Conservative in a Liberal City

The typical NO-class media rears it's head again!

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:24:00 +0000

Yesterday was tax day "Tea time" Tea Party central all across America, as many true Americans came out in droves to protest higher taxes, big spending and the ever expanding big government. As expected many media outlets chose to either not mention it, just briefly cover it, or even worse down right make fun of and discredit what was going on. The wonderfully "non-biased" media spent plenty of time interjecting their disgusting sexual innuendos throughout their commentary, a disgraceful and shameful attempt to trivialize an important grassroots movement on a an important topic. Here's one article on the matter here:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/cable-anchors-guests-use-tea-parties-platform-frat-house-humor/

And other outlets, like CNN chose to allow their reporters to just throw all professionalism out the window, like this reporter right here in my city of Chicago:

How this reporter could think she was just simply covering this story in an unbiased manner or even being remotely fair is absurd! I mean boldy claiming that FoxNews was promoting these grass roots events that have been popping up everywhere? Get your facts straight infobabe.... just because Fox chose to cover it (and simply just report on it like you are supposed to do) doesn't mean they are the ones who started it all! Americans started it, because they have something to say, because they believe in something, because they want to get the word out. We live in America and the last time I checked people can peacefully assemble and protest on all matters of topics. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if this was just another pro-abortion or pro gay-marriage rally the reporter wouldn't have been so utterly rude and unprofessional. No matter what is being protested as a reporter you can't blatantly show bias toward the opposite end of the issue at hand, that's just not how it works! I'm currently searching for some video examples of the also equally ridiculous sexual innuendo comments made during several newscasts, yes... newscasts.

Disgusting media behavior...as usual.

On a good note, congrats to all those that came out and made their voices heard!!!! I wish I could have been there.

Laura Ingraham, Meghan McCain and the non-controversy

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:25:00 +0000

I have a ton more to say on this topic but wanted to provide this video link to Laura Ingraham and her PERFECT description of the continued twist the media is creating once again in regards to another conservative 'pundit'.

This just about sums it up people!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/laura-ingraham-i-never-ca_n_176840.html?page=2

I am so sick of all these non-controversies coming about in order to distract from the real issues at hand. These are weak and pathetic attempts to dis-credit and demonize the conservative right once again. And let me be clear...Meghan McCain is NOT on that list of conservative right. She is just another faux-republican trying to change what we base our principles on as she caters to the left and tries to stir up trouble.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't lead us, we all lead each other...

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:53:00 +0000

OK, let's get something straight out there people, Rush Limbaugh doesn't lead the conservative movement, we all do, all of us that are true conservatives that is. He'll even say that himself, he's just a voice reiterating to the large audience he has before him what we all already believe! He is entertaining, funny, and extremely intelligent yes, and he has his moments of being pompous yes, but gosh darnit I guess a man of his success can have his moments of being arrogant. When it comes down to it he thinks and believes the same way as the rest of us conservatives and that is all that matters.

His recent speech at C-PAC (see link after this paragraph) wasn't his attempt to take over the conservative party and gather followers, it was just to deliver, in the usual humorous and eloquent manner, a rousing and truthful battle cry. He's trying to energize us, he's trying to wake people up to what's really going on. And his words about wanting the President to fail (fail at his attempts to re-make our country and turn us into a graveling socialist nation doomed to perpetual failure) are accurate and true and what I believe most of us conservatives agree is a BAD thing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

1) Obama failure = country remaining intact and possiblity to prosper, to remain what we were founded on.

2) Obama succeed= socialism/people dependent on a government that has no intention of helping them, only controlling them.

So why would we want option number one! When DIDN'T the liberals scream out about Bush and pretty much any republican president and their desire for them to fail? Really this is all just another stupid disgusting form of contradiction on part of liberals. Conservatives are not going to check their standards, morals, desire to succeed, and to be the best country while perserving all the things we hold dear at the door just because the liberals think they've found their allmighty!

It's pretty damn simple, God and country first, and yes in that order.

Here's a wonderful link to one of my favorite bloggers and his comments on how Rush is a great conservative thinker, but how plenty of people were thinking this long before his voice was available to so many. Rush just solidifies and puts the words to what so many of us are thinking, and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that! There is a reason why Rush's listeners are called Ditto-heads.
See link:
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-cpac-and-me/

Ditto!

Why I love Ann Coulter...

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:14:00 +0000

Yeah yeah, bring it on all you leftest hate mongers who love to bash Coulter, come on, she's funny just open up your mind and admit it! Here's a post from Foxnews about Coulter's recent appearance at C-PAC. Coulter Comedy:

--STRAIGHT FROM CPAC: Coulter Comedy

By Tommy De Seno
Attorney/Writer

[[Ann Coulter is the funniest woman on the planet. I don’t know why the media always paints her as the toughest man on the planet. No one is better at putting funnies into serious stories.

She started right in against the liberal media, telling the crowd that every host at MSNBC went to the “alternative prom” in high school. The crowd cracked up, and the jokes and the laughter grew from there.

She had a theme about Obama being the media’s newborn baby, and how the doting parents are melting each time he learns something new. There was even a joke about bed wetting (only Coulter can get away with that).

Then she took on the Obama/Jesus comparisons, noting that as leader of the 12 Apostles, Jesus had more executive experience than Obama.

However she did give the Democrats and the media props for even knowing who Jesus is. ”Apparently they like carpenters — it’s plumbers they hate.”

The other comparison the media makes is that Obama is like Lincoln, but Ann said at no time did Honest Abe ever vote “present” on a bill. As for the Obama/Reagan comparisons, they are made, according to Ann, because there is no great Democratic president worth comparing him with. Priceless!

There were about 3 dozen jokes I didn’t write down because I was laughing too hard.

I can’t wait for the YouTube video.]]-------------------

Yeah if there's a youtube of this, I'd pay to see it.

What to say or What Not to say ....

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:04:00 +0000

And THIS is how it all begins. I really would like someone from this new "Post-Racial" administration to please provide me and well the rest of us a list of what is appropriate and not appropriate forms of speaking, writing, joking and just all around general talking. Because it's pretty obvious that this "Post-Racial" administration hasn't so much left behind the idea of racism or proved that it's finally dying in America today, it seems to me like it's trying to facilitate a comeback, or keep beating us all over the heads with it.

It's definitely obvious that they wish to encroach even more than before on what you can say, or how you even display humor, especially when if in their twisted minds they think you are referencing our new president. They should probably all get their minds out of the racism gutter and realize that not all of us live and breathe racists thoughts all day. So, for those of us who are silly enough to be living in a happy non-racist thought bubble, according to them we should probably not laugh at this political cartoon posted below, and not only should we not laugh, we should be outraged:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/new-york-post-chimp-carto_n_167841.html

See other great Delonas cartoon gems here: http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm

I know this is slightly old news but it's still bugging me and I finally had a minute to write about it. I mean how ridiculous have we become? I mean Al Sharpton should clearly know those who actually wrote the stimulus bill, it was not Obama himself but members of Congress. What the cartoonist was trying to say was that this crazed mad chimp was representing our crazy maddened Congress for writing such a pork-filled non stimulating spending bill! And Sharpton knows it, oh boy does he know it. But no no he would never pass up an opportunity to shout from the rooftops and play the racist blame blame blame game. When does it end? Or a better question would be, how much worse is it going to get before it ends?

This is why they should just provide us with a list now, since it's obvious they wish to silence our free speech, well at least those of opposing views or what they deem as "racist talk". I must point out that just because I voted against Obama, this does not make me a racist Sharpton! You are the racist because you continue to live a life of double standards, race-baiting and disgusting contradiction. It's people like you that continue to facilitate the anger and fear and propagate this stream of idiotic race-baiting.

This ridiculous behavior and thought process now has the Post pre-apologizing for a cartoon such as this one mentioned in Malkin's post below?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/28/the-washington-posts-comical-preemptive-apology/

I guess there should be a memo sent out: NO MORE monkey or ape jokes, no more monkeys or apes depicted in any cartoon or movie guys, nada! If you choose to go against this you are just a racist who is trying to spread hate! Oh give me a break people.

For the past 8 years we've been seeing you on the left compare Bush to a monkey/ape and all kinds of other offensive labels! But it's fine to call a sitting president an idiot, monkey, dumb like ape if he's white, right? It's certainly not racist, right? But even MENTION/show a monkey anywhere near the Obama "post-racial" administration and call out the national guard, it's going down!

This whole mess gives me a headache to even think about. The continuous double standard and contradicting life of the typical left-wing nut makes my blood boil. Why is it that all those attacks on the Bush administration with horrible depictions and disrespect, and even racist comments made in reference to Condoleeza Rice (a comedian once referenced her living in the house of the "master") are ignored by Sharpton and his crew? Why is it only racist when the comment/depiction or imagined depiction in these cartoon's cases, are being pointed at people on the left side of the aisle? It's not fair, plain and simple. And it is the essence of what's wrong with the liberal (oops) I mean the Democratic party.

So I again would like to make my plea to please get a new and updated list of what we can say, do, write about, what our jokes can consist of now. Because God forbid I continue to live the life of such a hate mongering conservative. Here's my pre-emptive list gathered of what simple words, references, and images we should all just stop using now, ha!:

Obviously any monkey or ape of any kind in any form of any way, so kids sorry no more little monkey stuffed toys, we wouldn't want them to be smacking them around or something and have this little child called a racist; terms not to use? monkey business, going ape-shit, white house, riding in on a white horse, hmm maybe even dark horse, going bananas, monkeying around, it's a jungle out there, it's a zoo, beastly, is it OK to say get the monkey off your back? Hmmm I'm sure this list is going to get even bigger and bigger, anyone else care to help me out adding to it?

Welcome to the jungle baby.

Update: Thanks to Chuck for these other words/phrases to add to the Do Not Say list:

The friday shopping spree after thanksgiving can no longer refer to as "BLACK friday". One who is versed in martial arts can no refer to his rank as a "BLACK belt". Monday, October 19, 1987, the day when stock markets around the world crashed, can no longer be refered to as "BLACK Monday".

Feminist women versus Conservative women add on

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:53:00 +0000

Brief add on to the post from a couple days ago. I came across this hilariously accurate blogger/writer just yesterday and wanted to share one entry he made not too long ago. I feel it relates directly to things I touched on in my last posting regarding how liberals bogart feminist ideals and liberals recognize those ideals only when it's useful to their side or is a women of their party; also how conservative women are seen and treated. Enjoy, but be warned of slightly harsh and shocking language or terminology, :). I for one think he gets the point across very well, see link:
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/12/lighting-candles-and-smacking-women-2008-hanukkah-style/

I can literally hear the feminists and liberals out there blowing their tops off while reading this, ahhh.

The female Conservative and Liberal bias

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:28:00 +0000

A short while back I was out for a casual night watching a Cubs game in my wonderful home town of Chicago with a liberal friend of mine and a female acquaintance of hers. Obama flashes up on the screen during a commercial and the “acquaintance” proceeds to launch into a stream of what can only be described as a salivating gushy mess. I hold back a cringe out of respect just as my liberal friend announces with a smile, “Oh don’t get started, my friend here isn’t a fan of Obama.” I smile and shake my head as my friend knows we won’t be going down that road today, we agreed a long while back to agree to disagree for the sake of our friendship. But to my surprise the acquaintance, who I should add does not know me from Adam, turns to me with look of shock and disgust on her face, “You’re a Republican?” she exclaims.

I close my eyes momentarily to brace myself for whatever unwarranted and ridiculous barrage I was about to endure, and then reopened them with a smile to say, “Yes I am, but actually I consider myself more of a conservative really.” She continues to look at me with shock and now surprise and proceeds to say one of the most close-minded and stupidest things I’ve ever heard come out of another person’s mouth, “Wow, well you certainly have some balls don’t you, you sure are brave to be a woman and a Republican at the same time.”

!What!?

And she said all of this in a voice dripping with antagonism, with implications of an underlying stupidity on my part, like I was the silly, confused, close-minded girl, how DARE I be a conservative, I am a disgrace to my sex.

I responded in a voice as sarcastically nice as possible, “No bravado necessary, it’s actually quite easy for me to be a conservative and a woman when you believe what I believe.” I said this with finality for I had no desire to further discuss with this ignorant woman the concept of a free-thinking individual which applies to all sexes and races and is based on your beliefs, not on what “society” tells you to believe or what’s cool, or what is considered an appropriate “feminist” response.

I let the issue go at the time and my friend mouthed an apology across the way; I mean there was a Cubs game on for pete’s sake certainly not the time or place for a political debate, but it sure got me thinking………

Is the conservative woman really that rare, or is it just my proximity to so much liberal that has me questioning? Who said that a woman who doesn’t have children, who’s still finding her way about the world can’t be a conservative and care about women’s issues? I mean who nominated the Democratic Party and liberals as the authority and expertise over ALL women’s issues anyway. And let’s just try to leave abortion issues out of this thought process for now, because that issue is too big to argue in one blog. But there are plenty of other women’s issues that shouldn’t be bogarted by the Democratic Party alone.

There are several strong and dedicated women out there in the Republican Party without a doubt. I decided to come up with a list of some of them to help reveal a pattern; Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingrahm, Michelle Malkin, and Condoleeza Rice are the first to pop into my head, and I know there’s many more. Now think of those women, and what you usually hear associated with them, or how they are usually represented in the “media”. We all know what was said about Palin, they excoriated her and ripped her family and life history to shreds. Some are still to this day going as far as to question the paternity of her baby! Coulter constantly has to stick up for herself, being called a bitch and aggravating to listen to are only a couple of the things I’ve heard. Malkin who currently rules in the blogesphere of female conservatives was only recently called a “whore for the far right,” in an article. And Even Rice, a strong, black women, who is a great role model to young women looking to move up in the world, still can’t seem to catch a break. She’s been chided for going against her heritage, as so many are that choose the republican way over democratic when you are of the African-American descent.

Now compare this sampling of the things you’ve heard above in connection with strong liberal women of our time and see if you can find as many bad things being mentioned by the “media”. I mean there are always some ridiculous comparisons or issues brought up when it comes to women in politics that are NEVER brought up with the men, just use the treatment of Hillary Clinton during her campaign by the media as an example, all the nonsense about her crying, her being labeled a bitch, oh come on! Men are never bitches, they are just called aggressive, but hey that’s a whole other blog post.

But the political party difference is this: they never really questioned Hillary’s experience, her education, or dared to question her ability to balance a family life and presidency. Yet with Palin they just tortured her about everything and anything in her life; her faith, her accent, her “small” town outlook, her large family, her support of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy. What, would it have been better had she forced her daughter to abort, to chastise her daughter in public, would that have made the liberals like Palin anymore, they criticize her morals for existing and then challenge that she has any at the same time.

I try to think of the big fuss that would be made if a woman became president, it would be amazing, and historical no matter whom it was… or is that true? Do we honestly think that if Sarah Palin, or someone who followed her ideals was nominated in, that for even one second the “media” would be following it, covering it or making as big of a deal of it as they are for the “historic first black president?” If it was a democratic woman yes, Republican, no; all the examples point to that being a true statement, at least in regards to the “media” and liberal coverage or feedback.

Why is it so hard for many to believe that a woman can be a strong conservative, be educated, have a family or choose not to have a family, stand up for some feminist ideals and still be a role model? We all want to agree that a woman is capable of making tough decisions and of running a country right, this has been part of what feminists and women have been saying and wanting right? Well then why do they deny the historic aspect of it, or down play it whenever it’s mentioned in regards to a conservative woman…

The answer is that it is just another example of the liberal double standard that exists in the world today; it only suits them when something historic is happening on THEIR side. It’s only important or true if it agrees with them and what their ideals for our country are. As Rush Limbaugh recently said, and I’m paraphrasing: The definition of bi-partisanship to a democrat is when the republicans cave and do what the democrats want. And for those who think republicans act the same way I say this, listen, pay attention and get your facts straight, no one is denying the historic aspect of Obama’s presidency, we just aren’t jumping for joy or getting tingles up our legs, because we don’t agree with his policies or his actual plan for our country. The difference is that a liberal doesn’t just disagree; they basically deny that the fact they don’t agree with is even true or relevant, or will find some way to deflect it.

An average down to earth woman, with a beautiful and happy family who works her way up from PTA Mom, to Mayor, to Governor of a state apparently in the eyes of your typical liberal is not found as impressive at all. It’s not seen as something to be proud of, or worthy of taking on a role of vice president, because the state is seen as “small town folk,” implied at it being out of touch, and not “cosmopolitan” enough to allow this woman to fit into the world of Washington D.C. Hey, it’s pretty obvious that what we have going on over there for some time hasn’t been working, so we are all for change now right? Well…no one in the “media” ever said anything about the change she'd have brought that was positive. She’s not corrupted by Washington politics, has strong family values, strong American pride, she is a fighter and proven at getting things done, and taking on even her own party, even if it was in the “Podunk” state of Alaska. So not enough experience eh? Not enough of what experience is my question?

When it comes down to it, it’s really not her experience that was in question, more of her total package as a person, she scared them, plain and simple, she represented a large part of the typical American and their beliefs, it’s a part of America that liberals, Hollywood and some democrats having been trying to cover up or pretend doesn’t exist or just plain make fun of. It’s the kind of Americans that this country was founded on.

Now back to the experience factor; with Obama, he gave us so many pretty speeches and so many examples of great leadership that this must mean he's the most qualified, the most inspiring, and the most AMAZING person on earth. He is going to save the world and fix all our problems …...right?
Based on what people!?!?! Give me one, ONE solid concept of why Obama is seen as some kind of Messiah by so many? What makes him any more qualified than Palin would have been? It’s like people are put into some kind of trance whenever he is near, and by people I mean the sheep that are the “media,” liberals, democrats, and the uninformed random voters that only know how to follow what “Hollywood” tells them is the right way to think and live. It is a FACT that Sarah Palin drew crowds and enthusiasm that definitely rivaled Obama’s during the campaign, but she had no shot at getting her real self or character shown out there in the “media” with all of them doing everything they could to sabotage her before she even stepped off the plane from Alaska. No she’s not perfect and yes she could use more experience on certain things, but so can OBAMA! And he’s president of the United States now. And don't even get me started on how many "things" were never analyzed, questioned or even looked at in regards to Obama during the campaign.

What I learned from the election this past year and the treatment of Palin, and with the examples of how the “media,” Hollywood and liberals have treated George Bush, I can now take away with absolute certainty what they are trying to tell you. If you are from a “small” town, if you have an accent, if you are a Republican and you own a gun, if you believe in capitol punishment, and fighting for your country, and joining the military, and valuing life even if it's still in the womb, WELL you are lesser than them, you are not fit to run our country, you sound funny, you are out of touch, you are not “cosmopolitan” enough to fit in with their world, you are not educated correctly, you are not well traveled enough, you are not trendy enough, and you are not cool enough. Oh and you are wrong too.

So how DARE we exist, how DARE we try to voice our opinions, how DARE we live our life by our values and faith we believe, how DARE we call ourselves Americans, how DARE I call myself a woman. Yes… how DARE I …if someone decides to call me a “whore for the far right” I guess I will say thank you, because that would mean I’m doing something right and pissing some liberal off, because let’s face it, I opened my mouth and made sense and that’s all it takes.

Side note:
Definition: “Media”: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.
Hmmm? Ain’t it the truth, ain’t it the truth.
Also known as “journalism” and the means of communication of which officially died in 2008 in America.

the Liberal Cliché and the Liberal hypocritical method

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:55:00 +0000

So keeping in the same theme of things, I now want to tackle the clichés and misinterpretations of the word liberal or what it means to be liberal. We as a society are constantly inundated in the media today with images and examples of how liberalism is the more advanced, broad-minded, rational, and understanding way to think in this world. To be a liberal you must be a more reasonable thinking person, a reformist, tolerant and unprejudiced.

Sounds great, wonderful really, but too bad it’s just not true. As I mentioned before there’s a definite need to redefine the word conservative for the better in this changing world today, but more than ever is there a need to define and clarify exactly what it means to truly be a liberal. Because in all honesty right now I can’t quite figure it out what “liberals” are really trying to be. I see the words reformist, understanding and unprejudiced being thrown around all over the place as synonymous with liberal yet I’m having a very hard time finding a clear and untainted example of this today; at least not when it comes to a person or idea that opposes it or dares to get in its way. By all means let me show some examples:

Republicans and conservatives and anyone who champions the need for war when necessary, or argues the values of fighting and dying for your country are screamed at as warmongers. Because the precious life of the soldiers, all of the unnecessary death, to die for a cause that some liberals consider evil, to be forced to kill on behalf of your country, well its just plain wrong in their eyes. So liberal’s value life right, that’s what this is about, they can’t bear to see the innocent and young dying? Hmmm, well, not entirely true, at least not if you are an unborn baby. I know, I know, that’s a whole other can of worms that is impossible to get into in one little blog, but the point is, the liberals care so much about human lives, but only if it falls within the realms of what they consider an actual human “life.”

More examples of liberal hypocrisies can be found in this concept of unprejudiced behavior. Oh come on, we all know this isn’t true, and I’m not even completely getting into everything involving the race factor and how it’s being used. No matter what race you are, if you are a liberal you are supposedly of a more understanding and tolerant mind. Then why have we heard such recent mutterings as this coming from many prominent liberal minds, one of which is running for President:

“…they cling to guns or religion or [have] antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” This was said by Senator Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser last April referencing a small town in Pennsylvania and its resentment over job loss. Someone tell me how his comments don’t wreak of entitlement; so there’s no prejudice here at all on his part?

And recently another democrat, Rep. John Murtha of western Pennsylvania (boy what’s with this town getting hammered) said this of his town, “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” So what he’s saying is that these small town, simple folk must be “racist,” because if they are supporting someone other than the black liberal Obama, well, then they must be racist. These remarks were obviously made in concern that Obama will not claim this important key state, and this was his only reasoning as to why. He sounds really advanced in his thinking, that democrat John Murtha. So far as I can tell, the majority of times that race has been mentioned with this current election is when a democrat or liberal brings it up and makes it into an issue.

When I see this definition on dictionary.com for the word liberal: (favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression) I have a hard time believing this based on the kinds of behaviors I just mentioned above and have witnessed first hand, especially when involving religion. They claim to be fair and protecting of people’s liberties and freedom, yet one idea of many liberals that they’d like enacted if Obama gets into Office is something called The Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine: “a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that requires the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable, and balanced,” (as found on Wikipedia). So basically and actually they desire to limit your freedom of speech, specifically involving that of the new media which many have claimed is being dominated by conservative talk show hosts such as, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, Glenn Beck and many more. These outlets and shows are successful and they see that as a problem, of course. I mean who cares about freedom of speech if it threatens their very existence, God forbid they ever get exposed for what they really believe; and with the media today leaning more and more to the left, the “new media” and Fox News is all that’s left unfiltered by the liberal mouth, of course that is unless they can change that; say Fairness Doctrine five times fast.

Ok so another definition of liberalism: “a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberties.” Yeah…ok, as mentioned above, obviously they need to alter this to say “some” individual liberties.

Once again lets take a look at this now famous Obama quote…“Antipathy toward people who aren’t like them,” hmmm I do believe that is actually a really good example of the behavior of many liberals today, yet they continue to claim this is the standard and only behavior of your everyday conservative. I challenge anyone to put together a list where you will hear as many conservatives spewing hate onto their fellow mankind on a daily basis as much as you do a typical liberal, just listen to most liberal callers that call into any conservative talk radio program, or any program for that matter. There’s often only hate, vitriol, and the same old tired mantras that just seem to recycle from the liberal mouth. Boy, it all sounds pretty progressive doesn’t it?

Note to democratic and independent voters: Please make sure to look at the fine print under Obama and the liberal method.

the Conservative cliche

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah (Conservative Girl)) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:26:00 +0000

Hello internet world,

This is my first attempt at a blog. I've always had so much to say and finally decided to find an outlet for it.

So I was doing some silly research on what the word conservatism means and what the synonyms are out there for it; and what I found, on a commonly used site in my world dictionary.com, just made me laugh out loud. My what a cliche it has all become, what negative connotations have become so habitually associated with the word that even dictionary.com seems to have a bias now. Here's some of the wonderful synonyms that can commonly be found with the word conservative, some are accurate, but I kid you not these were all on there:

Inflexible, middle-of-the road, bourgeois, unimaginative, orthodox, right-wing, unchanging, old line, reactionary, uncreative, redneck (yep I said redneck!), sober, guarded, stable, fuddy-duddy, unprogressive, traditional and white bread.

When I read these all I could think of was WOW. Now I didn't include all that I found but trust me when I say the negative to positive ratio falls high on the negative. What has happened to this world and our society that we as Conservatives have let conservatism get so lost and open to anyone's random interpretation? Now take a look at the definition that pops up first when I do the search:

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Now granted the first part of that definition sounds ok, it might even be accurate in most ways, but "limit change?!" When and how did conservative ever become synonymous with "limiting change?" I am not an expert, as you can tell, but I just wanted to pose the question because it concerns me. I'm still growing in my political knowledge, I grew up as a Conservative and try every day to understand what this really means and be proud of it. But by no means have I ever thought of it as being adverse to change, maybe I'm just naive. I know that there are aspects that we hold strong to (as we should) that we try to keep alive; but it's no wonder the mantra of "change" is being used by the Obama liberals so much, yet is never even mentioned in reference to McCain, with a majority of people out there having been brainwashed into believing that all Republicans/Conservatives are adverse to change and are unwilling to be open minded.

I think its time to redefine the word, the world is changing and we are changing; I will continue to hold strong to my conservative ways, but I also intend to show at least in my little world that this doesn't mean I'm incapable of adapting or embracing what is fast becoming a need for change. But I do say this, maybe people need to think about what specifically it is that they desire to have change, because if you ask for too much and you let it become too radical, don't complain when everything we built this country on comes crashing down around you. Yes, change is good, but there's also a thing called responsibility, accountability and there's absolutely nothing wrong ... with tradition.