These are words that come up when you look up the bold word on the Mirriam-Webster website. I thought the results were interesting...

LIBERAL:
    
    freeman
    generous
    free
    grow
    arts
    generosity
    openhanded
    giver
    ample
    full
    "not literal or strict"
    loose ;)
    broad-minded
    "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"
    (also note: the definition of "liberal" as: "licentious" or "lacking moral restraint" is listed as "obsolete")

CONSERVATIVE:
    preservative
    capitalized
    "advocating support of established institutions"
    traditional
    moderation
    caution
    "traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners"


Now, just for the heck of it, I'll post the definition of "independent":


INDEPENDENT:
    Pronunciation: "in-d&-'pen-d&nt
Function: adjective
1 : not dependent: as 
    a (1) : not subject to control by others : SELF-GOVERNING 
       (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> 
    b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion>
       (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct
       (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party 
    c (1) : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> 
       (2) : being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living <a person of independent means> 
    d : showing a desire for freedom <an independent manner> 
    e (1) : not determined by or capable of being deduced or derived from or expressed in terms of members (as axioms or equations) of the set under consideration; especially : having linear independence <an independent set of vectors> 
       (2) : having the property that the joint probability (as of events or samples) or the joint probability density function (as of random variables) equals the product of the probabilities or probability density functions of separate occurrence

2 capitalized : of or relating to the Independents

3 a : MAIN 5 <an independent clause>
   b : neither deducible from nor incompatible with another statement <independent postulates>

synonym see FREE

*******************

Feel free to choose the word you like best.

Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted my Independence Day blog. My apologies to those people who were involved in that discussion. I assure you, it had nothing to do with the conversation. It was simply an "overclick" on my part while posting my newest entry.

ATTN: TOWNHALL.com,

How about adding an "Are You Sure?" step to the deletion process??? Thanks.

(And What We Can Do To Fix The Problems)*

"Part 1: Immigration"
(or: "We Are Allowing The Potential Votes Of Future Citizens To Influence Our Politicans, But They Need To Listen To The Voters They Already Have")

Build that fence already! You HAVE to keep track of who is coming in and out of your country! It's common sense, and I think most Americans understand this. At my job, I expect a certain level of security from my employer. People don't just come in off the street and wander around in the building unchecked. Why would I demand less of my country?

That said, I do think a fair compromise would be: an expanded work entry program. I know a lot of people disagree with this, but I really do believe in letting people walk through our gates and earn OUR money and send it back to THEIR countries (where it gets spent at such completely foreign businesses as Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy Kreme and Wal-Mart).    :)

* I hope to make this an ongoing series, taking each issue one at a time. Please check back often!

Sorry everyone, I'm rather new to the whole "blog" thing. So, please bear with me.

I posted this elsewhere on Townhall, but it got buried and I don't think anyone replied to it. I'm re-posting it here and I'd like to see what everyone thinks:

Please Leash Your Dogma

For Everyone's Safety Thank You, - Management The problem with everyone of these (spiritual debates) is this: Open-minded people seem to agree that there are things outside of their understanding. Even an atheist will not claim to "know everything" even he or she believes that all things can (one day) be known... (I know, PRETTY CRAZY ideology, right?). Now, why this concept doesn't create this huge vacuum where tolerance and freedom exist, I'll frankly never understand. It's like arguing over the differences between unicorns and leprechauns. Not that I'm calling any religious figure fictional, but... I expect rational, thinking people to at least tolerate the possibility that there are elements of folklore to their religious "history". Belief in a god demands faith. Faith in something(s) that you cannot prove, only believe. I can post a list of scriptures from various religious texts from different religions that all point to the same concept: "Treat others as you would want to be treated." It strikes me that if there were One true God looking down upon us, THAT God would certainly want to be a peacekeeper. Bearing in mind that we are a primitive people who need to approach Him (or Her) in a variety of ways, that particular God might keep the message simple. We sit here arguing over the details, completely unenlightened to the fact that ARGUING OVER THE DETAILS IS EXACTLY *NOT* WHAT WE ARE PUT HERE TO DO. You can find your own conclusions about why many scriptures exist that seem to contradict this claim. Myself, I tend to reason this way: If what was "written" seems to benefit the few, promote war or genocide or death... If it uses a God to justify harming another living thing... (Okay, here's a big concept, brace yourself everyone) If it promises harm from a God personally if the tenets of what was written are not followed... Then that scripture has obvious selfish motivations and falls into the same category as folklore. It contains perhaps useful lessons that I can learn from, but to absorb as absolute truth would be maddening because it would directly contradict what some might call a universal commandment (see above).