You should probably step down off your high horse once in a while. Take a sniff of the roses.
Well I appreciate the concern big fella, I really do... But my Horse isn't all that high, it just seems that way at times, when one's own horse doesn't measure up... and I'm afraid that where you're sittin' at the moment.
Well there's no universally accepted definition of a lot of things when one expands the scope of opinion beyond that which matters... In this instance, it's you and I... my definition for both is registered throughout this site and on dozens of others just like across the web.
There's not a ton of debate over the terms, accept where Leftist want to revise the terms they hijack to define themselves so as to produce the illusion that they've something in comon with Americans.
But let's take a look and see what ya decided to go with.
So try this on for size:
Definition of Progressive Politics | eHow.com
right wing - definition of right wing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Almost ALL "definitions" of these things are fluid and subject to accidental or deliberate manipulation. For example, many far left liberals CLAIM, nonetheless, to be "progressives." Why? Because they do not wish to be properly classified as what they are. Even some of them recognize the legitimacy of the stigma associated with "liberal" as that term is used in modern American parlance.
If you truly wish to argue that McVeigh's political instincts and proposals were merely "forward looking," then I reject your manipulation of the meaning of the word "progressive." Indeed, just because some authoritarian far left statist chooses to assume the mantle of "progressive" does NOT mean that the term "progressive" ought to be understood by reference to such ideologues.
McVeigh had very pronounced issues with our "left wing" government. His rambling thoughts are recorded. You can quibble all you wish, but it seems to me that a guy who stands opposed to a left wing government, gets involved with a militia and takes up arms against the people and the left-wing government he opposes on the ground that it is too grasping and controlling is showing his opposition to the politics of the left. He was a right winger. Misguided as all hell, but a right winger nonetheless.
Consider the implication of this excerpt of a trial reporter's article in the Slimes during McVeigh's trial:
Political Ideas Of McVeigh Are Subject At Bomb Trial - NYTimes.com
Yeah... That's what I thought... Your feelings on McVeigh are founded in him being 'to the right' a feminized pacifist... You're working from the erroneous notion that ideology is linear... Left is on one side and they're entitled to their ideas; which are just as viable, just as plausible as their opposition on the other end of the line and to their right... who have other ideas, which are equally viable and plausible; and that the best solutions are those where each side comes together to compromise; taking the best characteristics from each side...
From this ya hear of McVeigh's rants regarding his would-be opposition to: 'the Left', along with his advocacy for
gun ownership; which ya feel 'the left' opposses... and this you conclude from that basis, that this provides McVeigh was a "Right Winger".
But here's the problem ya have: being anti-wrong, doesn't make ya right...
Being RIGHT... is not a direction, Liability... it is a status. It's pretty damn hard to be Right when the last thing ya did with the responsibility which you had that sustained your rights to BE FREE... was to murder a couple of hundred innocent people; many of which were children who had never wronged anyone.
There's a HELLUVA LOT MORE TO BEING RIGHT, than oppossing the wrong, OKA: the Left... and any claim that McVeigh ever had to that lofty title, he forfeited the instant that he decided his means, which was mass murder, was justified by the righteousness of his cause, to strike a blow against 'the Left'...
He became THE LEFT... when he began to ACT AS LEFTIST ACT. That he was entitled to take the lives of those innocent people; because HE HAD A BITCH! Because someone had pissed him OFF, HE WAS GOING TO EVEN THE SCORE...
This isn't complicated Liability... It's an age old formula:
"Because 30 Million people do not have Health Insurance,
WE'RE GOING TO FUCK UP EVERYONE'S INSURANCE!
Because some people can't afford to buy a house,
WE'RE GOING TO CRASH THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE, REAL-ESTATE AND BUILDING INDUSTRIES...
Because this or that person can't maintain their responsibility for themselves with regard to their firearms,
WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT EVERYONE'S MEANS TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM.
To hell with YOU and your Rights... Your Rights are what the Government says they are... what WE say they ARE."
Nothing
Right about that...
Don't fall into the trap that these idiots can't be defined... there's nothing to defining them. It's simple, common sense.
