These kinds of HN threads have completely ruined me on ever using the term "liberal" in any context. It doesn't reliably scale to broadcast a consistent concept to a sizable group of people.
In continental Europe it's somewhat clarified by dividing them into "liberal-conservatives", who politically side with conservative parties and may also be open to some elements of traditional conservatism (patriotism/nationalism, anti-immigration, etc.), and "social liberals", who tend to position themselves as politically centrist or center-left, support at least some kinds of social programs, and are typically hostile to traditional conservatism. Individuals may or may not fit cleanly into one of those categories, but the parties usually do.
Though that runs into another naming collision, because "social liberal" in the U.S. means a liberal who is focused mostly on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, free speech), rather than a liberal who is supportive of social programs.
That goes for most labels used in some context. Left-wing, right wing, liberal, conservative, democracy, freedom, prosperity and so on. All those mean different things to different people.
