English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-08-31 19:58:49 · 14 answers · asked by qwert 7 in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

The progressives seem to be the ones arguing against the recent limitations to our Constitutional freedoms, so I'd have to say no. But then again, the Declaration of Independence states that the fact that "all men are created equal" is a self-evident TRUTH, whether you prefer it or not. Liberty, however, is a RIGHT, and must be prefered to be maintained.

2007-08-31 20:02:05 · answer #1 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2 1

the ten states with the optimum homicide expenses from 1999 via 2006 are: a million) Lousiana - voted for McCain 2) Mississippi - McCain 3) Maryland - Obama 4) Alabama - McCain 5) Arizona - McCain 6) New Mexico - Obama 7) South Carolina - McCain 8) Nevada - Obama 9) Tennessee - McCain 10) Georgia - McCain the ten states with the backside homicide expenses: 40-one) South Dakota - McCain 40 2) Idaho - McCain 40 3) Hawaii - Obama 40 4) Massachusetts - Obama 40 5) Utah - McCain 40 six) Vermont - Obama 40 seven) Iowa - Obama 40 8) North Dakota - McCain 40 9) Maine - Obama 50) New Hampshire - Obama So 7 of the ten states with the optimum homicide expenses voted for McCain, in assessment to 4 of the ten states with the backside expenses. that would not fairly help the belief-approximately your question, now does it?

2016-11-13 21:46:11 · answer #2 · answered by gracely 4 · 0 0

It's not equality.

It's equality of opportunity.
And you don't have freedom without equality of opportunity.

I know it's difficult to think of the world around you in more than a two or three syllable phrase at one time lately (me too).
But no one has ever been aiming for equality.

Serious folk have always been working to improve equality of Opportunity. Any way you can.

2007-08-31 20:21:02 · answer #3 · answered by roostershine 4 · 1 0

It's not necessary to be exclusive in some thing ,to be inclusive in the other.Equality liberates us and liberty enables us to strive for equality.One doesn't have to be a progressive either to choose and work for both.A simple and rational thinking is good enough to see their merits and inter connectivity.

2007-08-31 20:10:36 · answer #4 · answered by brkshandilya 7 · 0 0

Generally, yes -- one of the planks of the progessive platform is that social freedoms only work if they are shared equally -- and that requires some skewing of the balance to try and enforce equality even where there are differences.

One of the many reasons that "progressive" and "liberal" are not identical -- liberals value liberty over equality, as long as the inequality is not the result of intentional discrimination.

2007-08-31 20:02:50 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 2

They prefer socialism over liberty.

2007-08-31 20:09:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They prefer both.

The left are the ones against big brother surveillence of the American people. They are the ones against the Patriot Act. At the same time, historically it has been the left that fought for equal rights for women and minorities.

Right-wing conservatives by definition supported the status quo.

2007-08-31 20:08:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The reason that socialists changed their names to liberal is that people began to learn what they were about and did not want to lose their freedom. Now they have changed their name again and they call themselves progressive.

It still means that they want absolute control over your lives. Some of them may have the best of intentions; smoking and trans fat are not good for you, but that does not diminish the fact that they are making the decision, not you.

Liberals would rule you right down to the color of your underwear if you would let them. They may tell you it is for your own good and for equality but I still believe it is another word for slavery.

2007-08-31 20:06:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

IMO yes...trouble is life isn't fair and situations aren't equal. Never will be. There will always be people who can beat the system.

2007-08-31 20:04:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

They prefer to be progressively regressive.

2007-08-31 20:02:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers