Hey Tom, apparently I was about four days late in getting back to answer you and my subsequent response was lost in the stack. I apologize, I wouldn't want you to feel ingored. Publius

>"It's becoming apparent that my definitions of liberal and conservative are not sinking in."

Tom, it would be just fine if your daffynitions were legitimate. The problem is that whenever you seem to define something, it is with a value loaded definition that I can't accept. Once a faulty premise is accepted, the conclusion becomes set in stone. So sorry, can't go along with the Ayn Rand degradation of language into self serving bumper sticker thinking.

>" It is somewhat annoying when someone pretends I am referring to Classical Liberalism, and then pretends like they then have no idea what I am talking about."

Whenever someone confounds concepts in the name of clarification, forgive me for not understanding what they are talking about. I think you mean "Lockean liberalism" when you say "Classical" liberalism. But there is also 18th century liberalism, the 19th century liberalism of Bentham and Mills, 20th century "neoclassical" liberalism, and "welfare" or "reform" liberalism. Ayn Rand was classed as a neoclassical liberal, by the way. Then, of course, we have the modern current variants of liberalism with their intramural arguments over the proper role of liberalism is to take" an active government--or a nightwatchman state. So you see, my concerns over your definitions are real and not just argumentative.

>"The people I call "liberals" are called that because that's what they call themselves, when they are not calling themselves "progressives."

Inasmuch as I actually consider such labels distructive of individuallity and self definition, generally speaking I enjoy being an enlightenment liberal and progressive sounds pretty good too.

>"To take people with a massive overriding agenda of government control over every aspect of our lives, and lump them in with Classical Liberalism is being deliberately obtuse."

Actually I can't figure any brand of liberalism from the 17th century to the present day with the overreaching agenda you speak of.

>"It seems that it would be obvious to any person paying attention that the modern liberal/Democratic political movement is a direct outgrowth of the historical leftist and New Leftist movements of the '50s and '60s, which sprang in the '30s from Karl Marx, Lenin and their ilk (they spent decades pretending Stalin didn't exist). Someday the people who voted for the blue-collar Democrats of old are going to realize that their favorite party has changed under them. When was the last time you heard it called the Democratic Farm-Labor party?"

I would hope the Democratic party was more inclusive than would be revealed by calling it the Democratic Farm-Labor party.

>"Would it be more appropriate to talk about individualists vs. collectivists, or am I going to have to waste time defining that too?"

The waste would only be if you insist on continuing on with your perjoritive definitions of Democratic/liberal positions and avoid discussion of issues.

I understand gamesmanship--if you want to avoid intellectual discussion and stick to the manta of demonizing contrary opinion fine, but don't expect me to honor your rules under those conditions.

>