It’s been strange to watch these types of threads and discussions from the sidelines… people here in Canada don’t seem to get as riled up about what party you support whether it’s the Liberal, Conservative, the NDP, or Reform party.
Mind you, those New Democrats (socialist) and Reformers (ultra- conservative) are all a bit out there… at different ends of the spectrum of course.
We’re all a bunch of socialists here anyways so what do we know?
You’re either with them or against them, Feynn.
You’re just an Iraqi/Irani/North Korean/North Vietnamese/Russian/Red Chinese/Commie pinko sympathiser.
(I could make the list a lot longer, if you like.)
Buddy, when you have to start saying “Uhh, maybe you’re a `Classic’ liberal” and devise a scoring system, you’ve proven the idiocy of your own position.
And of course we already have a candidate for your evil twin, in jjimm, who asserts that conservatives lack empathy. I hear they also eat babies. I don’t know how we won’t go extinct now, what with the liberals killing babies and the conservatives eating the ones the liberals don’t get to.
IMHO, the term “Liberal” was effectively demonized by the Reagan revolution, and especially Gingrich’s effective instructions to the Republicans on using very specific language in public pronouncements slamming the Democrats et al. (Sorry, no cites.) Prior to that, Liberals were somewhat accepted as the loyal opposition to the Conservatives. Now, however, it seems that the desired outcome for the Conservatives is the elimination of Liberals from the face of the earth.
Again, IMHO, a recognition of the two as balancing forces is desirable. Yin/Yang
Adam Smith was both a classical liberal AND a true Scotsman.
Here in America, we’ve abandoned the idea of politics having anything to do with what you feel is best for the nation and its citizens. Instead, it’s a big sport. There’s two teams, called “Us” and “Them”. The goal is for “Us” to score more points - through getting an “Us” president elected, having more “Us” Congresspeople, more “Us” Supreme Court Judges, and so forth. What these individuals actually DO in their positions is irrelevant - all that’s important is that they be Ours and not Theirs. Listen to any of the Saturday-afternoon Shouting Heads shows on the news channels and you’ll swear you’re watching a Sports Show - it’s all about the numbers, the percentages, and who’s currently on top than it is about anything they’re accomplishing.
As with any good sports rivalry, it’s also important to recognize how stupid your rival fans are. After all, if they had any sense, they’d be on YOUR team! So of course, not only is the other team evil and wrong, so are their fans. Maybe you like the same beer. Maybe you agree on the same clothes. Doesn’t matter, because again, issues aren’t important, all that matters is your team affiliation.
One day maybe your country will abandon its quaint notion of actually wanting to improve the country and join us in our enlightend age of conflict for its own sake.
I’m not getting it. 
It was a joke, I say a joke, son. <aside>Boy’s denser than a bag of rocks.</aside>
You implied that Brutus was, with his bringing in the term “classical liberal”, falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy. So I brought up the Scottish economist Adam Smith, author of “The Wealth of Nations”, who was a classical liberal thinker.
OK, I get it now. I knew it was a joke, it just seemed like a non sequitur to me, going from the logical fallacy to a seemingly unrelated mention of Adam Smith.
Denser than a bag of rocks, that’s me. Thanks Mr. Leghorn. 
*"You’re either with them or against them, Feynn.
You’re just an Iraqi/Irani/North Korean/North Vietnamese/Russian/Red Chinese/Commie pinko sympathiser.
(I could make the list a lot longer, if you like.)"*
I’m much to liberal to adopt a “with them or against them” frame of mind. When people focus on what makes them different they often overlook the things that they have in common.
One day maybe your country will abandon its quaint notion of actually wanting to improve the country and join us in our enlightened age of conflict for its own sake.
Thanks but… our government parties don’t get along very well either, if the Liberals say something is white the Conservatives will almost automatically disagree and say it’s black… just on principle. Being that the Liberals have a huge majority in the government it doesn’t really matter who disagrees because they have enough of a majority to pass almost anything.
I think most Canadians would agree that most politicians are pretty much the same, no matter what party they belong to. I think this often stems from the fact that to get elected you need huge amounts of money and the people with huge amounts of money can often be out of touch with the common man or woman.
Our beloved Matt is excluded of course. He’s one of us.
Feynn, you forgot to mention the ‘Progressive Conservatives.’ Leave it to Canadians to make a name out of opposite words … fence-sitting is in our political blood, I suppose.
Don’t forget the BC Liberals, who have been acting quite conservative.
[hijak for a cheap dig at the Canadian right-wing]
I can’t resist another opportunity to mention the original name for the Alliance: the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party. The best acronym ever. Truly remarkable that no one noticed until it hit the papers.
[/hijak]
I love Canada !
Damn. And I really was going to devise a ‘political spectrum test’. No, really!
People who are staunch libs or cons are wrong at least half the time.
The answer is usually in the middle.
I actually like this answer a great deal, and I think DoctorJ is on to something here.
While, for the most part, I feel like the modern usage of the “liberal/conservative” distinction is largely meaningless, and most people who use it regularly use it as an insult rather than to make a point, I think that there do remain a few important differences between a liberal philosophy and a conservative philosophy. DoctorJ just pointed out a big one, and I think it lies at the center of this “liberals are stupid, conservatives are evil” mudslinging.
Most of it’s bollocks anyway, but there is a point to it after all. 
Why are liberals soooo evil?
They actually believe a knee-jerk reaction should be public policy.
Plus they like to take things from hard working people and give it away to lazy, undeserving, able-bodied individuals.
Oh yeah and the 60’s.
Liberals aren’t evil, not even stereotypically.
Unfortunately the most vocal liberals on this board are of the stupid self-righteous twit variety.
And “out there”… don’t forget
[sub]Prime Minister Layton… I like the sound of that…[/sub]
Look, as unofficial strategic planner of the Opal Cat Plan for World Domination, we have several steps that we are working towards implementing:
Getting minty green, Bricker, and Dewey Cheatem Undhow named to the next three seats on SCOTUS. (Check out the Estrada thread in GD.)
Getting matt_mcl elected to Parliament, then into a Ministership in the Cabinet, and finally PM.
If any list deserves to have Opal occupy third place, this one does.
My ordination, consecration as bishop, and eventual naming as Archbishop of Canterbury. cjhoworth is working on this one.
Consolidation of the publishing industry under Ukulele Ike as managing editor.
I regret that matters of confidentiality prohibit me from continuing with this list at the present time…
Liberals have too much compassion for fellow human beings. Entirely too selfless and peaceful! They are ruining our lives by insisting on clean air and clean water and bunches of trees. They tend to think of themselves as “citizens of the world.” If God had meant for us to be “one world,” he wouldn’t have created borders.
Ah oh.
