Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum

OK, as you said in your argument, "Liberal means all men are created equal and Conservative means all men are not created equal." I think you're wrong about that, and I'll prove it real quick: The Pro-Life is not about misogyny, as much as the Left may claim this is the case. It is about the rights of the fetus. If there were a safe way for babies to be produced besides biological conception and pregnancy, I'd be for it. If we could simply extract sperm and egg from two human beings and mix it up in a laboratory somewhere, cause it to be "born" or whatever this case's equivalent would be, and then give they baby to two parents (as you already know, Conservatives are in favor of a heterosexual nuclear family), then that'd be great. As for the "anti-gay" movement, except for a few jerks who like to say "death to f*gs" (I don't use that word) we do not oppose the basic rights of GLBT people. Their right to exist, their right to freedom, their right to bear arms, etcetera...we do not oppose them having their basic rights. I do not oppose Civil Unions either. Civil Unions should have all the same benefits as Marriage. However, it could be argued that if they have the same rights, the only real difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage is a religious difference. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others consider marriage to be a union between a man and a woman (though it can be debated that Islam advocates polygamy). They consider it a sacred thing. So if a Civil Union and a Marriage are equal in the eyes of the law, which perhaps they will be 100% one day, why the heck would marriage be chosen over a civil union by a GLBT person? Let's talk welfare now. Contrary to what "Being Liberal" (a Facebook page) and "Addicting Info" will tell you, Conservatives to not wish to do away with welfare. I acknowledge that many people who receive it need it. However, there are also abusers of the system and measures need to be taken to make sure drug addicts, prostitutes, alcoholics, and others in this category don't get welfare until they get the help they need. As for Intelligent Design (which hasn't actually been debunked despite claims to the contrary), it can be used to the advantage of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etcetera. A large number of religions could use Intelligent Design and Creationsim if they wanted to. It's not necessarily "Christians forcing their pseudoscience on others," as the Left may think. Now, all the above issues could be debated on until my hair turns grey. But the point is, your definition of "Conservative" and your definition of "Liberal" don't necessarily match real life Conservatives and real life Liberals in America. Now, I'll move on. Your point on the Ku Klux Klan is noted. They themselves will acknowledge that their ideal world would only include White people and not Blacks, Asians, Hispanics (who, ironically, are often white), Native Americans (who are also white sometimes), Mixed people (when they have black and white parents, they are also partially white), etcetera. So you have a strict definition of progress and their ideas cannot possibly fit your definition of progress. But then again, there still is no universal standard to determine what is and what isn't progress, a standard written in stone. A dictionary declaring what is progress and Wikipedia declaring what is progress and a bunch of "progressives" declaring what is progress don't make progress what it is. I still could, if I wanted to, argue that euthanizing black people is progress (I do NOT believe that, by the way).