View Single Post
Old 07-09-2013, 7:16 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,906
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
That's a pretty broad question. And labels are just that, labels. I identify as a "progressive" simply because it's the easiest way to discern me from a "conservative". On the hot button issues (with the exception of 2A) I side mostly with the Democratic Plank.
A progressive would be more like an atheist who goes around filing lawsuits against christian symbols of america's heritage because it doesn't fit their view. Or say someone who doesn't believe in free market capitalism and agitates to have policies or law changed to have employees sit on a board of directors and have binding decisions in how the company operates and uses its capital. The main idea of a progressive is there is a need to change (read "progress") society away from its norms and culture to something they see fit. Progressives in the late 1800's, early 1900's were responsible for promoting the science of eugenics, which led to modern day racism. Things like there are superior genetics in certain races and to improve the human lot, laws should be changed to make sure humans progress. So laws against marrying other races, mentally handicapped or mentally ill should not be allowed to procreate, and marrying within your own social class encouraged. Hitler and his superior race all born out of progressivism. You know the end result of that. I bring that up because "progressive" isn't necessarily a good thing. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with that and its pretty indefensible. Marxism and socialism are progressive too. Progressive covers a lot of territory, but basically trying to change society. And I agree, labels and pigeon holing are not accurate, humans vary in too many ways to absolutely quantify politically.
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote