Fellow Members:

What, if any, should be the limitations on topics and postings for this web site?  

I am opposed to anonymous postings here.  I am also opposed to personal attacks, threats, name-calling, pornography and profanity here.  But, I am excited to see new members or new ideas/topics/issues being discussed.  For me, the more activity the better.

This group and this website has the right and ability to be the master of its own destiny, and to direct or limit conversations as we see fit.  But, should we?

Randy Corporon


Views: 73


You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!

Join Arapahoe Tea Party

Comment by Randy B Corporon on March 21, 2012 at 8:22pm

Excellent idea, Keith.  Any chance you will be in town for our 4/3 meeting.  I think we will add by laws to our meeting topics.

Comment by Keith Ulmer on March 21, 2012 at 8:16pm

All organizations operate by rules (law) and our Nation established it's rule through a constitution so maybe our organization should develop it's own by-laws or constitution by which we regulate ourselves. If there was no law there would be no order. Even the freedom of Speech is not without restraint and our nation also struggles with that but we always find an answer to the confinement of speech. I do think we have grown to that point in our group where we need a simple structure . 

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 13, 2012 at 9:16am

Regarding ethnocentrism ... is it not possible for a man to understand fully other cultures and the significance they play in the world scheme, without agreeing or giving up his own convictions?  There are many people who would slap a label (i.e., ethnocentric bigot) on to another person in order to curtail the conversation and defend their own views.  This is a contradiction of terms.  It is important to respect an individual and his right to believe as he does.  However, that does not mean one must agree with him.  All parties are free to profess their faith, or worldview, without a government mandating what they must or must not believe ... in THIS country.  Fortunately, we have the First Amendment to guarantee this unalienable right.  We must strive to protect one's right to free speech, even though we will not always agree.

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 12, 2012 at 7:07pm

One has ventured too far in to the realm of censorship when it comes to free speech by demanding, or suggesting, that another human being may not espouse a worldview in absolute terms.  We do not want to remove the hearts and souls that drive individuals to their decision-making, or detracts from who they are.  It IS possible to agree to disagree ... to remain tolerant in the purest sense.

It is not the differences in philosophy, race, ethnicity, religion, or worldview that cause problems.  Instead, it is the blatant belittling and name calling directed in the form of personal attacks that has no place in an honest discussion.  

Personally, I welcome other worldviews and cultures, as well as faiths.  While I may not agree with them, I may embrace the individual without compromising my personal beliefs or culture or demanding that others compromise or give up theirs.  This is the beauty of America.  We have can have diversity without division under a common cause.

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on March 12, 2012 at 1:01pm

While I was the coordinator I deleted any posts that offended the rules of vulgar racism.  We had one fellow that attempted to blog on the site from Georgia.  He eventually was just banned from the site due to continuously offending the blogs.  In previous discussions on this topic many have said that any and all attempts to define the Tea Party as racist should be countered, although other forms of ethnocentric bigotry still seem to permeate into some discussions.  I have provided two links to better define this.



((Ethnocentrism can be understood as the disposition to read the rest of the world, those of different cultural traditions, from inside the conceptual scheme of one's own ethnocultural group. The ethnocentric attitude assumes that one's own ethnic Weltanschauung (worldview) is the only one from which other customs, practices, and habits can be understood and judged. Ethnocentrism thus is conceived critically as involving overgeneralizations about cultures and their inhabitants, others' or one's own, on the basis of limited or skewed, if any, evidence. So the notion of ethnocentrism is conceived as a profound failure to understand other conceptual schemes, and, by extension, practices, habits, expressions, and articulations of others on their own terms. Standing inside our own conceptual schemes, we are blinded even to the possibilities of other ways of thinking, seeing, understanding, and interpreting the world, of being and belonging—in short, other ways of worldmaking.))


((Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:



Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Philosophy Dictionary

The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter.))

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 10, 2012 at 8:22pm

Dear Sir,

I do not condone the censoring of legitimate debate or personal perspective, as that is the gist of our First Amendment right.  Nor do I oppose one's freedom to post information that may be inaccurate, according the the lack of knowledge one may have.  Opinions are important for all discussions, as they reflect the heart of one's philosophy and convictions.  When someone posts a perspective, he or she must be prepared for a response that may or may not support one's position.  It is important to agree to disagree if all parties cannot come to a general consensus.

On the other hand, profanities and personal attacks have no place in honest intellectual discussions.  Perhaps ground rules for blogs could be posted so that those who enter in to such discussions know that the aforementioned are not appropriate or condoned by the Tea Party?

Regarding anonymity, is it not reasonable to conclude that anyone who strongly believes in his or her position would post his or her name?  One of the most valuable aspects of the American Tea Party is that we have patriots who are not afraid to stand up for this great nation and the principles it was founded on.  

Considering a more sinister problem, with anonymity there is the potential that those whose mission is to destroy the Tea Party from the inside out may do so without fear of consequence.  There is no way to verify one's allegiance, much less their legitimacy as a Tea Party supporter.  

Ultimately, it is up to those in leadership positions within the Tea Party to determine which rules best support and protect the Tea Party organization in a lawful and moral manner, according to the very foundation our freedoms were built on.


© 2023   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service