>>I think I can, George.
>>
>>You are a "liberal" because that's the dirtiest word that, present-day, can be applied to anyone who disagrees in any way with the 'conserative' RIGHT WING agenda.
>>
>>You might not be a "liberal" if you'd just shuddup about these things.
>
>As an alien, I have trouble follwing some of this. Do I understand correctly, that "liberal" is often used with an offensive connotation? Because when I look it up in www.dictionary.com, I find mainly definitions that look quite positive - apart from some usages marked as "obsolete":
>
>"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."
>
>"Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas..."
>
>Perhaps it refers specifically to meaning "d.", related to "liberal parties", but then again, these are "... associated with principles of social and political liberalism".

Being "liberal" is, to me anyway, a good quality EXCEPT when admitted in the U.S. because the right-wing there have subverted the term to mean, by their yard-stick, a small step above a marriage-minded homosexual child molester.
It is worse than it was to call someone a communist in the MacCarthy era or to call someone a racist in the 60s - 80s.