That's not a bad overview of the current state of affairs, but, as with all things, specifics are liable to change. Probably the best way to look at is is with the basic viewpoints of both camps.

In my opinion, the largest difference has to do with the size of the group that they consider ``me'' or ``us''. That is, everyone wants to help themselves, but liberals tend to have a much larger group that they consider to be themselves than do conservatives. Liberals also often extend the concept of self beyond what they are themselves, so that they end up defending minority groups they are not part of, or animals, or plants, or the entire world.

Of course, this definition is both malleable and relative and doesn't lend itself to actual actions. That is, that definition doesn't necessarily say that a liberal would be in favor of or against music copy protection. The liberal might consider the group he's trying to protect to be the artists, in which case he might be in favor of it, or he might be trying to protect the consumer. On the other hand, the conservative might have a fiscal interest in the recording industry, or he might be an empeg owner. What I'm trying to say is that the political leaning isn't the only factor in making political decisions. It's just effects how that person applies his personal beliefs.

Now, in the US's current climate, conservatives tend to be rich white guys who are pro-big-business (largely because the reason that they're rich is because they are big business), while liberals are often, not unreasonably, associated with minorities and the underclasses, perhaps because those groups feel that the best way to help themselves is to try to help all the groups in similar situations.

To take a real-life (exaggerated) example, consider the rap star that made it out of the ghetto. The conservative extremist would take his money and go live in Beverly Hills by himself, unconcerned that his former neighbors are still living in poverty. As we head towards the liberal extreme, we encounter the star that will just hire his friends as his ``posse''. Then onto the one who gives back to his community in some material manner, like opening nice establishments in that neighborhood. Finally, at the liberal extreme, you might get to the one who continued to live there and distribute his money to all of the people in the neighborhood. You can see that most people lie somewhere in the middle. They're not so callous as to ignore everyone else, but they're not so overly generous as to give all of their money away. But note that none of that has to do with big business or government or anything like that, and also note that these people came from exactly the same background.

Edit: I'd like to point out a couple of other things, now that I think about it a little more. First, it's easily possible for a person to be conservative about certain things, but liberal about other things. Second, there are a number of issues that my definition doesn't seem to cover, but that seem to be divided along liberal/conservative lines, like illegal drugs issues and abortion, which, by my definition, would have to be liberal issues for most legislators, since they encompass groups that the legislator would not be a part of. Perhaps the liberals want to see those peoples rights expanded and the conservatives are against singling out those groups? Maybe....

Also, an interesting question would be why you consider yourself conservative if you don't know what liberal is? Go back and reread the cartoon Tony posted before and remove the snideness from it and then apply it to yourself. Is it possible that you might be a liberal and not know it? (I'm not saying you are, as I know next to nothing about you, but the fact that you've labeled yourself as one side of a coin without knowing what the other side looks like is a little suspect.) (Oops. Obviously, that was directed at FerretBoy, not you DWallach. I forgot to whom I was actually replying.)