If You Want to Win the Next Time....

[progressiveforpaul]

This is what we have got to do: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/2014-2016-way-to-win.html

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm not sure going to church to further politics is such a good idea. Church should be solely for one's own salvation

[thoughtomator]

Next time? We're winning this time.

[Sam I am]

When you start a thread, please don't just post a link to an outside website. You can at least summarize what the article is about. Many people post the full text of the article.

[ShaneEnochs]

When you start a thread, please don't just post a link to an outside website. You can at least summarize what the article is about. Many people post the full text of the article.

He's promoting his own website.

[tennman]

Next time? We're winning this time.

So Dr. Paul is going to win the GOP nomination?

[progressiveforpaul]

Thanks...so i didn't have to.

So Dr. Paul is going to win the GOP nomination?

[Jamesiv1]

Going to church to forward your political ideology --> fail

lulz to guys that post links to their own write-ups on their own websites LOL

[Origanalist]

I'm sorry, but I don't get the progressives for Paul concept. Please explain to me how progressives aren't for bigger government and more government control of our lives. (without directing me to your website)

[trey4sports]

I'm sorry, but I don't get the progressives for Paul concept. Please explain to me how progressives aren't for bigger government and more government control of our lives. (without directing me to your website)

they are for those things, however as pointed out... there are some things that we can work with them on. civil liberties, some social issues, defense and other things.

[Sola_Fide]

. More specifically, I suggest a Bible study on the topic of jubilee to spark connections among these three ideologies. More generally, both libertarians and progressives need to get back to their roots if they are going to regain the liturgical language and messianic motivation they need to combat the corporate anti-Christ.

What does the Old Testament jubilee law have to do with socialism? Socialists for centuries have been trying to read redistributionism into the words of Scripture, but they have failed. The Bible teaches property and condemns theft.

[Origanalist]

they are for those things, however as pointed out... there are some things that we can work with them on. civil liberties, some social issues, defense and other things.

Maybe, but civil liberties for who? Everybody, or just their pet victim classes? I'm really not trying to be abrasive, I just find the whole idea incongruous.

[The Free Hornet]

This is what we have got to do:

Is the answer 'cut n paste'?:


2014 2016 Way to Win


I continue to look ahead to 2014 and 2016. While I have been critical of Ron Paul's delegate strategy, I do because it is the only trick in his bag. It's not a bad trick. It would be better trick in the context of coalition candidacy. The delegate strategy is attractive because it is based on the realistic assessment that we are stuck with a two party system. I don't like it but gaining influence within one of the two established parties is the only real way to political power in America.

The delegate strategy is also attractive because it puts grassroots activists in position of power where they can influence future campaigns and gain the needed experience to become viable candidates themselves. (Yes I could have made a good defense of the delegate strategy earlier but there never was a request from the campaign or any serious consideration of the coalition idea I was advocating.) How can we continue the delegate strategy, even expand it the next time around while finally building the coalition we need to win any politically significant office?

First we can, as I advocated earlier, comb the congressional districts to determine whether a libertarian or a progressive stands the best chance of being elected. Progressives and libertarians from both parties as well as the LP and the GP need to stop diluting the vote and endorse candidates in the two major parties primaries and in the general elections.

Professionals with more knowledge than I can make the determination as to which district is more likely to lean one direction or another. My guess is target open seats occupied by neocons and blue dogs. If the district is majority Republican focus on electing the libertarian. A progressive in the Democratic primary could make waves for a few weeks and then drop out and endorse the libertarian to promote crossover voting. Of course, reverse the roles in heavily Democratic districts.

I think that both progressives and libertarians need to do more outreach to cultural conservatives. My main suggestion to both of them is: GET YOUR ASSES BACK IN CHURCH! Cultural conservatives are being raped and pillaged by corporatists. A little more sympathy and a little less derision could go a long way. More specifically, I suggest a Bible study on the topic of jubilee to spark connections among these three ideologies. More generally, both libertarians and progressives need to get back to their roots if they are going to regain the liturgical language and messianic motivation they need to combat the corporate anti-Christ.

Building these connections is essential to gain the numbers necessary to implement the dual delegate and coalition strategy. Here's how that works:

Scenario 1 assumes Obama's re-election: In the presidential primaries we need to find two progressives and two libertarians to run for president, the former as Democrats and the latter as Republicans. They need to be teammates in the debates while pretending to be rivals. This is the key to getting more time in the debates: ignore your true opponents while disagreeing by name on minor points with your ally. Both pairs of allies should stay in the primary through Super Tuesday. At that point one progressive and one libertarian should drop out. For now, I believe that the candidates who are getting the most votes among each pair should be the drop outs.

The two drop out candidates should then immediately file to run as an independent candidacy in all states unless the Green and Libertarian parties agree to nominate the two as a coalition ticket endorsed by both parties. This coalition pair should hit the campaign trail vowing to drop out if one of the major parties would nominate one of their other coup partners.

Scenario 1A: Corporate Republicans and Democrats manage to do what they do so well by convincing the rank and file to reject the progressive and libertarian candidates. The two inside candidates lead a delegate strategy all the way to the conventions, aiming to put their corporate oppressors to a multi vote open or brokered conventions. After the chaos ends with wounded corporatist candidates, the two delegate insider candidates endorse the independent outsiders.

Scenario 1B Democrats and/or Republicans see the light and nominate one or both of our insiders. In this case our independent (or third party) candidates end their campaign. If both parties see the light, we have a real campaign between progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans but look for the corporatists to mount a write-in or independent campaign.

If only one of the two major parties see the light, that inside candidate should reach out to other party by choosing one of our co-conspirators as the Vice Presidential running mate.

This all sounds a bit complicated but it is rather simple: share power until you bring down your opponent. Isolate them before they isolate you. And win.

Regarding one of your ideas, "My main suggestion to both of them is: GET YOUR ASSES BACK IN CHURCH!". That's not going to happen in my case but maybe others with faith might find it useful.

[progressiveforpaul]

Who's talking abut socialism? I am advocating a mixed economy.

As for what the Bible teaches, it advocates neither capitalism (investor ownership of property) nor socialism (worker ownership of property) but rather stewardship (God's ownership of all property and human holding of property either individually or collectively in trust, not ownership). We could debate all day and night about which system best works to maximize benefits for the most people but the Bible is consistent on this subject in old and new testaments. While the jubilee laws do not promote socialism (or capitalism), they do advocate a regularly required redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors. Theft must be understood in the context of stewardship. Refusal to redistribute wealth in the context of jubilee laws was a form a of theft. Market based interest rates were also considered theft. You can make a case for capitalism as the system that Christians ought to use but not by direct proof texts of scripture. You would have to modify sola scriptura a bit in the hermeneutical direction that liberal Christians do on the issue of homosexuality. However, I am sure you are consistent in your hermeneutics, Sola_Fide. ;)


What does the Old Testament jubilee law have to do with socialism? Socialists for centuries have been trying to read redistributionism into the words of Scripture, but they have failed. The Bible teaches property and condemns theft.

[LibertyEagle]

Every other time I have seen you come on here, you have been suggesting that Paul become more progressive. Well, this movement is not progressive. We do not want big government or wealth redistribution. If progressives want to support liberty, welcome, but don't be expecting for us to change our principles to fit the desires of progressives.

Ain't gonna happen.

[progressiveforpaul]

I think I need to elaborate and hope that others with a similar misgiving will read this as well. I am not advocating promoting partisan politics in church. I am saying that our political values are formed within communities like the church. As the church has become isolated and the clergy less educated, prefabricated and often distorted understandings of scripture have become common place. Liberals (both progressive and libertarians) have left the church because of the intellectual dishonesty and ignorance they hear from the pulpit. Their exodus has just served to make reactionary biases more prevalent and more deeply entrenched in the church. People fed this sort of gnostic salvation on a weekly basis are more susceptible to manipulation by TPTB as they are indoctrinated into non-critical thinking. A re-entry of libertarians and progressives into the church will serve to help these people who are being exploited by TPTB to become critical thinkers. It will also help liberals of all stripes see these people as human beings and find common ground and language with them. This re-formation of sacred community is what will inspire and empower a liberating politics in our land.

I'm not sure going to church to further politics is such a good idea. Church should be solely for one's own salvation

[progressiveforpaul]

Liberty, perhaps i have not been clear enough in my previous posts. I have never advocated Ron Paul betraying his libertarian principles. I have simply said that Ron Paul has been able to make compromises in terms of policy and tactics in order to advance his libertarian principles. His transition plan is the chief example of this. He recognizes that there is common ground. All I have done is to try to show where that come ground is or can be broader than most libertarians think. I have pointed out several policy ideas which may not be ideal to either progressives or libertarians but which advance their economic policy agendas simultaneously. The ideas which i have put forth would actually significantly reduce the size and power of the federal government and make redistribution of wealth less necessary by encouraging job growth and savings. I am sorry that I have failed to communicate this clearly to you in my previous posts and hope that you will reread the posts here and on my blog which deal with specific policy choices.


Every other time I have seen you come on here, you have been suggesting that Paul become more progressive. Well, this movement is not progressive. We do not want big government or wealth redistribution. If progressives want to support liberty, welcome, but don't be expecting for us to change our principles to fit the desires of progressives.

Ain't gonna happen.

[progressiveforpaul]

And there are significant things that can be done on economic issues as well.


they are for those things, however as pointed out... there are some things that we can work with them on. civil liberties, some social issues, defense and other things.

[fisharmor]

Liberty, perhaps i have not been clear enough in my previous posts. I have never advocated Ron Paul betraying his libertarian principles. I have simply said that Ron Paul has been able to make compromises in terms of policy and tactics in order to advance his libertarian principles. His transition plan is the chief example of this. He recognizes that there is common ground. All I have done is to try to show where that come ground is or can be broader than most libertarians think. I have pointed out several policy ideas which may not be ideal to either progressives or libertarians but which advance their economic policy agendas simultaneously. The ideas which i have put forth would actually significantly reduce the size and power of the federal government and make redistribution of wealth less necessary by encouraging job growth and savings. I am sorry that I have failed to communicate this clearly to you in my previous posts and hope that you will reread the posts here and on my blog which deal with specific policy choices.

LE simply said (rephrased) the exact same things I've seen in numerous other threads you started.....
Let me add this.
I'm here because Dr. Paul woke me up.
I was not a real liberty advocate before. I paid lip service to the idea, but in the end I lined up to march behind someone hucking a very different idea.

I think there are a lot of others like me.
People who didn't have a politician reach out to them - people who heard a different message and changed our minds.
This is ultimately what makes Dr. Paul different. You can find other politicians who reach out to others and try to tell them the things they want to hear. You can't find another one who actually educates his listeners as to why his position is correct.

So what you're advocating is that Dr. Paul give up on the thing that got him the number of followers he has, and start doing the thing every other politician in the world does.

In a pretty rare case of me backing up LibertyEagle, let me restate it again: if you want to be progressive, go with that.
If you want to change your position and become more libertarian, welcome aboard.
If you want to obscure the absolute truth of these ideas, then this isn't the place.

[mczerone]

Who's talking abut socialism? I am advocating a mixed economy.

Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism (http://mises.org/daily/2370)


As for what the Bible teaches, it advocates neither capitalism (investor ownership of property) nor socialism (worker ownership of property) but rather stewardship (God's ownership of all property and human holding of property either individually or collectively in trust, not ownership). We could debate all day and night about which system best works to maximize benefits for the most people but the Bible is consistent on this subject in old and new testaments. While the jubilee laws do not promote socialism (or capitalism), they do advocate a regularly required redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors. Theft must be understood in the context of stewardship. Refusal to redistribute wealth in the context of jubilee laws was a form a of theft. Market based interest rates were also considered theft. You can make a case for capitalism as the system that Christians ought to use but not by direct proof texts of scripture. You would have to modify sola scriptura a bit in the hermeneutical direction that liberal Christians do on the issue of homosexuality. However, I am sure you are consistent in your hermeneutics, Sola_Fide. ;)

If we assume that each of us is god's steward, then we can conclude that we are each Equal stewards, that each of us has the god-given reason to determine how to best act to be the best steward, and that we should not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

Thus our "holding in trust" of god's property is indistinguishable from total personal ownership.

And whether we choose to put the "productive property" in the hands of investors or workers is merely a question of how the individual who initially owned the property wishes to use it, and how much others (investors or workers) are willing to pay for it.

Logical deduction from your assumptions leads back to entirely free markets - NOT a "mixed economy". Though in that free market there would be many different firm-structures, and you'd be free to band together with "workers" to buy out "investors" if you were confident that your firm structure would be a better steward of the property, or in other words, would be more profitable.

[Liberty74]

Oh god, the progressive route again? Does anyone not learn from their mistakes. I am sure we are going after the "young" only progressives too because the idea of the youth vote is such a winning strategy. I know many in here are passionate for Paul but many in here are completely clueless on how to win a national political campaign. This was clearly demonstrated the last six months.

Stop with the youth vote strategy and the progressive, democrat strategy. The youth don't vote and the progressives are in general socialists. The two party criminal system isn't going to allow a Ron Paul to win. It's why the system must be fought from the Indy Party side to break people out of their trance. We can become the party of the people to fight both establishments where nothing changes except more spending, more wars, more debt and a bigger police state. Only then will we be able to build coalitions with different groups. But as long as Paul has an R after his name 90% of progressives and Dems will never vote for a Paul. Again, it's the two party criminal system set up by design to trap people in the matrix.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh god, the progressive route again? Does anyone not learn from their mistakes. I am sure we are going after the "young" only progressives too because the idea of the youth vote is such a winning strategy. I know many in here are passionate for Paul but many in here are completely clueless on how to win a national political campaign. This was clearly demonstrated the last six months.

Stop with the youth vote strategy and the progressive, democrat strategy. The youth don't vote and the progressives are in general socialists. The two party criminal system isn't going to allow a Ron Paul to win. It's why the system must be fought from the Indy Party side to break people out of their trance. We can become the party of the people to fight both establishments where nothing changes except more spending, more wars, more debt and a bigger police state. Only then will we be able to build coalitions with different groups. But as long as Paul has an R after his name 90% of progressives and Dems will never vote for a Paul. Again, it's the two party criminal system set up by design to trap people in the matrix.

Actually, our folks have been winning races in the Republican Party.

[ds21089]

Oh god, the progressive route again? Does anyone not learn from their mistakes. I am sure we are going after the "young" only progressives too because the idea of the youth vote is such a winning strategy. I know many in here are passionate for Paul but many in here are completely clueless on how to win a national political campaign. This was clearly demonstrated the last six months.

Stop with the youth vote strategy and the progressive, democrat strategy. The youth don't vote and the progressives are in general socialists. The two party criminal system isn't going to allow a Ron Paul to win. It's why the system must be fought from the Indy Party side to break people out of their trance. We can become the party of the people to fight both establishments where nothing changes except more spending, more wars, more debt and a bigger police state. Only then will we be able to build coalitions with different groups. But as long as Paul has an R after his name 90% of progressives and Dems will never vote for a Paul. Again, it's the two party criminal system set up by design to trap people in the matrix.

You act as if people can never be informed or have their minds changed. Ten years ago, how many people wanted to end the fed, or even knew about it? Look at how many people are anti-war now, yet the wars continue and they get angrier and angrier at our government because of it. We have clearly reached a point where people are starting to lose trust in the government left and right and we're picking up those people. Sure, there are still people stuck in the matrix, but it isn't as many as before. The numbers are there to win, we just have to inform them of who it is that will make the country better, but to say that we are forever doomed.... Well damn, that's a very pessimistic and unrealistic perspective when you take a look around at what's happening in this country because of Ron Paul's message.

[pcosmar]

He's promoting his own website.

^
this

[Sola_Fide]

Who's talking abut socialism? I am advocating a mixed economy.

As for what the Bible teaches, it advocates neither capitalism (investor ownership of property) nor socialism (worker ownership of property) but rather stewardship (God's ownership of all property and human holding of property either individually or collectively in trust, not ownership). We could debate all day and night about which system best works to maximize benefits for the most people but the Bible is consistent on this subject in old and new testaments. While the jubilee laws do not promote socialism (or capitalism), they do advocate a regularly required redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors. Theft must be understood in the context of stewardship. Refusal to redistribute wealth in the context of jubilee laws was a form a of theft. Market based interest rates were also considered theft. You can make a case for capitalism as the system that Christians ought to use but not by direct proof texts of scripture. You would have to modify sola scriptura a bit in the hermeneutical direction that liberal Christians do on the issue of homosexuality. However, I am sure you are consistent in your hermeneutics, Sola_Fide. ;)


Yes, I'm consistent. In fact, the most basic understanding of Christian theology is how Jesus' fulfillment of ceremonial and civil laws in the Old Testament changed practice today.

Jesus fulfilled the Jubilee laws in Luke 4:18. They in no way shape or form abide or have any bearing on Christian people. They are over:


Luke 4:18-21 NIV

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.

He began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."



Besides, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Jubilee laws were in the first place. Read this:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/592.cfm

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Jesus supported non-coercion principle, which leads to libertarian position of free market capitalism, no theft & coercion against others, only VOLUNTARY action

[thoughtomator]

So Dr. Paul is going to win the GOP nomination?

What is going on here is far broader than the Paul campaign.

[cheapseats]

Jesus supported non-coercion principle, which leads to libertarian position of free market capitalism, no theft & coercion against others, only VOLUNTARY action


That said, Jesus DID go biblically ballistic on TEMPLE MONEYCHANGERS.

[cheapseats]

I'm not sure going to church to further politics is such a good idea.


It's a terrible idea, or terribly great.

Everybody needs to get clear on THIS: What's good for Gander Faiths is good for Goose Faiths and Gosling Faiths.

Also for Big Farming Faithful.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

[cheapseats]

Next time? We're winning this time.


Charlie Sheen DID get a new show.

[cheapseats]

He's promoting his own website.


As opposed to REAL Supporters who promote radio stations, t-shirts, YouTube channels, organization memberships, blog sites, subscription services, survivalist products and assorted cottage industries?

DON'T CLICK ON IT LEST OTHER OPINIONS BECOME CREDIBLE, but it is a homespun-looking blog. It doesn't look like a Moneymaker AT ALL, much less a significant Moneymaker...tho I would be DEEE-LIGHTED to be wrong.

NOT to say I would like to discover that progressivesforpaul makes big bucks one blog.

Rather, I would LOVE to discover that many Reg'lar American Bloggers make SOME money (say, a reasonable living) while Celebrity Talking Heads and the Political Class haul in six and seven figures.

JESSE BENTON = MONEYMAKER.

Ron Paul Die Hards applaud successes among their own, NO MATTER HOW ACHIEVED...and resent successes of Non Goose-Steppers, no matter how honorable.

WHADDYA MEAN, 'HONORABLE'?! IF THOSE SHEEPLE HAD ANY HONOR (THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO BRAINS), THEY WOULD ALREADY BE IN THE RON PAUL MAJORITY OPINION KAMP. DUH.

[Sola_Fide]

That said, Jesus DID go biblically ballistic on TEMPLE MONEYCHANGERS.

So? That was His house.


Matthew 21:12-13 NIV

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"

[progressiveforpaul]

So you are concluding there there is no substantial common ground for progressives and libertarians to stand on in terms of economic policy. I disagree if that is what you are saying. There is a way that progressives will allow for lower taxes, lower debt, less federal government, greater decentralization of economic planning and more money in the hands of private citizens. if you could have all that and double the popular vote for Ron Paul, would you take it?


LE simply said (rephrased) the exact same things I've seen in numerous other threads you started.....
Let me add this.
I'm here because Dr. Paul woke me up.
I was not a real liberty advocate before. I paid lip service to the idea, but in the end I lined up to march behind someone hucking a very different idea.

I think there are a lot of others like me.
People who didn't have a politician reach out to them - people who heard a different message and changed our minds.
This is ultimately what makes Dr. Paul different. You can find other politicians who reach out to others and try to tell them the things they want to hear. You can't find another one who actually educates his listeners as to why his position is correct.

So what you're advocating is that Dr. Paul give up on the thing that got him the number of followers he has, and start doing the thing every other politician in the world does.

In a pretty rare case of me backing up LibertyEagle, let me restate it again: if you want to be progressive, go with that.
If you want to change your position and become more libertarian, welcome aboard.
If you want to obscure the absolute truth of these ideas, then this isn't the place.

[cheapseats]

So? That was His house.


In my view of secular and sublime, MONEYCHANGING IN THE TEMPLE and MONEYCHANGING IN THE TEMPLE OF MAN'S LORDSHIP OVER MAN are the same CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

People who disagree do NOT have the same defined Cause that I have.

As humans, we are nevertheless likely to have overlaps in specifically articulated Venn Diagrams.

The coveted Swing=Decisive Votes are in the overlaps. Which occur mainly in the middle.

[progressiveforpaul]

Good News flash SF...you are his house as well. Check mate.



So? That was His house.

[Revolution9]

Ron Paul Die Hards applaud successes among their own, NO MATTER HOW ACHIEVED...and resent successes of Non Goose-Steppers, no matter how honorable.
.

Simply..BS..

Next
Rev9

[Revolution9]

People who disagree do NOT have the same defined Cause that I have.


Whew! That's a relief!

rev9

[Sola_Fide]

Good News flash SF...you are his house as well. Check mate.

I agree. But what is the check mate about that? God's eternal ownership does not nullify our temporal ownership. We are commanded not to steal from each other or kill each other. That presupposes that we temporally own our bodies and our things.

[cheapseats]

Simply..BS..

Next
Rev9


You are a fierce Patriot. I am glad of and grateful for that.

But OBJECTIVE, you are not.

At least I OWN having a lousy bedside manner. You BOAST yours.

WINSOME outside the Bubble, you are NOT.

[cheapseats]

Whew! That's a relief!

rev9


Sooo, you are "down" with MONEYCHANGING IN THE TEMPLE OF MAN'S LORDSHIP OVER MAN?

You are "down" with Officials governing for profit & Uniforms enforcing mercenary laws in exchange for paychecks, so long as YOUR people are wearing the lapel pins and badges?

[progressiveforpaul]

I have made less than 70 dollars in 15 months on that blog (and it's my biggest blog). And I can't even get to that money because there is a $100 minimum for pay out. ...I really need a promoter or celebrity endorser but of course I can't afford one but I guess that's the "free" market at work. :D


As opposed to people to REAL Supporters who promote radio stations, t-shirts, YouTube channels, organization memberships, blog sites, subscription services, survivalist products and assorted cottage industries?

DON'T CLICK ON IT LEST OTHER OPINIONS BECOME CREDIBLE, but it is a homespun-looking blog. It doesn't look like a Moneymaker AT ALL, much less a significant Moneymaker., tho I would be DEEE-LIGHTED to be wrong.

NOT to say I would like to discover that progressivesforpaul makes big bucks one blog.

Rather, I would LOVE to discover that many Reg'lar American Bloggers make SOME money (say, a reasonable living) while Celebrity Talking Heads and the Political Class haul in six and seven figures.

JESSE BENTON = MONEYMAKER.

Ron Paul Die Hards applaud successes among their own, NO MATTER HOW ACHIEVED...and resent successes of Non Goose-Steppers, no matter how honorable.

WHADDYA MEAN, 'HONORABLE'?! IF THOSE SHEEPLE HAD ANY HONOR (THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO BRAINS), THEY WOULD ALREADY BE IN THE RON PAUL MAJORITY OPINION KAMP. DUH.

[cheapseats]

lulz to guys that post links to their own write-ups on their own websites LOL


Would you rather all "credible" information and opinion derive from A FEW sources or JUST ONE source?

[cheapseats]

I'm sorry, but I don't get the progressives for Paul concept. Please explain to me how progressives aren't for bigger government and more government control of our lives. (without directing me to your website)


Point me to generally recognized/accepted reference sources that include or allude to BIG GOVERNMENT in their definition(s) of PROGRESSIVE.

[Origanalist]

So you are concluding there there is no substantial common ground for progressives and libertarians to stand on in terms of economic policy. I disagree if that is what you are saying. There is a way that progressives will allow for lower taxes, lower debt, less federal government, greater decentralization of economic planning and more money in the hands of private citizens. if you could have all that and double the popular vote for Ron Paul, would you take it?

Would you not after allowing all those things, cease to be progressive?

[progressiveforpaul]

You obviously do not take Luke 14:33 too seriously.


I agree. But what is the check mate about that? God's eternal ownership does not nullify our temporal ownership. We are commanded not to steal from each other or kill each other. That presupposes that we temporally own our bodies and our things.

[progressiveforpaul]

No.... i have not ceased being a progressive even though i would agree to several policy changes that could put these libertarian goals inot reality while providing funding for progressives to do what they want to do as well. It is not an either or proposition. I know you don't want to make me any money so just don't click on the ads when you go here:
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-for-libertarians.html

Would you not after allowing all those things, cease to be progressive?

[cheapseats]

What does the Old Testament jubilee law have to do with socialism? Socialists for centuries have been trying to read redistributionism into the words of Scripture, but they have failed. The Bible teaches property and condemns theft.


It is IMPOSSIBLE to have read the Bible and not gleaned the fundamental "takeaway" that we are charged with looking out for THE LEAST AMONG US.

ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY HUMAN LIFE does not, even in the garbled world of bald-faced Hypocrisy, translate to THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ABORTION. It means EVERYONE will have some 'splaing to do.

No, indeedy...if Pearly Gates there be, GOVERNMENT MADE ME DO IT will assuredly not pass muster.

LOOKING OUT FOR THE LEAST AMONG US is perhaps the strongest humanitarian argument against pie-in-the-sky "New" World Order. National Sovereignty is MORE REALISTIC than Global Control. Needy Neighbors are more MANAGEABLE than Needy Countries and Needy CONTINENTS.

MORE REALISTIC + MORE MANAGEABLE = MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED. Think of the children.

[ShaneEnochs]

As opposed to REAL Supporters who promote radio stations, t-shirts, YouTube channels, organization memberships, blog sites, subscription services, survivalist products and assorted cottage industries?

DON'T CLICK ON IT LEST OTHER OPINIONS BECOME CREDIBLE, but it is a homespun-looking blog. It doesn't look like a Moneymaker AT ALL, much less a significant Moneymaker...tho I would be DEEE-LIGHTED to be wrong.

NOT to say I would like to discover that progressivesforpaul makes big bucks one blog.

Rather, I would LOVE to discover that many Reg'lar American Bloggers make SOME money (say, a reasonable living) while Celebrity Talking Heads and the Political Class haul in six and seven figures.

JESSE BENTON = MONEYMAKER.

Ron Paul Die Hards applaud successes among their own, NO MATTER HOW ACHIEVED...and resent successes of Non Goose-Steppers, no matter how honorable.

WHADDYA MEAN, 'HONORABLE'?! IF THOSE SHEEPLE HAD ANY HONOR (THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO BRAINS), THEY WOULD ALREADY BE IN THE RON PAUL MAJORITY OPINION KAMP. DUH.

Er... what? I was just stating a fact. What's wrong with you?

[Origanalist]

Point me to generally recognized/accepted reference sources that include or allude to BIG GOVERNMENT in their definition(s) of PROGRESSIVE.

This is a silly request and I don't have time to hunt down sources so here is wiki before I have to go;

"The progressives were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention."

"Disturbed by the waste, inefficiency, corruption and injustices of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society and economy. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the imposition of an income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[11]"

[cheapseats]

This is a silly request and I don't have time to hunt down sources so here is wiki before I have to go;

"The progressives were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention."

"Disturbed by the waste, inefficiency, corruption and injustices of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society and economy. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the imposition of an income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[11]"


PROGRESSIVE no more means THE PROGRESSIVES than REPUBLICAN means RIGHT or HOMOSEXUAL means GAY.

[Origanalist]

PROGRESSIVE no more means THE PROGRESSIVES than REPUBLICAN means RIGHT or HOMOSEXUAL means GAY.

Alright, I'm open to hearing this. But it will have to be later on in the day...................

[cheapseats]

Er... what? I was just stating a fact. What's wrong with you?


YOU...snidely remarking from the safety of Majority Opinion when "not your side" links to a proprietary site, tho you do NOT snidely remark when "your side" does the same.

[LibertyEagle]

JESSE BENTON = MONEYMAKER.

Still trying to further the lie, eh Cheap?

[cheapseats]

Still trying to further the lie, eh Cheap?


It is TRUE that Jesse Benton is a Moneymaker in the Political Class.

Volunteers are NOT Moneymakers. Jesse Benton IS a Moneymaker.

Jesse Benton does not "just" make a living as a member of the Political Class (as opposed to people who donate time and money), Jesse Benton makes a very "GOOD" living as a member of the NON-PRODUCER Political Class.

[tennman]

Every other time I have seen you come on here, you have been suggesting that Paul become more progressive. Well, this movement is not progressive. We do not want big government or wealth redistribution. If progressives want to support liberty, welcome, but don't be expecting for us to change our principles to fit the desires of progressives.

Ain't gonna happen.

Well said! We want the government out, not given more say in my life and money. Geez.

[AGRP]

they are for those things, however as pointed out... there are some things that we can work with them on. civil liberties, some social issues, defense and other things.

Liberty is a package deal. Locking people in cages because they don't pay or work for "progressive" policies is a huge social and civil liberty issue. From my take after viewing many of his threads and posts, PFP is a troll.

[progressiveforpaul]

Gary North? Really? The guy is a Rushdoony disciple. Pure eisegesis. Total contradiction of what the Bible plainly says about stewardship, property, money, wealth, poverty. The guy is a propagandist parading as scholar. Pure filth.
You obviously do not understand what the word fulfill means. It does not mean to abrogate but rather to magnify and expand the essence of a tradition or law. Clearly what Jesus was saying was that his ministy was about expanding jubilee to the gentiles. Good news to the poor and freedom to the prisoners was about release from debt. You are Marcionite gnostic. And given your Christian reconstructionism (why else would you refer to North?)you are really not fit to be called a libertarian. But don't take it from me: http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning

Yes, I'm consistent. In fact, the most basic understanding of Christian theology is how Jesus' fulfillment of ceremonial and civil laws in the Old Testament changed practice today.

Jesus fulfilled the Jubilee laws in Luke 4:18. They in no way shape or form abide or have any bearing on Christian people. They are over:





Besides, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Jubilee laws were in the first place. Read this:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/592.cfm

[LibertyEagle]

It is TRUE that Jesse Benton is a Moneymaker in the Political Class.

Volunteers are NOT Moneymakers. Jesse Benton IS a Moneymaker.

Jesse Benton does not "just" make a living as a member of the Political Class (as opposed to people who donate time and money), Jesse Benton makes a very "GOOD" living as a member of the NON-PRODUCER Political Class.

He works for a living, yes. Most people do. You see, people have rent, mortgages, food, insurance, etc. that they have to pay. Is this an enigma to you? Benton receiving a salary of 120K is far below what most people earn who are in that position. In case you hadn't heard, Dr. Paul is pretty tight on purse strings. lol.