Conservative versus Liberal: worthless terms?

I don't know that they're "worthless." I'm not in total agreement with using labels for actual people, but in politics, it serves a purpose. It's an identifier; a term to let you know with whom you're more likely to share values with. We see labels coming from everywhere in America. The most powerful person in the world today, President Obama, is "labeled" as an African-American. Of course, he's not ONLY African-American, some claim not at all, anyway, but that's just the accepted label given, and the label of which he himself identifies. It's pretty much agreed upon, even if unspoken, that a "conservative" might not walk straight down every conceivable party line. As an individual, that coservative might stray away from some issues, but would identify him or herself, and also be identified as by the public, a conservative. The same on the other side. Labels are convenient, even if not necessary, at times. I don't think it has diluted the original meaning of anything. After all, what is the "original" meaning of being politically conservative or politically liberal? The two words by themselves hold different connotations when used in a political context, so already you know that a staunch liberal may not be liberal in all areas of life. Alternate defintion. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be convinced of one way or another. Should every person be labeled as exactly what they stand for, bit by bit, or simply not at all? Almost anything erodes the value of a label when it comes to a person. A person is an individual, with his or her own views and own dreams and wishes for the world and their respective life. When picked apart, no label will fit a person to the letter. But if you stand to the left with your ideology, you'll more than likely be labeled a liberal; on the right, a conservative. The fact that most people aren't up in arms about their respective label is proof positive that the tea's still got plenty of sugar. :-)

I very much agree that the terms are pretty worthless. I think that people can be "mostly" liberal or "mostly" conservative, but if you're only MOSTLY, then what's the point of having the labels in the first place? I, for example, am a hardcore liberal. I follow almost 100% of the liberal ideas and support a lot of what they believe in. Am I a liberal? No. Not really. I would vote Conservative in a heartbeat. It depends on the issues, though. I also know a teacher who is the exact opposite of me. He's almost 100% hardcore conservative. But he voted liberal at the last election because of the abortion issue. That's his one catch-22. That's the issue that catches him every time. I don't think there's really anyone anymore that is 100% either and if they can swear that they are and that they ALWAYS vote that way regardless, then I think they're foolish. You should never swear yourself to a party because that means you've stopped listening and caring. I label myself liberal, but I vote however the heck I want. I vote for the issues, not for a party, and I think that's the way it should be. I know some people that say they're conservative and so they just ignore the issues and always vote conservative regardless (my grandparents being in that group, even though they disagree on several conservative arguments).

Hundreds of years ago, the words "conservative" and "liberal" had unmistable implications. Today they are nothing but mere political gimmicks. And when it comes to our "conservatives" and "liberals" in Washington DC, those bunch are simply the two sides of the same coin!

I don't know about any differences there are, but this country would be better off if the party's were not either republican or democrat, both are only in the business of taking money from whomever is paying most, to go their way. If the only ones in politics were of neither party, but a new party, that I would like to call the civilian party. People who have held local positions that always played the game for the good of all the people involved. Not who payed the game for the little involved. I think people should start to take a more involved stance in how their State is being run, and move out of the political arena, and move into the public arena. This is where things would get done for the good of the sum of people. I think it's time we stop putting in actors,politicians,and plain old big money makers in charge of our country. What this country needs now, to fix what they broke on purpose, is a normal married with children,middle aged,mild mannered leader from an organization that worked with all walks of life, and went through what most other Americans went through. We didn't need some inexperienced boy from where we don't know, shoving our rights out the door, just because he wants to be the New World Leader, from Chicago when he doesn't even keep with one profession long enough to learn anything of value in real life situations. Obama should have been looking to fix the economy first, and cut back spending, but instead, borrowed the largest deficit ever in history, by bailing out the very same banks and businesses that put us where we are now. He gave most of the money to banks that went belly up, because of how the Federal reserve planed it to, so the banks that get money from the government to bail them out with money the government borrowed from the same banks with interest, and put the country in the highest debt ever in history. And it does not stop there, all the country's are in debt around the world, and all the money comes from the world bank, that they had to borrow. So now look who is the biggest winner here......The only ones with money in the black are the big corporations and billionaires, and millionaires. And where did they get all their money? They printed it up as they pleased when they pleased. The World Bank has been funding both sides of the wars in the world, so they can receive all the interest from both country's in the wars they financed, only to put the people of both country's in debt to the World banks, who come out the winner either way it turns out. When are we going to take back the money the World banks stole from us? If the people of the world went against their governments instead of being pitted against each other in war, we all would live in peace. All we have to do to do this is take all our money out of banks and stocks and bonds, and bought up precious metals as a monetary system, the money the big billionaires would lose everything, as the money being used in their country would be useless, and our monetary system would prevail, without the World Banks and The Federal Reserves control of the riches, keeping us in bondage.