>or Socialism,

The out to lunch alarm just went off. The definition of Liberalism means that it allows for political change, which might or might not be be socialist in nature.

If by "supremacy of the state" you're referring to states rights, the alarm just went off again because that's been an ongoing bone of contention since day 1 in 1787 (ever hear of that thing known as the Civil War?). On the other hand, supremacy of the state, meaning the federal government, is inherent in being "a country", because in relationship to other countries, small countries are rather helpless. New York or Kentucky going to war against Japan or Germany (during WWII)? A certain recipe for failure on NY and KY's part. Think of what happened to the Baltics between Hitler and Stalin.

>The promoting and enacting of numerous socialist solutions for every problem at hand and state enforced mandates over private matters, belies their so-called liberalism.

And just what are these "socialist solutions" as you call them?

Intrusion into private matters isn't socialism per se. It is, however, a result of reactions to systematic abuses by those in power, whether they are bosses in a business or bureaucrats in a government.

Worse yet is that subset which supports the total supremacy of the State, brushing aside all notions of personal liberty, even including repeatedly advocating the re-distribution of property without compensation (Obama 2008 - from his mouth to my ear over the air). Well, they call themselves liberal, but they couldn't possibly be.

>even including repeatedly advocating the re-distribution of property without compensation (Obama 2008 - from his mouth to my ear over the air). Well, they call themselves liberal, but they couldn't possibly be.

You sound like those people who are myopically fixated on Obama being the bete noir of all of today's the issues. "Repeated" means over and over, yet you cite only instance. I've heard him say it too, but not repeatedly, constantly trying to drive the concept home, as you would have us believe.

I'm not a fan of property redistribution but you need to keep two things in mind: 1) it's been a social (not "socialist") issue in Europe and the Americas for at least 500 years ("socialism" is barely 150 years old), and 2) if you don't pay attention to the issue, and make allowances for it and provide for the redress of grievances over property's becoming owned by too few individuals (or corporations), that property will be eventually be redistributed forcibly, yours included, by those very people whose right to bear arms you are so vociferously defending. It's called "a revolution", and in my opinion the US one in the late 1700s is the only one which has ever improved things.