This isn't an issue of difference in political ideology, it's a difference of basic worldview that effects both liberal and conservative alike, albeit one moreso than the other. The difference lies in the fact many people, for whatever reason, either cannot, or will not view the world in any terms other than black and white, all the while rejecting the idea that could be any option other than the two extremes they envision.
The fundamental problem with your list, and in fact your entire worldview is that it is flawed at it's very core, It's basic premise, that on any subject one's opinion must be Extreme A or Extreme Z with no middle ground, is simply untrue. It's like saying that your opinions on the matter are due to A) Willful Ignorance, or B) Outright Lies, while at the same time denying that other possibilities such as, Abject Stupidity, Undereducation, Self Deception, Mental Retardation, or simple Lack of Understanding, or a host of other causes even exist, despite the fact that they do.
If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, they believe no one should have one.
And what of the people, conservative and liberal alike, who favor some measure of gun control, such as a ban on assualt rifles, but do not believe that guns should be banned in general? Do you expect people to believe that those people don't exist just because you said "All conservatives support A and all liberals support B."?
If a Conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A Liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If such hard and fast rules of ideology existed then how do you explain WW 2, initiated and fought entirely under a liberal administration? What of Vietnam, Initiated by a liberal president and ending in a general retreat by a conservative president? How do you explain, under your black or white worldview, the current build up of forces and escalation of hostilities in Afghanistan? Shouldn't Obama be attempting to surrender and save face?
If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a Liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.
The gay rights movement is not in and of itself a partisan movement as it contains a wealth of both liberal and conservative members, despite the attempts of some conservatives to make it partisan by sponsoring legislation to disenfranchise homosexuals and deny them rights enjoyed by the rest of the population, with claims of "anti-religious" and "anti-family" bias on the part of both gays and their supporters, liberal and conservative alike.
If a Conservative is a minority , he sees himself as independently successful. Their Liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
You cannot possibly know that without being privy to the thoughts of every single member of every single minority. More over, why would a minority conservative have to be successful? You seem to be implying that only financially or socially "successful" examples of a minority can become a conservative.
Minorities who do consider themselves in need of government protection are not liberals by default, but rather people who have been given a reason to think that their safety has been threatened simply because they are a member if a minority. It's simply not a black or white issue, or a liberal or conservative issue, despite your attempts to paint it as such. It is demonstrative of the flaws in your worldview, and your own personal biases towards minorities in general.
If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
Once more, this is simply not a black or white, conservative or liberals issue. Neither of the views you present are representative of either ideology. Further more you seem to be implying that it "unconservative" ask for help, and unliberal to better their position wihout help. Those things are not political or ideological positions, they personal choices and are in no way indicative of a persons political leanings.
If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal wants all churches to be silenced.
"A Liberal wants all churches to be silenced."? That statement is not only implying, but outright stating that all liberals a non-religious, and that they think that all churches must be silenced, and that is not only untrue, but an outright lie. The vast majority of liberals are religious and the vast majority of liberals religious and non religious do not think, advocate, or desire that churches, the clergy, or other religious institutions should be "silenced". The source of your objection is that you want a single religion, namely yours, to be allowed to legislate and enforce it's beliefs and dictates on the whole of the population, regardless of their own beliefs or lack thereof. And regardless of whether is a liberal or conservative position it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution. Period.
If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.
And what about the conservative who cannot afford private health insurance or find a job that provides it? What of the conservatves that may have suffered a severe or crippleing injury in their youth that require constant medical care but are rejected by health insurers because of having a pre-existing condition? Is it the position of all conservatives that people such as that just "suck it up and deal with it"?
Neither of the options you present are universal to either liberals or conservatives. They are just different parts of a wide spectrum of opinion and neither of them is indicative of a single ideology.
If a Conservative disagrees with a Liberal president, he is called a racist.
This is not a black or white issue, this is simply an outright lie. The conservative who are called "racists" are usually the ones making racist statements such as "Barack the Magic Negro", or opining that the president "Has a deep seated hatred of the white race". When conservatives disagreed with former president Clinton were they called racists? What about when they disagreed with former presidents Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, or Roosevelt? Were they called racists? If your answer is no then it isn't an issue of conservatives disagreeing with liberal presidents, it's and issue of some conservatives making patently racist statements.
When a Liberal disagrees with a Conservative president, it's patriotic dissent.
That's rather funny, because those are the very same ideologues who were labeling those people that disagreed with the previous (conservative) president as "Traitors", "Terrorists", and "Anti-American". The very same people who advocated and openly called for the censoring, wholesale detention, and even the summary execution of people, regardless of political affiliation, who dared to disagree with a president from their own party. The very same people who now feign righteous indignation at being labeld a "racist" after make blatant, intentional, and unambiguous racially biased attacks on a mixed race president. Attacks they would have called treasonous not even a year before.
Writing or voicing disagreement over policy, legislation, and governence is "Patriotic Dissent". Attacks on race, ethnic dissent, upbringing, distant relations, religious belief or lack thereof, past assoctiations, verified and verifiable citizenship, birth certificates, ficticious statements, and imaginary intentions isn't "Patriotic Dissent" no matter what the attackers ideology or political leanings happen to be. It's mudslinging at it's best, it's facetious, malicious, and bitter. It's the Politics of Fear and the Warfare of Cowards, not the actions of a patriot. What follows is what a patriot is and why you are not one.
A patriot defends his countrymen, no matter what positions or opinions they hold.
A patriot understands that the opposition is not the enemy.
A patriot seeks to unite his countrymen rather then trying to further divide them.
A patriot accepts the choice of the voters, even if it differs from his own.
A patriot who seeks change does so in the spotlight and in full view, he does not try to find loopholes and backdoors to force it through.
A patriot doesn't question the loyalty of a countryman based only on ideology of party affiliation.
A patriot puts people before party, individuals before ideology, and truth before talking points.
