Describe Yourself


I’m curious how folks on this site would describe themselves on both fiscal and social policy. If you choose to self-describe, please be brief.

I’ll be happy to begin.

I would describe myself as a staunch fiscal conservatrive and a social libertarian on everything but abortion.


[quote=“MDMikeB, post:1, topic:37053”]
I’m curious how folks on this site would describe themselves on both fiscal and social policy. If you choose to self-describe, please be brief.

I’ll be happy to begin.

I would describe myself as a staunch fiscal conservatrive and a social libertarian on everything but abortion.
[/quote]See the survey button on the side? Look there


May I take this opportunity to describe you?


[quote=“Right_Wing, post:3, topic:37053”]
May I take this opportunity to describe you?
[/quote]Not if you want me to describe you as others on this site see you


Oh, I don’t mind. Fire away.


I am pretty much a Conservative on all levels.

I am a Fiscal Conservative.

I am pro lower taxes

I am pro Business

I am pro smaller Government

I am pro ‘personal responsibility’

I am pro-Gun

I am Pro-Life

The only area where I may differ is I believe pot should be made legal.


I agree wth Sam. My survey says what you ask.


Constitutional Nationalist.


I’m like you Mike but with an abortion view that is similar to the majority of Americans…but think Roe v. Wade should be repealed on a states rights basis and leave it to the states.


Fiscal Constitutional Conservative, meaning the Federal Government should stick only to specifically enumerated responsibilities. Those responsibilities cost what they cost as determined by the will of the people when they choose a concept via their vote for Representatives.

Social Constitutional Conservative, meaning the Federal Government should provide a blind Justice system to prosecute those who violate the Rights of others Life, Liberty or Property and assure that the laws passed by Congress do not violate any citizens Rights to Life, Liberty and Property without Due Process. Marriage is a religious institution, I therefore oppose those who advocate that it be taken by government force for the purpose of reversing its definition and I oppose the destruction of innocent human life via abortion without due process.

On government size, Constitutional Conservative. I do not want a “larger” government or a “smaller” government, I want a Constitutional government.

On Taxation, Original Intent Constitutional Conservative is my preference but as a Constitutional Conservative I accept the Constitution as properly amended while advocating for the abolition of the Income Tax. The only tax leveled on the American people should be based on retail consumption of non essential goods, this rate should be universally applied to all qualifying retail sales with all “special rates” for select items prohibited by law.


I’m a fiscal hawk. Spending on unConstitutional programs should be eliminated to the best of our ability, spending on Constitutional programs should be reduced. There should be no sacred cows in government. We can begin cutting domestic departments now, cutting welfare corporate and personal, reforming entitlements, and scaling back some military spending. I don’t support using monetary policy as a fiscal tool, ie debt monetization, of course I really don’t support monetary policy at all.

I am also a social libertarian on all issues but abortion, which isn’t to be confused with social liberalism. A social libertarian will allow you to put what you choose in your body(drugs, alcohol), do what you want with your body(sell organs, sell sex), and do what you want with your money(gambling), and use whatever firearms you want. Also, a libertarian would support government not defining marriage at all. In contrast, a social liberal would define marriage as between two adults regardless of gender. Social liberals also may be relaxed in some of the issues I mentioned, minus guns, but they are also very much statists when it comes to food liberty, environmental liberty, and economic liberty. Abortion is not a social issue, its a fundamental rights issue.


I agree with this, it makes sense to excempt essential goods like food and medicine rather than implementing a rebate system.

The argument is that those exceptions can lead to corruption of the tax code, which is true, yet a rebate system has its own issue of creating federal welfare.


Anything the government is involved in has potential for corruption; in fact, anything that human beings are involved in has potential for corruption. It’s just a matter of doing the best we can with what we have to work with.


On Govt:

  1. Defend the shores of these United States

  2. Leave me, my family, my property the HELL ALONE!


See #2 above.

Congress can make no law that does not apply to everyone equally, there are NO special rights and privileges awarded to any group of people, there are NO HATE crimes, no special rights for gays, minorities or anyone else

I want the govt out of the marriage business, you know a preacher man that will marry you and your bass boat, don’t care, don’t need to know

Abortion: I am a man, I don’t have babies but I do make a contribution, but that does not give me the deciding vote, abortion is generally murder but there are exceptions

Fiscal: Govt spends NOT more than 10% of GDP and MUST not run a deficit except during DECLARED war or national emergency

see below for the rest or my survey[LEFT][/LEFT]


“The only area where I may differ is I believe pot should be made legal.” (copied from Trance’s post)

Rabbit Tobacco is not legal, not illegal either.
Dog Fennel is not illegal, not legal either.
Point being; when they made pot illegal they forever changed the status of it. It can never be just a weed again, with the decision to smoke or not to smoke up to the individual. Another thing the Government totally screwed when they touched it.


Now we get into a really tough area.

Stossel: ‘we should have the right as individuals to do anything that does not harm other in the process or as a result’

Now we get into the motorcycle helmet laws. Those who are for say that it costs $millions to pay for the medical of those who ride motorcycles and have wrecks and suffer brain damage from not wearing a helmet. While I have ALWAYS questioned that, not sure why some guy on a Harley who has $50,000 +++++++++++++++++ tied up in it does not bother to get insurance???

What I do know is that free drugs beget drugged up addicts that cost a fortune to treat till they finally overdose. We have proof of this world wide.

I do see both sides and do know its one hellva swamp


Years ago Illinois was embroiled in wanting motorcycle helmets which eventually failed to pass. As a motorcycle rider way back this was on interest to me. I remember a politician who was running who claimed a certain person would not have died if she had been wearing a motorcycle helmet when the fact was her chest was crushed in and she actually did have a helmet on.


I’m an ex- conspiracy nut turned corporate rights advocate/war profiteer and I am turning more socially conservative by the day.

Agnostic conservative works too!

Mandatory Military Service?

Goldwater conservative.


War profiteer?