was merely an attendeed, and not a representative of the NORCAL event. If so, then about all we can say is that the individual was an overzealous busybody who stuck his nose where it didn't belong.

Definately take advantage of any invitaton to conduct an OC seminar! Judging by the video, you obviously handled yourself well, and would be a good advocate to further the cause!

An overzealous busybody in California? I don't believe it!! :lol:
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
An overzealous busybody in California? I don't believe it!! :lol:

As he said sarcastically.

I haven't worked in CA in over 19 years, but I seem to remember a nosy neighbor threatening to call the police/sheriff on me a couple of times when I was working. My answer was and still is: If you don't I will.:cool:
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
TAKE ACTION: Tea Bag Your Legislators!
tea-bagged.png


Bipartisonaship: While the goal of the California Tea party is to reduce wasteful government spending which is primarily a Conservative Platform we are not a partisan organization.

god i hate bipartisanship :banghead:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
nonpartisan <> bipartisan.

It simply means that tea partiers (the is no one organization that is "The Tea Party") can be a member of either party and support candidates from either party--or from no party. It is the ideal that tea partiers support: smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, lower spending, reducing and eliminating deficits and debts, etc.

Tea partiers are associated more with the Republican party because more Republicans hold to those ideals, and those Republicans who don't tend to be closer in ideology than the typical Democrat.

BTW, bipartisanship means giving up the fight and just going along with the Democrat leadership.
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
bipartisanship, to me at least, means one or the other......there is nothing else. which is what is wrong with our country. Lincoln was the last third party candidate to ever get elected into the white house. why? because the big two now have too much power and everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, instead of the right person for the job.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
bipartisanship, to me at least, means one or the other......there is nothing else. which is what is wrong with our country. Lincoln was the last third party candidate to ever get elected into the white house. why? because the big two now have too much power and everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, instead of the right person for the job.

Lincoln was not a third party candidate. By the time he was elected, the Republican Party was one of the two major parties.

The rise of the Republican Party exemplifies how our Republic will always be a two-party system. When one of the two parties evaporates, it will be replaced with a new second party. No third party will ever succeed unless it replaces one of the two major parties.

I like the-two party system. More than at any other time in my life (and likely more than at any time in history), the two parties are moving ideologically away from each other, providing a real choice. (Yeah, I know. Someone is now going to chime in with the "two sides of the same coin" BS. That thinking gave us the current leadership. And, anyone who does not think that the current leadership is far worse and more dangerous to Liberty than the previous leadership just isn't watching the goings on!)

I attribute the stability of our political system to the two-party system. Rather than dozens of little parties all pulling in different directions, such squabbles occur within the parties, and allow us to put up more clear choices in general elections--not always, but most of the time.

The two-party system was not mandated, but naturally evolved as the logical way voters express their will. While it guarantees that no candidate will ever represent any voter perfectly, the system produces candidates that adequately represent large blocks of people.

Like I said, I like that a two-party system has evolved.
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
Lincoln was not a third party candidate. By the time he was elected, the Republican Party was one of the two major parties.

The rise of the Republican Party exemplifies how our Republic will always be a two-party system. When one of the two parties evaporates, it will be replaced with a new second party. No third party will ever succeed unless it replaces one of the two major parties.

I like the-two party system. More than at any other time in my life (and likely more than at any time in history), the two parties are moving ideologically away from each other, providing a real choice. (Yeah, I know. Someone is now going to chime in with the "two sides of the same coin" BS. That thinking gave us the current leadership. And, anyone who does not think that the current leadership is far worse and more dangerous to Liberty than the previous leadership just isn't watching the goings on!)

I attribute the stability of our political system to the two-party system. Rather than dozens of little parties all pulling in different directions, such squabbles occur within the parties, and allow us to put up more clear choices in general elections--not always, but most of the time.

The two-party system was not mandated, but naturally evolved as the logical way voters express their will. While it guarantees that no candidate will ever represent any voter perfectly, the system produces candidates that adequately represent large blocks of people.

Like I said, I like that a two-party system has evolved.

then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. i guess my biggest problem is that the two parties no longer adequately represent large blocks of people. power is corruptive and they(dems/reps) are both very powerful. if anything i think the last few administrations have done more to trample the rights of large blocks of people than anything. like obama said, its time for change.......as long as it is not merely a swing in the pendulum that is the current "bipartisan" conundrum.

of course its our own fault i guess. voting has lost importance in society, which i find ironic since we are in the age of technology and information(more informed and capable of getting involved on a grander scale). while websites like this give me hope, citizens getting involved to take a stand and ensure our rights are defended, i think the general population is too enthralled with ease and convenience that they don't care about the constitution or protecting our rights.

maybe i don't have such a problem with bipartisanship as i do with the two parties involved and what they have become. :confused:
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Lincoln was not a third party candidate. By the time he was elected, the Republican Party was one of the two major parties.

The rise of the Republican Party exemplifies how our Republic will always be a two-party system. When one of the two parties evaporates, it will be replaced with a new second party. No third party will ever succeed unless it replaces one of the two major parties.

I like the-two party system. More than at any other time in my life (and likely more than at any time in history), the two parties are moving ideologically away from each other, providing a real choice. (Yeah, I know. Someone is now going to chime in with the "two sides of the same coin" BS. That thinking gave us the current leadership. And, anyone who does not think that the current leadership is far worse and more dangerous to Liberty than the previous leadership just isn't watching the goings on!)

I attribute the stability of our political system to the two-party system. Rather than dozens of little parties all pulling in different directions, such squabbles occur within the parties, and allow us to put up more clear choices in general elections--not always, but most of the time.

The two-party system was not mandated, but naturally evolved as the logical way voters express their will. While it guarantees that no candidate will ever represent any voter perfectly, the system produces candidates that adequately represent large blocks of people.

Like I said, I like that a two-party system has evolved.


Let's see the party in charge now(of the White House at least), took over from a party that for eight years ran up the size of government, increased our debt, and passed laws which infringed our liberties. That party was elected out of power. The next party came in and GREATLY ran up the size of government, increased our debt and passed laws which will infringe our liberties. Yeah, that must be the BS you were referring to.

As far a why there is only a two party system, I believe it's because in general it's easier. With only two parties it's us vs. them. You don't have to keep up with what is actually going on, you already know you are the good guy and they are the bad guys. All a person needs to know about the other party is you are right and they are wrong. There is no need to actually look at what either party is doing and make decisions about whether it's right or wrong for yourself. If we had other parties to deal with that would only confuse people by making them think and decide for themselves.
Besides, everyone already knows there are only ever two sides to an issue, why confuse the matters by saying both of the established sides could be wrong.

What has the two party system evolved? Longer campaign seasons, cruder attack campaigns, and and candidates who, even after losing nominations, are willing to go to any lengths to get into office. In my opinion that's the inverse of survival of the fittest.
 

cbpeck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
405
Location
Pasco, Washington, USA
I OCed to a Tea Party rally last year without incident.

I was once asked not to OC to a Friends of the NRA Fundraiser. The person who asked was on the local board and a friend of the family's so I begrudgingly complied, though I may not next year.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I was once asked not to OC to a Friends of the NRA Fundraiser.

Oh, my GOD!!! The NRA denying the right to keep and bear arms, in ANY fashion whatsoever?

I'm sorry. The oath I swore to our nation's foundations far exceeds that of the NRA.

NRA 0

USA 1+

Please research the underlying issues and get a clue.

Thanks.

since9
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
I've only been to one Tea Party, but I imagine a lot of it would have to do with whether you're at a Glen Beck type tea party, or one of the more legitimate ones where they are actually trying to spread information, and not disseminate Fox News type crap. The latter is the type I've avoided.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I've only been to one Tea Party, but I imagine a lot of it would have to do with whether you're at a Glen Beck type tea party, or one of the more legitimate ones where they are actually trying to spread information, and not disseminate Fox News type crap. The latter is the type I've avoided.

I am glad that we now have a definition of "legitimate" tea parties!

Tea parties comprise a true grass-roots movement. That means that they are not top-down, directed organizations who have a very specific set of beliefs. Instead they are bottom-up. Folks with generally similar beliefs, but specific differences drive a movement in that general directions.

That is the way Liberty movements (like the scads of tea parties and the various dozens of gun rights groups, including OCDO) work. To try to make them conform to some kind of standard actually defeats the purpose of movements being grass-roots and pro-Liberty.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Tea Parties are just Black Panther Rallies for white people.

Tea partiers don't threaten folks who might vote differently than they. As a matter of fact, they won't assume how one would vote based on race.

Tea partiers aren't all white. As a matter of fact, tea partiers don't make assumptions about race based on political affiliation. You, on the other hand, do.

That is a disgrace.
 
Top