Yes, convinced that Wikipedia, aside from its real sins, is a hotbed of “liberal bias”, people have come together to create a serious Conservative (US sense) alternative. Let’s see how they define “liberal” — and anything more parochial and US-centred is hard to imagine. No, this is not Landover Baptist Church. I only wish it were.
[Note that links here are Conservapedia’s and do not open in new windows or tabs. — N]
A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:
- A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
- Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as Universal Health Care
- Taxpayer-funded public education
- The denial of inherent gender differences
- Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the military
- Legalized same-sex marriage
- Implimentation of affirmative action
- Political correctness
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
- Support of labor unions
- Teaching “comprehensive” sex-ed programs instead of abstinence-only programs.
- A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended
- Support for gun control
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of death penalty
- Disarmament treaties
- Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy 
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
- Opposition to full private property rights
- Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
- In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
- Calling anyone they agree with a “professor” regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).
Feel free to express your disbelief! I seriously thought this to be satire, but am convinced after looking at other articles that it is not.
After that definition comes more detail which you can check for yourselves.