Pilgrims or Puritans?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/08/25 15:16:56
|
|
|||||
|
27 votes
|
|
39% | ||
|
9 votes
|
|
13% | ||
|
8 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
25 votes
|
|
36% | ||
In the early seventeenth century, two groups of people knew they had problems with the Church of England. The Pilgrims separated from the Church completely and went first to Holland, then to America to live. The Puritans stuck it out for a lot longer, but then they, too, broke away.
Now a Tea Party activist warns her fellow conservatives that they might have to play the Pilgrim. The Church of England was having none of the "purification." The Republican establishment will probably behave the same way.
Now a Tea Party activist warns her fellow conservatives that they might have to play the Pilgrim. The Church of England was having none of the "purification." The Republican establishment will probably behave the same way.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/25...
Top Opinion
-
GINGERBREAD 2012/08/25 16:06:38Undecided
+7The reason I chose undecided was because "PILGRIMS & PURITANS" are the same. When they arrived in the New World, they were both "PILGRIMS & PURITANS". They did not celebrate any of of our religious holidays. They considered everything, except worshiping "GOD" a "SIN", and "GOD" had to be worshiped only one way. and any other type of worship is heretical. I don't consider the tea party as "PILGRIMS". I consider them more like our founding fathers, that were neither "PILGRIMS" nor "PURITANS". They were for freeing the individual so that every individual. This was the very first time in the whole world where the individual mattered, and not the government.
are they puritans ?
in their minds ..yes
the admin. if romney is elected will have the backroom fundamentals as the mormons do but puritans or pilgrims ,,is up in that air !
the mormons have their won principals , beliefs "and members who are weak to the words of wisdom ..!"
I was in the LDS church for a while ,,"not for me " I' declare christianity "
I think it would be wise to get the Marxist out of office first then worry about who is a Pilgrim or who is a Puritan in a metaphorical sense.
and I agree about the flip flopping thing ....
but soetoro has to go .!
then the present 2 parties have shown their usefullness in the past 100+ yrs .
Gary Johnson is the here and now should RP not win the nomination ... lets see if Rand Paul can challenge him in 2016 and we know he will.
Otherwise we start this all over again with the down-trodden wishing and hoping we will get a good constitutional person to represent the people in 2020 should Romney win a 2nd election and refusining to admit to themselves that they missed their chance in 2012 to do the right thing.
now not to be a downer here ...BUT !
if soetoro gets more desperate he's liable to orchestrate an even & declare M/L ...and suspend all elections ..it's been predicted by many a schollar !
Edit: You are free to vote for whomever you wish, but being stubborn won't help change America away from Marxism if you support someone that has no chance of winning.
You don't support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and say you are constitutional is just the beginning of his lies.
Be stubborn, it's your right, but don't think you are advancing the cause, you are hindering it.
Many of the amendments our campaign for liberty fought for were included in the new GOP platform. Four years ago, many politicians in both parties scoffed at Ron Paul's efforts to audit the Federal Reserve.
Now it’s in the Republican Platform – along with internet freedom, war only under a Congressional declaration, support for a gold commission, and fighting back against domestic drones.
You do what you think is right and I will continue to do the same. The difference is a vote for Romney means you will have 4 years of trying to keep his feet to the fire ... Voting Johnson means I will have 4 years of restoring the constitution, fiscal responsibility, and down-sizing government because my president knows its the right thing to do.
"Many" did scoff at auditing the FED, but most didn't, that's why Paul had success getting co-sponsors. Those co-sponsors didn't need to hear your rant, they signed because they see it as needed policy. "Many" is not "most", and you overestimate your influence.
Any vote not supporting the party's nominee is a vote to keep progressives in power.