liberals & conservatives are not cast from two specific molds. They have some widely divergent views within each group, so simplifed characterizations are dangerous.

Still, almost any steroetype has 'some' basis in fact, even if it is distorted by the opposition in practice. We all know that Ted Kennedy and Phil Donohue are 'different' from Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, but it is hard to explicate exactly what is at the basis of their attitudes and practices and positions on issues.

Did you ever ask yourself how two obviously intelligent, well-read people can look at the exact same issue and being given the exact same data and history, come to totally opposite conclusions? Obviously, the 'differences' are internal, and mostly amount to people trying to defend intelletually views that they 'feel' through their cultural/personal/psychological history.

It is truly amazing to me that the society's views on issues such as abortion are decided by close votes in a court which has been selected by the accidental political fortunes of years ago!

Surely 'voting', by either a court or the public at large, does not make abortion right or wrong? It seems to me that there is only ony way to approach law-making that is fair....and I admit that it will never be easy to do, even though I am convinced that it is sensible.

When an issue such as abortion comes up, the law should be written so as to allow each person to follow his/her own moral concience about it. As in, "if YOU do not like abortion, don't do it, but do NOT interfere with those whos basic belief system is different!"

Yeah, yeah....I know..."but it is MURDER of an innocent soul!!"...of course my suggestion will be shouted down by those who **believe** in souls and their sanctity, but the operative word here is 'belief', and it simply makes no sense to allow one religious system to dictate policy to those who are not adherents.

Now, I submit, THIS is what makes me a 'liberal'...that is, the very idea that there are few, if any, absolutes that can be imposed on people just because the current court, congress, or President wants to!

I also realize that just sorting out and defining what issues ARE fair game for voting, and to what level, would be almost impossible on a practical level, simply because the discussion would be carried on by people with agendas and vested interests in the 'morality' or the money involved.......................and....you see what happens? When attempting to define 'conservative', the issues of control of money and adherence to certain moral views arise over & over. No matter which side you are on, you MUST confront these issues, if only to deny that they are relevant......but if they need denying, then they ARE relevant!

Society NEEDS laws and rules in order to function--which is what our Constution was designed to provide the basis for.....but as good as it is, it cannot prevent individuals and groups from interpreting it to suit their own prejudices and emotional leanings.

I think that a major distinction (in my own not-so-humble view) between liberals and conservatives, is how they process their own internal thoughts and to what degree they employ subjective or objective analysis to come to their conclusions....Is this a useful distinction? Well......I think so....but you see, I am mostly a liberal, and.......