What are Progressive Values?

News? This is political philosophy.

Homosexuality is an enemy of the socialist state. If you don't reproduce then you are a drag on the state because you do not produce a new generation of eorkees to support you when you are not longer productive.Old homosexuals have to be taken care of the rest of societies kids.

 

I'll bet Right Wingers have been listening to those Clear Channel Fascists - they're the ones who hate gays - Beck and Boortz - their radio shows have 2 basic emotions - kind of like Jennifer Anistons acting range - which are - being a beotch and crying!

 

Progressive columnist at the always overtly sensationalized hype at Information Clearing House - where every day the top OP-ED is accompanied by a photo of a red mushroom atomic bomb going off ( talk about CLOUDING THE ISSUE ) - Robert Parry seems to time and again, take a famiiar tact with his articles - like Ray McGovern, Peter B. Collins,and Kevin Zeese do. Blame everyone except the primary sponsor of terror in Syria - Obama and the
CIA. Zeese recently had an appearance on PRN.fm about Bernie running third Party Green w/ Jill Stein wishful thiniking pie in the sky. Its like these Liz Warren fans cheering her on, like the delusional Robert Scheer on 'Hypocrisy Now' who ignored the fact that Liz Warren endorsed illegally bombing Syria. If you support kiling, injustice, big oil wars and the poiticians who push the NWO - why have radio, read, or blog at all unless your some Democrat propagandist? Phyllis Bennis - another Democrat apologist who buried the facts on Syria when appearing on Abby Martins now cancelled 'Breaking the Set' on the two faced Russia Today America, routinely shifts blame to Turkey when the main terrorist resides in the White House.

Lets cut the guff as it were - as we view staged Turkish terror photos labelled 'GRAPHIC' on the UK Daily Mail linked by Mockingbird Drudge yesterday - but which contained no blood at all the crime scenes pics, just like Eagles of Death Metal terror photos pictured no bodies Two words - CRISIS ACTORS (PSYOPS) by Western and allied intelligence services used to bolster their unjust oil / gas wars.Who the White House is bombing - are the innocent Arabs and Persians ... THATS WHY AFTER 12,000 AIRSTRIKES, BY THE AMERICANS ALONE, ISIS IS STILL NOT DEFEATED More Gulf of Tonkin stuff ...Just like Boston Marathon ...plus this major point - always concealed by 99 % of Mockingbird Pro Syria Death propaganda press ...



Russian Official: U.S. Not Bombing ISIS At All… Obama Lying to the American People

"by Steve Griffiths | Top Right News

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament’s international affairs committee, created a firestorm today when he took to Twitter and said Barack Obama is not bombing ISIS.

“McCain accused us of striking out at US-trained insurgents… However, since they have either run away or joined al-Qaeda, hitting them is a mission impossible,” Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.

“The US-led coalition spent a whole year pretending they were striking ISIL targets but where are the results of these strikes?” Pushkov asked during and interview with France’s Europe 1 Radio.

Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, admits the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS is primarily smoke and mirrors.

“Obama’s strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working… (because) the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained,” Boot wrote for Newsweek in February."

http://toprightnews.com/russians-say-u-s-not-bombing-isis-at-all-obama-lying-to-the-american-people/

____________________________________________


THE TRUTH

Syria Is The Middle Eastern Stalingrad

By Andre Vltchek

"Two years ago I replied like this: “I have witnessed the total collapse of the Middle East. There was nothing standing there anymore. Countries that opted for their own paths were literally leveled to the ground. Countries that succumbed to the dictates of the West lost their soul, culture and essence and were turned into some of the most miserable places on earth. And the Syrians knew it: were they to surrender, they would be converted into another Iraq, Yemen or Libya, even Afghanistan.”

http://www.countercurrents.org/vltchek020116.htm

 

Judge Nepolitano on Fox News:

FBI CREATED TERROR PLOTS, at the 4 minute mark of video clip,

(instead of preventing them!)


[video=youtube;SbqVqI1cWXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbqVqI1cWXc[/video]

 

We should note that there isn't a "natural right to own arms" but instead the natural right is the "right of self defense against acts of aggression" and it was upon that natural right that the 2nd Amendment was based. "Arms" is referred to in the 2nd Amendment, not firearms, and which "arms" are protected is subject to definition by the government. For example we can't own nuclear "arms" because they're an offensive weapon and not a weapon of self defense. We can also note that we don't have a "right to kill" even in self defense although the incidental death of a person related to an act of self defense is not considered to be criminal. If we had two identical "arms" from the standpoint of "effectiveness" where one was lethal and the other was non-lethal then arguably the "non-lethal arm" is protected by the 2nd Amendment while the "lethal arm" would not be because it causes death.

We don't have that today but hopefully we will in the future and the protection of "firearms" under the 2nd Amendment could justifiably be revoked as being unnecessary for the purpose of self defense, the natural right.

BTW - We could also ask what "arms" existed in 1789 because logically those were the "arms" being protected by the 2nd Amendment. I don't make that argument because times change including the types of arms that we can use in self defense. Today they're a compelling argument that some types of firearms should be protected by the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense while there are also compelling arguments for certain types of firearms to be excluded from protection under the 2nd Amendment.

Under the US Constitution we have the Congress that's delegated with the responsibility to address the compelling arguments for what types of firearms should be, and what types of firearms should not be, protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

I'm always interested when someone resorts to name-dropping so I looked up the individuals mentioned.

Robert Parry is a columnist and there are no indications that he's a progressive in his biography.

Ray McGovern appears to be conservative leaning based upon his biography and history as a CIA analyst under the Reagan Administration.

Peter B. Collins is most noted for being a liberal (not necessarily progressive) talk show host.

Kevin Zeese isn't even a Democrat and ran for the US Senate in Maryland with the backing of the Green Party and Libertarian Party in 2006 (and came in 3rd). There's no indication that he's a progressive but instead all that's indicated is that he's a political activist that addresses many political issues.

So four names were dropped but none seem to fit the category of "progressive" based upon a review of their biographies.

 

As will all progressives, they are all about regulating the "arms" and couldn't care one flip about infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear them. Of course nukes are brought up in almost any liberal manifesto on gun control---however---the Founders were focused on the individual rights of people and allowed no gun control of any significance during their watch.

So when did any of the Founders, like James Madison or Thomas Jefferson ever say that arms were ONLY for Militia aged men 17 to 45, or they were ONLY for use against tyranny, and should ONLY be for self defense??? I'm looking for any evidence of the Founders NOT allowing women and children to have even basic firearms, or for any man NOT of militia age: as most of the Founders were past 45 years of age and should have disarmed themselves. There is no evidence of this because there was no gun control. That is the invention of Leftists.

From the Militia Act, the Founders even allowed citizens to own cannons far more powerful than .50 cal rifles of today. They didn't even demand registration of them.

Gun Control is not needed. Punishing violent felons is all that is needed as long as they are punished severely and quickly.

 

I'm a progressive libertarian and I'm not all about "regulating" arms although, by necessity, all natural rights require regulation related to the "freedom to exercise" the "natural/inalienable rights" of the person. The very requirement for government is based upon the necessity to regulate the "freedom to exercise" our "natural/inalienable rights" to prevent the violations of the "natural/inalienable rights" of all people in society.

For example we have the "natural/inalienable right of thought" and the Constitutionally protected "Freedom to Exercise" that right by speech and expression but the Freedom is regulated. We cannot slander or libel others nor can we yell "fire" in a theater (unless there is a fire) because it results in panic that causes injury or death. The "Right of Thought" is not infringed upon by the regulations limiting the "Freedom to Exercise" that Right based upon pragmatic and compelling arguments.

Firearms regulations, based upon pragmatic and compelling arguments, limiting the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Right of Self Defense" does not infringe upon the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Self Defense" anymore than laws prohibiting libel, slander, or yelling "fire" infringe upon the "Right of Thought" of the person.

BTW I own two cannons, one with a 1.75" bore and the other with a 2.5" bore and they don't require registration. Some people own cannons with larger bores, such as 5" and perhaps even 7" and they're not registered firearms either.

 

BTW there are only three natural rights of the person that are being fundamentally violated by and in the United States.

The "Natural/Inalienable Right to Life" is violated by capital punishment which is the premeditated killing of a person. It is unnecessary because it's not an act of self-defense which could be accomplished by incarceration which is a restriction upon the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Liberty."

The "Natural/Inalienable Right of Property" is violated by our statutory laws of property that are all based upon "Title" and "Title" is unrelated to the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Property" established by the labor of the person to provide for their support and comfort from nature.

The "Natural/Inalienable Right of Liberty" is violated by our immigration laws because if government didn't exist then a person could go from Mexico City to Denver Colorado at any time based upon the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Liberty" of the person.

We also have one Civil Right that's being violated and that's the "Civil Right to Vote" by all individuals subjected to the power of the government which includes every permanent resident of the United States regardless of citizenship.

 

You may make assumptions all day long on why YOU think there should be restrictions on the 2nd Amendment when the 2nd expressly forbids restrictions upon it. What other amendment has "shall not be infringed" ingrained with it????

One should look ONLY and ONLY what the true meaning and common use of the law was by the people who wrote it and how they lived the law in the day. If the Founders wanted gun control laws, they would have made them. If the stupid argument of the "Militia IS the Nation Guard" is really true, then the Founders would have all turned in their guns after 45 years of age.

At the very least, ANY hand-held firearm that shoots normal rounds should be allowed to be carried or kept at home by any honest citizen, anywhere in the US without restriction.

If violent felons were punished the same as they were back in 1789---then there wouldn't be a crime issue today. Also, if we attacked terrorists the way we did back 200 years ago with Muslim Barbary Pirates---then we wouldn't have the terror issues either.

 

This is the problem I have with libertarians- you have a set of absolutes that are basically a replacement for religion. Ideals like this are just not workable in reality.

 

I dig Eric Margolis - but not the 'Scott Horton radio show' - formerly of 'anti-war.com' where many false U.S. Govmnt mantras are often repeated.That the Saudis or Pakistan-ISI did Sept. 11th, harbored, Osama, and paid the hijackers. I think the "jews did it" mantra was planted into 9/11 Truth by cointelpro so that people would be repelled by what appears to be rampant anti-semitism within the movement.

Everyone who has read one CIA book or account by a decent author knows that ISI is a CIA CUTOUT created, armed, and controlled - its historical fact - like Saddam, al Queda, Taliban, Mujadeen, and now ISIS WERE CREATED AND OWNED BY CIA. At least Margolis admitted on Lew Rockwell radio that war on ISIS is phony - few writers will admit this 'on air.'

Heres the best Liberal commentator:

NYT Praises Obama’s Phony War on Terror,
Lauds Clinton, Blasts Trump

by Steve Lendman

"On Tuesday, they ignored Obama’s imperial madness, his high crimes against peace, his rage for wars, waging them in multiple theaters, using ISIS and other terrorist groups as US foot soldiers.

Instead they praised what demands universal condemnation and accountability, saying in a Tuesday speech, Obama “listed the ways in which his administration has worked to subdue the threat of terrorism abroad and home” – at the same time denouncing what he called Trump’s “dangerous” mindset.

Fact: America created ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups.

Fact: It uses them in Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, providing their fighters with arms and other material support, waging wars on sovereign independent states, wanting US-controlled puppet regimes replacing them.

What’s ongoing is longstanding imperial policy, wanting all nations transformed into US vassal states. Instead of denouncing America’s war on humanity, The Times supports it."

https://alethonews.wordpress.com/20...ony-war-on-terror-lauds-clinton-blasts-trump/

“The Progressive Radio News Hour” w/ Stephen Lendman

http://progressiveradionewshour.podbean.com/

 

Tell that to Bill Maher.

He's called himself a Libertarian in the past ...

 

Nazi Germany wasn't socialist -you have that wrong.
In fact, Hitler's hatred of socialism was part of the reason he double crossed Stalin.

Nazi Germany was fascist- an extreme, Right Wing, totalitarian state.
Stalin's Russia was communist- an extreme, Left Wing, totalitarian state.

I now see why you're having so much trouble coming to grips with progressive values: you don't know your Left from your Right.

 

Ah! So you're not interested in progressive economic or social politics at all! Just the morals of progressives!
Got it!

Not too sure government's in the morality business. I think that's the church.

 

He was socially. Economically, he was conservative: "...ye have the poor always with you..."

NB: I mean an old fashioned, gentlemanly conservative, not the rabid free marketeer RWNJ that slinks around in the dark nipping peoples ankles and calling itself conservative nowadays.

 

Maybe another example of "Progressive Values" would be that everything in the media doesn't have to be an embarrassing example of capitalist swine-hood, that ruthlessly preys on the young, naive and saturated with endless advertisement.

Lets take the example of the TV show "Friends." Psychologically speaking,Ross symbolizes the archetypal insecure male wanting a wife (a basic human need), but is stymied continually by the conceited, shallow,Rachel who he must continually strive to please by humiliating himself and catering to her every whim. Monica is the childish, whiny, demanding slave driver who cries for herself when Ross has a child, bit__ng and manipulating everyone to serve her materialistic, faux maternal brainwashing societal expectations and demands. Manic mood bi-polarism is a source of comedy as male dominated chauvinism is portrayed as normal on other shows. Here's where the embarrassing example of capitalist swine-hood year - in and year- out of the show demands its servile, uneducated mass media audience where EVERYONE must A) "want babies," according to Lisa Kudrows dyslexic half-brother, B) buy wedding rings, C) live lives of endless self absorption, D) be ego driven self absorbed consumers of Porsches, Lazy Boys, Pottery Barn, Pizza, Beer, Vegas and Caribbean vacations, concerts, sporting event tickets, over-priced clothing and unrealistic beauty standards and high fashion, E) people stabbing each other in the back perpetually to attain these materialist items, and F) holding up fat, or imperfect people up for symbols to to be scoffed at, despised and ridiculed.That the show is repeated ad nauseum on childrens Nickolodeon is no accident. Americans are treated as consumer cattle, no morals are emphasised above personal material attainment. Shows stories aren't shown in chronological order. Jennifer Aniston gets preggo cut to Huggies commercial, somone gets proposed cut to diamond merchant, fatty fast food for Matt LeBlanc cut to fatty fast food product placement. Advertisers dictate story scripts and episode placement. That the actors were paid a million dollars per episode in no accident either.Like the Kardashians they aren't actors in play at all, their walking ad placement sales gimmicks, not people telling a story. In fact the standard of living between Elitist performer, news anchor, music singer or 'reality star' and mass market audience members are now so astronomically greater than the working class will EVER earn, it is a wonder why Americans don't en masse despise Hollywood BEFORE the show even starts its mostly condescending, intelligence insulting, class snobbery, and feeble attempts at supposedly artistic displays of "humanism."

 

so·cial·ism.


[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]







NOUN



1.a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


The Nazis were National Socialists. And yes during peacetime and certainly at war they were in absolute control of German industry and markets. There would have been no need for Albert Speer, Franz Seldte or Wilhelm Frick.

As Nazis are the great boogymen to all Leftist, they cannot allow all the socialism practiced by the Nazis, including their great national work projects, to be rightfully called "socialist" and compared to their own ways. To appease their political correctness, they have rebranded it as "Fascist."

 

Nothing from you either? But of course, Progressives care nothing about honesty, lying, cheating, breaking laws they don't like, or marital values.

Only a matter of time before the Progressives here allow bigamy and pedophilia.

 

I doubt you could call him an economic conservative either "it is easier to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven". Pardon any misphrasing...it's been a long time since Sunday school.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a long list of GOP pedophiles.

Want me to post it?

 

That's true. But he may have been after the populist vote. That camel- needle thing would have gone down real well with ordinary folk.

 

Of course anyone, and anyone of any political affiliation should be put to death after their conviction for having sex with an obvious under-aged child.

 

You're in error

Fascism/Nazism by Ayn Rand

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .” [The American College Dictionary,
New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

http://remember.org/guide/facts-root-nazi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/256/what-is-the-difference-between-fascism-and-nazism

https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Nazis-fascists-or-was-there-a-difference-between-these-two-groups

http://www.heeve.com/modern-history/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism-nazism.html

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/berlet_fascism.html

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/15702-are-fascism-and-socialism-the-same

 

If there was one good definition of socialism everyone agreed upon, then you wouldn't have such a variation of "what it really means."

Your lists are just a pitiful effort to edit history into something more tasteful.

The facts are the Nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If they were that incorrect about themselves, then there would have been hardly anyone joining their party.

Stalin, Hitler and FDR were all socialists, and all had big government programs that were not overseen by private industry. FDR had the WPA, Hitler had the RAD.

The Marxist fabrication of a "Fascist Economy" falsely think that in this model: resources and production are managed for the greater benefit of the state, rather than to increase profit, wages or standards of living.

The standards of living during the time of Hitler for Germans was just as high as for the average American. They both had indoor plumbing on a large scale and superior living conditions above almost everyone else on the planet. To think that un-PC leaders like Mussolini and Hitler didn't care about raising standards of living is pure, biased rubbish. Your definition of a Facist economy not caring is actually true of Marxists under all their great leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the North Korean dynasty. The masses were (and are) collectively kept in poverty.

http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/To-What-Extent-Did-Mussolini-s-Economic-654838.html

 

Here is a basic list of progressive values that have been around for the last 240 years or so;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.