Progressives (Liberals)

Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
Co-published by The Guardian and Newsweek

Um, no, he was not.



Go back to school and learn. Among assorted things for you to learn, is the truths about communism. Find out what it is before spouting more silly glop.

Silly glop is us

For those wishing to learn more on Beto O'Rourke and some of his true code values and beliefs, the internet is a good place to start.

Here's an item from Axios. Activist Democrats question whether Beto O'Rourke is one of them
www.axios.com/beto-o-rourke-2020-election-progressive-529d9feb-3412-488e-908e-880afddf00ae.html

According to the article, he claims to support certain things - Universal Healthcare, Social Security -
He's not on the bill for debt free college education. This a key part of what progressives want.

An article from vox.com asserts O'Rourke is more Conservative than the average House Democrat.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record



Is O'Rourke really a progressive or is he a bunch of talk? The more I learn on him, the more he starts sounding like NYC Mayor DeBlasio. (Supposed progressive who seems mainly to just want to climb to the top, saying whatever is needed to achieve it, regardless of the cost of who is trampled upon as he digs his cleats into their tired and torn bodies and lives, with no concern of how much pain he is causing.)

O'Rourke almost endorsed universal health care before he ran against Cruz, but backed away from it right away. If he now supports it, it's a good thing.

The thing is, nobody knows for sure if he truly supports it or is just dying to distance himself from the other Dems.

The thing about O'Rourke that makes me uncertain about him is, I don't know where he would stand on some important issues, once elected. To survive in Texas politics he might have taken some stands he would abandon for national politics. Who but he really knows? His current somewhat liberal stance on a few issues may be sincere, but without full commitment, I would not want him.

Communism seems to be centered on relinquishing private property and using it for the good of the many——and this seemed central to Jesus’ thing—based on what I read.

Certainly ok with me if you have a different view.

It’d be interesting to know your main point of disagreement.

oy vey!

According to the biblical tales (which you seem suddenly quite fond of), Jesus was without possessions from the start. He didn't give up anything!

So, in addition to taking classes to learn about communism, a class on the life of Jesus (of course only if he really existed, which is a 2 semester lecture class on its own) and the entire history of Christianity. I don't believe communism is ever mentioned there.

Some.of the tenets of communism, I am in agreement with. That aside, the Jesus of the bible, does not fit the bill.

This is my final post and statement on this, within this thread. Feel free to continue or maybe start yourself a new thread on Communism.

I’m not ‘suddenly fond of biblical stories,’ but a knowledge of Jesus (as characterized in the Bible) is necessary to make a meaningful connection between his theories/ teachings and a form of social theory like communism.

You don’t have to call it by the modern name for it to have been so.

Recall his teachings: New International Version
“And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”

Not proof, but a point to ponder.

Conservatives tend to think Jesus had to be conservative; of course, I think he was incredibly liberal—as portrayed.

Not liberal enough to suppress speech or use violence. Those are now liberal policy.

Heh. There was that one awesome time he broke bad on the establishment. A favorite story of mine.

I call BS on that.

Maybe if you stay within the bounds of where he can point to other people and say "I think what he thinks" there can be a discussion with Blatham.

But as soon as the conversation veers into an area where he would have to think and respond for himself, Blatham quickly founders and then embarks on really nasty name-calling to cover it up.

Personally I don't find Blatham's sadistic name-calling very enlightening. And if I want to know what those other people think, I can just go read their views directly without Blatham as an intermediary.

What is wrong with that? Edgar believes that these positions are important, and he posts arguments in favor of them.

If I disagree with something that he posts, I speak out about what I think is wrong with it.

It's all nice and civil with none of Blatham's horrible name-calling.

I say let's have more of Edgar and less of Blatham!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@Ocasio2018
·
10h
Next time we have a gov shutdown, Congressional salaries should be furloughed as well.

It’s completely unacceptable that members of Congress can force a government shutdown on partisan lines & then have Congressional salaries exempt from that decision.

Have some integrity.

Yes, the faucet leaks; but at least they turned the flow down for a little while.

I agree with Sturgis, this belongs on a thread on it's own. However, I think the whole thing about the apostles giving up their possession to follow him has been misunderstood. They did not have to give all they owned, just give up their living. If they were fishermen, abandon their livelihood and follow him. The same goes for other occupations the apostles had. For everybody else it is a thought that possessions and worldly profits are not everlasting and will not save your souls.(metaphorically and literally) When he says if a person does not have a cloak, give up your cloak to give to him/her, he means God will clothe you if you do good for your neighbors (which is everybody). Kind of like the saying, ask and you shall receive. Jesus's gospel was basic goodness, not self destructing sacrifices (unless called for.) IMO. If people would realize that most of Jesus's preaching was taught in parables and sayings (not all)they could use their common sense to understand it better. Moreover, Jesus separated his teaching and preaching from the state (so to speak), when he said, "Render under Caesar things that are Caesar and things under God to God." (going by memory might not be exact)

Rev, do you find this statement logical?

“They did not have to give all they owned, just give up their living.”

They literally left everything they owned, possessions and family. They didn’t know where their next meal was coming from, according to the text.

Sometimes, I think people expend a lot of energy trying to make the Bible more palatable to their own sensibilities.

I don’t want to gum up Edgar’s thread, although I think this subject is related. Would love to flesh this out elsewhere if anyone else does.

Is Denaturalization Next Front in Trump Admin's Immigration War?

I've been reading about denaturalization. Any non European is likely to get targeted under the Republicans.

He did not ask them to give up their houses and leave their wife and children without a place to live in. If they were apostles of Jesus, their needs would be taken care of (the parable of the lilies) and logically as a part of their needs that would include their families needs since they were the provider so to speak. A little common sense is called for when reading the Bible.