DK - Great link.

When one runs down the two definitions and columns, it becomes very obvious the liberal column has an idyllic bend (no surprise, and not wrong), while the conservative is much more pragmatic (again, no surprise and not wrong).

As I went down the columns, a few interesting points became crystal

1. Abortion: So when does "life" begin? If at a state-mandated point (e.g., at first breath outside the womb, or when no longer requiring external life support, or at age 10 years), then that point can be moved at the whim and convenience of the state. Or as the Chinese have done, any any point after Child#1's birth.

2. Affirmative Action. If it is to correct a past injustice, when does it end? Now that a member of the most prevalent minority group has become President, is that proof positive that affirmative action programs for that minority group are no longer needed? If not, what is the criteria for affirmative action program termination?

3. Death Penalty. If the state should not terminate a life which does not have a recorded birth certificate, why should the state end a life of someone at all? Does "eye for an eye" really mean, "if you take a life, you need to restore life" by using oneself as a medical source for replacement organs, blood etc. and as a participant in medical research?

4. Economy. How can government "protect" us from big business when almost all of the elected and appointees either came from big business and are predominately dependent on big business for campaign contributions?

5. Education - School Vouchers. If we use SAT scores as a baseline, the public education system started its downward sprial in the 1960's. Why is that so? Does throwing more money at public education without even recognizing what caused its performance deficiencies solve anything or is just feeding the cancer?

6. The Environment. Earth has seen times of high tropical and high humidity, reduced temperatures and humidity (where did the oceans come from?), Ice Age, and ...well, the paleontologists can described the "ages" better than any of us. That being the case, what IS the "correct" environment, or is it always in evolution?

7. Gun Control. The Founding Fathers thought this issue important enough to place in the Bill of Rights, as they were all-to-familiar how a socialist/monarchial state can control the populace when the populace loses the ability to defend itself from a tyrannical state. If "guns kill people" and that's the reason for they should be state-controlled, then should we do the same with knives, bows-and-arrows, baseball bats, cars, etc.? Is this "gun fear" a predominately urban mindset which declines radically the further one gets away from urban settings?

8. Health Care. Is this a "basic right?" If we are all to pay for health care for everyone, is that everyone within our borders only, everyone everywhere? What is the "standard of care" to be state-provided - who decides it? Is there a maximum cost limit?

9. Homeland Security. It looks like nobody likes the Patriot Act now, but everyone wanted supreme domestic protection after 9/11.

10. Immigration. Are there jobs that Americans won't do, or jobs that liberals won't do? If you "amnesty" illegals, more will come (that's already been proven), and how does that affect the unemployment rate? Should the U.S. only permit employment-based immigration when the unemployment rate is under __% ?

11. Religion. The Founding Fathers, all of different Protestant sects, wanted to insure that a state-directed religion (in their case, Anglican Church), didn't become mandated and controlling. That was the "separation" they meant. It did not mean a state which ignored the existence of God, as shown in all writings.

12. Same-Sex Marriage. From the state's standpoint, marriage is a specific type of contract which places special responsibilities on the parties and has a long history of interpretive case law to base court decisions when the parties seek to terminate the contract. I'm not sure any legal authority wants to claim that same-sex unions mirror heterosexual unions in all legal circumstances, and just 'saying it's so" places the courts in the unenviable position of having to "make law" from the bench each time some type of union difference appears. Does anyone want judges, elected and appointed - county, state, tribal, territorial, and federal - in the law-making business on this issue? The myriad of conflicting decisions is mind-boggling.

13. Social Security. Liberals seem against it until they're old enough to collect retirement benefits from it.

14. Taxes. Those who want higher taxes are always free to donate money to the General Treasury. What is amazing is that liberals seem to believe higher taxes re okay for entitlement programs, but not for national defense. So, the "Robin Hood" principle is all right (until one becomes one of the "rich'), and the state will have the authority to determine who is "rich," as long as it isn't me.

15. United Nations. If 'the UN is such a worthwhile entity, perhaps it needs to be outside of the USA so that the USA doesn't appear to be too controlling of it. Reykjavik, Iceland would be a logical choice, as it is as independent a place as anywhere. The USA should pay the relocation costs for the UN, and let's see how many of these diplomats will go there, as opposed the fun and life of the Big Apple.

16. War on Iraq. We went into Iraq to wax one of the international bullies who were accessories-before-the-fact for 9/11. Our national safety depended on a two-fisted response to the 9/11 strikes. The rest is all diplomatic dance. It worked - the bullies have backed off.

17. War on Terror/Terrorism - I'm too close to this to respond. Suffice to say, it's real. We've been targets for terrorism since WWII, and most people have no idea on how many incidents were prevented prior to 9/11, and how our potential to prevent terror on the homeland was diminished during the Clinton years.

18. Welfare. "If you teach a man to fish...." provides the person with maintaining their dignity. We now have families who are multi-generation welfare recipients - and how do we break the dependency cycle? Or is the intent to create/maintain governmental dependents? And if so, why?

As one can see, each topic can create many responses, and what we end up with are conservative-liberals and liberal-conservatives. Oh yes, and then there are the progressive-neanderthals (like me) who don't tell others how to live, and am ticked at those who think they can live my life better than me.