Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion
Exactly right Chachacha and Rubicon. Progressing to what, and to what end?
"Progressive" in today's political reality is another term for progressing to "social justice", or basically, to socialistic views of wealth distribution and equal outcome. Social Justice as an agenda has become linked with Marxist economics.
The "Rev." Al Sharpton preached that we won't have true social justice until everything is "equal in everybody's house."
Progressivism or Social Justice; whatever you want to codify the definition to relate to today's political reality, it shorthand for socialism or communism.
You can call a skunk another name if you like, but it will still stink.
|
Al Sharpton is not the spokesman for the progressive movement by any means. He speaks what is on his mind but is not anyone's spokesman so let's just leave Al Sharpton out of the conversation just like conservatives will leave David Duke out of the conversation as he is not their spokesman.
I don't think anyone thinks we should have "wealth distribution" so everything will be equal in everyone's house. I have no idea where those ideas came from except maybe from out of context phrases put together into one statement.
Sort of like the out of context phrase of Mitt Romney saying he does not care about poor people. Not what he meant at all and just taken out of context.
The poster who stated the Obama administration is a throwback to the FDR days and the LBJ days must have forgotten that those two presidents were responsible for Social Security and Medicare. Would you like to be without either?
Conservatives digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is what is wrong with our Congress. We have to progress forward - not go backwards.