Trevor,

I have to say that I agree with most of your points. The anti-war movement does not seem to be based on an real logical coherent position.

Personally, I was deeply offended by the remarks of Canada's Prime Minister, though I'm not surprised by his apoligists. After all, it is considered a norm in our society any more to blame things on America. Yeah, we've done some stupid things in the past...just like EVERY other country on the planet. But there is NO excuse for acts of terrorism.

One final thought. I would have to disagree with your seemingly total repudiation of "fiscal conservatives, social liberals." As someone who discribes himself as just that, let me say that the social liberal part of my belief system has nothing to do with social programs. What it means is that I believe that government (federal, state, county or local) has no business sticking its nose into the lives of legal age, consenting adults UNLESS what is being done will cause physical harm to other people.

JVC,

The description you give for 'socially liberal' aligns with the one I would describe for my beliefs; and I would go a bit further in making the case that a more 'hands off' ideological social structure in the federal government would further expound upon actual reforms made to welfare programs, etc, which depend upon stricter demands for said recipients. The only difference is that I would describe those measures as social conservatism, or social libertarianism, when specifically reflecting economical concerns.

The term 'liberal' in and of itself has been bastardized over the last few decades; indeed, today's conservatives are yesteryear's liberals. But as long as our terminology is going to be changing to reflect current dialogue, so should our descriptions of those terms. Therefore, I just think social conservatism is a more accurate description of the attitudes you and I seem to adhere to.

I may be wrong, tell me what you think...thanks for reading.

TB