2 ms·

This is kinda riding on past accomplishments of the Republican party. Progress for progress's sake isn't always progress

• bobkazamakis 5y ago
  the statement asserted has nothing to do with any specific party at any specific point in period. This is an example of progress during an era of which, apparently, free speech was unquestioned. The past accomplishments of the Republican party much more closely mirror the current Democratic party due to the Southern Strategy, but again, not relevant to the point being made. > Progress for progress's sake isn't always progress then it's definitively not progressive, isn't it? Conservation is a reactive stance, not an active one.
  • water8 5y ago
    Imagine someone sets fire to a masterpiece, art conservatives don't take a reactive stance and say "hey you shouldn't have done that", they take an active stance using safeguards to ensure that it doesn't happen in the first place because it can't be undone.