Sorry, I misspoke. My original statement that I am a libertarian with liberal attitudes still stands. I was simply asking if I sounded like a zealot in any way (libertarian, liberal, centrist, etc.).

Do think a liberal who is not zealous could possibly exist? Do I sound zealous?

Oh, yeah. On foreign policy, I hate what Obama has done—Libya notwithstanding because I think that was handled very nicely. The drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki is not reassuring at all. As for Osama bin Laden, weeellll, he kind of had it coming. Still, if the orders were in fact to kill him, then a bad call was made (he probably still would have fought back and killed, so it comes back to the intentions of the mission). I think we did kill him, but the decision to withhold the photos of his body leaves some room for doubt in my mind. I don't really care that he is dead, though. al-Qaeda became irrelevant a while ago when new groups started to rise to prominence. I was more interested in the stealth helicopter that crashed at the compound (not a conspiracy theorist, rather a tech enthusiast). That's all I have to say about that.

On to Reagan:
He does have positions to Rick Santorum but not of the same magnitude. I've heard recordings of Ronald Reagan and the way he goes about the issues involved less direct references to liberals. Instead, he talked about the bad effects of a government that regulates too much or provides too many services. The way I see it, is that although Reagan talked much about socially conservative values, it's like he did not say that society should reflect these values. Well, he did but not like they ought to be (like someone saying "I would like to see things be like this, but they do not have an obligation to change").

To give you a little more insight into myself I would like to say that my political positions are libertarian while my attitude is slightly liberal. But there are things that make me different from the stereotypical liberal:
•I crap you not, I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh. I agree with pretty much nothing he says, he is just a charismatic guy.
•I am to the left on the issue of abortion but I do not harp on conservatives for being against it. I find the accusations that they are trying to impose their morals on others to be a bit stupid. Why? Conservatives view a fetus as having the rights of someone who has been born, which would include a right to life. Assuming that the pro-life position is valid, they see abortion as a violation of rights and not just some moral value.
•As you can tell, I am no big fan of Santorum, but I have come to his defense twice: the accusation that his wife dated an abortion doctor and him calling Obama's environmentalist view a "theology". First, assuming the accusations are true, Mrs. Santorum having dated an abortion doctor in her twenties has no bearing on her husband's integrity. Second, I understand that when Santorum said "It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology.", he was trying to say (not that I agree or disagree) that Obama's environmentalist attitude's are so deeply rooted that they border on theology. Going after Santorum for that is just nitpicking.

And yes, the policy about making Church-associated institutions pay for contraceptives was just stupid.

This guy must have been a damn good AG if people still like for it.

Rick Santorum's scariest beliefs are his support for anti-sodomy laws and his approval of the assassination of Iranian scientists. For the first thing, I don't think that sexual acts between consenting adults should be controlled. For the second thing, no government should ever commit assassinations. They are characteristic of despotic regimes and are a threat to democracy.

I have no problem with Rick Santorum being a devout Catholic or anyone expressing their religion publicly, but I do not like it when politicians attempt to have the government promote or acknowledge any set of beliefs. I have an extremely difficult time understanding how prohibiting the government from propping up crosses or the Ten Commandments somehow is equivalent to trampling over freedom of religion. It does not prohibit you from wearing a cross to a public school or from yelling in the streets about your religion.

From everything I know about Reagan, I don't think I would have any problems with him if I lived during his presidency.

Yeah, I don't know how much it means to to you but I'd like to apologize for that. I get carried away.

Oh, please don't say "smear" in the same context as "Santorum".

I consider a politician in office, expressing their religious views as an individual (not speaking for the rest of the government) to be okay.

I do not think it is okay for government-owned property to display anything religious in nature (i.e., the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse, a prayer banner in a school), for government-owned schools to teach religion (in the context of something like a world history or American history course that examines the influences of religion, then it is fine), for government funds to pay for things that are religious in nature, for teachers to lead prayer in a classroom (in the case of an immediate tragedy—like flashing to news about the twin towers collapsing on 9/11—I would see the teacher as acting as a private citizen and providing comfort, so this would be okay), for government procedures to have anything religious in nature, or for laws or resolutions to "recognize" a specific god or dogma.

Hope this clarifies everything.

I agree completely.

But, I want to know how he got "you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you" from "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute".

I only show this side on special occasions.