tbh I'd say most people on this forum are some sort of liberal. Either a proper liberal, like most of the people criticising liberals, or a social liberal who are who they'd mostly call liberals.
Here's a description (lifted straight from wiki) of what Liberalism actually is:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, and market liberalism or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism. Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state.
Interesting to see how the word is misused so often today...