It's begun...

[Grower]

There is some value in these terms that deserves to be reclaimed. To be "liberal" is to embrace freedom. A "liberal arts" education was so named because it encouraged people to learn on their own, so that they could be freed from having to take other people's word for what to do and think and believe. It's liberating one's mind from control. To be "conservative" was to take the best of what has worked in the past and to preserve it.

One can be a liberal conservative, or a conservative liberal, in this way. But I want to keep these words. I don't want them wrested from me by either labelers and rejecters of labels outright.

[Fishsurfer]

I like that definition grower, it describes me perfectly, im technically both liberal and conservative.  Its really a classical way of looking at it.  This is where i think modern "conservatives" (not the zealot rapture type) can find common ground with modern non-kook liberal in discussion.  I think both groups desire freedom, so the argument or debate can really be framed on who is it that is best served to ensure freedom, the people or the State? I think most would say the people are best suited to determine what their own individual freedom is.  Then beyond that, issues of individual liberty under the law can be looked at from the individual perspective, not the State perspective, there is no one size fit all approach; unless of course we're talking about gay marrriage (which is an issue of civil rights i support imho) and also abortion and the death penalty, which for me are both things i do not support precisely because i believe they are issues concerning the life of a human, both of which are not a threat to peoples safety.  Arguably, the issues of life and civil rights for me, should be Federal issues.