A democrat on SodaHead, a staunch supporter of President Obama used these words to describe a 'CONSERVATIVE'. My SH pal Steven responded by adding his definition for each word the democrat used. I love it and absolutely agree with Steven's response. BRAVO Steven! Well said...
C razy
O ld-fashioned
N arrow-minded
S elf-serving
E gocentric
R edundant
V enomous
A skew
T otalitarian
I nsignificant
V indictive
E rroneous
Crazy? Some more than others, if that's what you want to call a desire to restore our nation to what the founders actually had in mind, instead of the steady march to Communism we are now on.
Old-fashioned? Most definitely. We've seen what works and what doesn't. Not all 'change' is good and sometimes it's only a code-word for things more sinister--I refer you to the writings of Saul Alinsky, idolized by Obama and Hillary.
Narrow-minded? I guess we are. We have tunnel vision and blinders to anything that might deviate from a Constitutional Republic, which is what the founders defined us as. I assume that the government school system taught you none of this, so I will cut you some slack.
Self-serving? If by that you mean the tough love approach to allowing others to learn to fish for themselves instead of the government fishing for them all their lives, I guess you'd be right. You see, we tend to admire self-sufficiency and abhor the drones that simply eat the taxes of others.
Egocentric? Actually, no. We tend to think that all people should have the same opportunities to succeed, and ironically, to fail. It's the falling down and getting up that teaches us to walk and eventually to run. Being coddled by a nanny state teaches nothing but dependence on others for your survival.
Redundant? Perhaps you refer to the fact that we remain focused on what matters and are not tossed about by every wind of doctrine from whatever direction. We tend to repeat that which works and admonish toward the principles that are nearer universal truths than fleeting sophistries of man.
Venomous? We do tend to defend liberty with a passion bordering on that of a rattle snake--hence the "Don't Tread On Me" approach to those who threaten our freedoms....and yours.
Askew? Yes, we are. We are at odds with the Communistic propaganda that permeates the airwaves, the college campuses and the internet daily. We vigorously resist it, as we know that self-delusions and Utopian dreams without the leaders being answerable to a higher authority serve no real good in the end.
Totalitarian? No. It is the totalitarian that we fight. He who would tie us down string by string as was Gulliver (again, I assume the government schools never mentioned this to you). It is the Lilliputian tyrants that are so much smaller than we, the people, whom we fight.
Insignificant? Spoken like someone afraid of opposing viewpoints. Universities and colleges were erected for the exchange of ideas, because only that brings growth. The problem lies in denying that some ideas are good sense, eternal in nature and should be honored no matter how old-fashioned they might seem.
Vindictive? One can only push another against the wall for so long before he fights back. The silent majority have taken the abuse of government, the libel and slander of whiners and opportunists, the usurpation of un-delegated authority by presumptuous officials and more. The time has arrived to be silent no more. If finally speaking out is being vindictive, the "tolerant" liberal-progressive has been so for far longer and is equally guilty.
Erroneous? According to the dictionary definition --
1. containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong: an erroneous answer.
2. straying from what is moral, decent, proper, etc.
It appears you have a case of mistaken identity here. Is it wrong of the conservative to want to defend and retain freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a clear sense of morality and decency in life, defend the sanctity of the family, adhere to principles proven to work and avoid unnecessary 'change' for the sake of change alone? Is it incorrect, mistaken and wrong to acknowledge that some rules in life are absolutes and universal in application? Wrong to be intolerant of those things which are injurious to individuals, to families and to nations? I think you have the cart before the horse, my friend. You have mistaken the skunk for the rose and vice-versa. Slapping a pleasant euphemistic name on something does not make it differ in nature. And childish, playground, partisan bickering will never save a nation.
I wish you well and pray that your education extends, your tolerance grows and that your vision of the world improves. Much of it is simply smoke and mirrors, as you will see soon enough.
C razy
O ld-fashioned
N arrow-minded
S elf-serving
E gocentric
R edundant
V enomous
A skew
T otalitarian
I nsignificant
V indictive
E rroneous
Crazy? Some more than others, if that's what you want to call a desire to restore our nation to what the founders actually had in mind, instead of the steady march to Communism we are now on.
Old-fashioned? Most definitely. We've seen what works and what doesn't. Not all 'change' is good and sometimes it's only a code-word for things more sinister--I refer you to the writings of Saul Alinsky, idolized by Obama and Hillary.
Narrow-minded? I guess we are. We have tunnel vision and blinders to anything that might deviate from a Constitutional Republic, which is what the founders defined us as. I assume that the government school system taught you none of this, so I will cut you some slack.
Self-serving? If by that you mean the tough love approach to allowing others to learn to fish for themselves instead of the government fishing for them all their lives, I guess you'd be right. You see, we tend to admire self-sufficiency and abhor the drones that simply eat the taxes of others.
Egocentric? Actually, no. We tend to think that all people should have the same opportunities to succeed, and ironically, to fail. It's the falling down and getting up that teaches us to walk and eventually to run. Being coddled by a nanny state teaches nothing but dependence on others for your survival.
Redundant? Perhaps you refer to the fact that we remain focused on what matters and are not tossed about by every wind of doctrine from whatever direction. We tend to repeat that which works and admonish toward the principles that are nearer universal truths than fleeting sophistries of man.
Venomous? We do tend to defend liberty with a passion bordering on that of a rattle snake--hence the "Don't Tread On Me" approach to those who threaten our freedoms....and yours.
Askew? Yes, we are. We are at odds with the Communistic propaganda that permeates the airwaves, the college campuses and the internet daily. We vigorously resist it, as we know that self-delusions and Utopian dreams without the leaders being answerable to a higher authority serve no real good in the end.
Totalitarian? No. It is the totalitarian that we fight. He who would tie us down string by string as was Gulliver (again, I assume the government schools never mentioned this to you). It is the Lilliputian tyrants that are so much smaller than we, the people, whom we fight.
Insignificant? Spoken like someone afraid of opposing viewpoints. Universities and colleges were erected for the exchange of ideas, because only that brings growth. The problem lies in denying that some ideas are good sense, eternal in nature and should be honored no matter how old-fashioned they might seem.
Vindictive? One can only push another against the wall for so long before he fights back. The silent majority have taken the abuse of government, the libel and slander of whiners and opportunists, the usurpation of un-delegated authority by presumptuous officials and more. The time has arrived to be silent no more. If finally speaking out is being vindictive, the "tolerant" liberal-progressive has been so for far longer and is equally guilty.
Erroneous? According to the dictionary definition --
1. containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong: an erroneous answer.
2. straying from what is moral, decent, proper, etc.
It appears you have a case of mistaken identity here. Is it wrong of the conservative to want to defend and retain freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a clear sense of morality and decency in life, defend the sanctity of the family, adhere to principles proven to work and avoid unnecessary 'change' for the sake of change alone? Is it incorrect, mistaken and wrong to acknowledge that some rules in life are absolutes and universal in application? Wrong to be intolerant of those things which are injurious to individuals, to families and to nations? I think you have the cart before the horse, my friend. You have mistaken the skunk for the rose and vice-versa. Slapping a pleasant euphemistic name on something does not make it differ in nature. And childish, playground, partisan bickering will never save a nation.
I wish you well and pray that your education extends, your tolerance grows and that your vision of the world improves. Much of it is simply smoke and mirrors, as you will see soon enough.
2 comments:
Fantastic post - I am tiptoeing through your blog and I love your posts. I am going to link from Lady Libertas and I will be back for more!
Hi LadyLibertas! Thanks for visiting my blog ;)
I'm glad you love my posts. I too enjoyed reading yours. I loved your blog so much I actually added it to my favorite political blog roll.
Hope to see you back again soon! ;)
Post a Comment