Leauki, I am talking about when you lump all liberals, leftists, etc. into one Friggin' pile. You seem to forget that when you look at people with a microscope, they are much, much more complex than that. But why bother right? Why should complex human individuals and what not get in the way of good old fashioned generalization?

~Alderic

Because, and I hope I  explain this well enough, "liberals" are a group of people who share common features, especially political positions and it is hence a generalisation but not an invalid generalisation to list some of those common positions.

I can make statements about all liberals, because all liberals share certain things. It's like saying that mice are small mammals belonging to the order of rodents. It's not an unfair generalisation and it doesn't ignore the complex nature of mouse personalities.

Here's another one for you:

All neo-conservatives are people who support using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries and who are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state.

This doesn't deny that individual neo-conservatives differ from each other.

But they certainly do have some things in common.

(That doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong and that you could easily correct me by pointing me to news coverage of gigantic demonstrations against Arab imperialism organised by liberals.)

Mm, perhaps it is just that those who you label claim themselves as liberals -  when in fact - they do not qualify. Technically speaking most modern liberals are not liberals because they do not fall into the wide prerequisites. An example would be the basic ideal of individual liberty and gun rights, a true liberal would support an individuals right to keep and bear arms. Yet do you see many do that?

Hence, in that case at least, the claimed liberals are not necessarily liberals, by definition.  You see what I'm trying to hit at?

I agree with you here. Modern so-called "liberals" do usually not stand for classical liberalism (and individual liberty) at all.

Yes, but I was using the word "liberal" in the modern American sense. You are right, I shouldn't do that. But that's the word they use to refer to themselves and that's the word so many others use to refer to them.

Omg, I actually made a point to you. Woo, pass the . lol. Agreed, that's part of the reason why I get so pissed off is that they really have usurped the title and made it difficult for people like myself. I'm not your typical liberal.

Mhm, and it's the same way when it comes to modern conservatives.

How can it be?

"Liberal" is defined, in theory, by certain political positions.

"Conservative" is defined simply by trying to preserve or go back to a previous situation.

In a society that used to be liberal, a conservative is a liberal.

In a society that used to be communist, a conservative is a communist.

Neo-conservatives, for example, want to preserve (or go back to) Lincoln's positions and 19th century economic policies and attitudes while allowing for a modern welfare state. That is a form of conservative politics. That's why you find so many neo-conservatives in the English-speaking world outside the US who are staunch monarchists and who praise the British Empire.

~Leauki~

I'm talking about old school/"true" conservative versus the modern NeoConservative. Granted, this is only in America, where we've got things all fudged up.

What you call "true" conservatives are people who want to go back to a different time than neo-conservatives. That doesn't make them more conservative, it just makes them a different type of conservatives.

Symmantics vary from place to place.  That's why so many discussions boil down to definition of words and how one defines a word.  A good example of my thought here is McDonald's.  McDonald is just about all over the world and each McDonald has its own individual flavor.  In Thailand, some McDonalds serve a Pad Thai yet it still is a McDonald. 

The above point here shows what I'm talking about. 

The above point here shows why it is important to define meaning of words.

I think you are oversimplifing here.  For I see what you're saying here Leauki.  An example would be JFK during his time he would be consider a liberal, but now probably be in the center to the rightish.

Still even though times have changed does not mean that he's no longer liberal. He was liberal.

One final example which I feel will help you understand my point is with Biblical Israel.  Most people who have absolutely no understanding or very little understanding of the Bible or the times/place that the Bible happened may say statements like 'the Israelites were so barbaric and sexist. I could not follow a G-D who treats people as inferior.'

They are making a fallacy of putting constraints of what they feel is appropriate and right behavior and bring Biblical Israel into their times and into the context how what their culture/society define things.

Taken off hand you may agree with them.  Yet if you look at the culture and times that they lived in Israel was revolutionarly different.  One example is if Israelite is Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the law of the Beautiful Women.  After a battle an Israelite found a woman that he liked.  He could take her back to Israel.  Have her shave her head, not cut her nails, and take off her fancy dress and mourn for 30 days.  If he still desired her she could be his but he needs to treat her with same respect that other Israelite women would get.  If he no longer desired her then she could go free or become an Israelite.

As you most likely know, nearly all other nations around Israel didn't do this.  The conqueroring country would just make the women become their slave.

When you see and know this background you are able to have a better understanding of the culture at THAT time.

Its about taking things in context.

liberal used to be about liberty, now it is about equality (of result).

conservatism is about "conserving the ways and traditions of our forefathers". although many americans call themselves conservatives because they wish to conserve the LIBERTIES that the liberal (liberty) founding fathers put in place and that the liberals (equalists, aka, socialists) want to take.