Social/moral issues or economic issues?

I for sure say economic issues. While I would love to see huge steps forward in cases such as gay rights and decriminalizing pot, right now, the economy needs to be fixed. Hippies not having access to some dope can wait for now.

I have this dilemma almost every election. As a fiscal conservative and social liberal, I can't go for the republicans' religious right agenda or the democrats' socialist/communist agenda. So I usually blow them both off and vote libertarian.

The fiscal/economic issues are far more important to me, so I usually cheer for the republicans even though I don't vote for them. Under Shrub, the republicans pretty much abandoned fiscal conservatism, so I'm pretty much opposed to them on all counts. But not as strongly as my opposition to democrat fiscal/economic ideas. Which, by the way, aren't working.

^ +1

Given we're a country historically based on, and associated with, individual freedom, it's interesting why it seems so incredibly difficult to land a true fiscal conservative/social liberal in the highest office of the land.

I can understand pure libertarianism being too 'scary' or radical for the mainstream to fully embrace. But many people I know, across all walks of life, would likely give serious consideration to a candidate who'd be more "Republican" in economic terms and more "Democrat" in social and foreign policy terms.

Economic, but at what point would you consider an abortion murder?

(09-14-2010 10:56 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Economic, but at what point would you consider an abortion murder?

It's almost gotten to the point with me that if someone wants an abortion, they should get that taken care of within six weeks. No reason IMO to be waiting till you're 3 months pregnant to go to Planned Parenthood. And for sure I do not support partial birth abortions. At 6 months, you should've already figured that out.

Sometimes things don't show up in the ultra sound until 6 months in. People do have abortions for medical reasons and the last thing people need in those troubled times are "outside influences".

The GOVT. has absolutely no business in this extremely personal issue.

(09-14-2010 11:35 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Sometimes things don't show up in the ultra sound until 6 months in. People do have abortions for medical reasons and the last thing people need in those troubled times are "outside influences".

The GOVT. has absolutely no business in this extremely personal issue.

Murder? Yeah, you're right.

Economic, without a doubt. The government's horrendous fiscal policies directly affect me, and will for years to come. Two dudes getting married in San Francisco does not.

Freedom is most important to me. Whether it's social or economic, I try to vote to increase freedom or at least stop my freedom from decreasing. This year, the republicans look like the lesser evil, but I'm sure I'll hate them too when they're back in power.

Economic without doubt. As far as I'm concerned, get our fiscal house in order, stay out of my pocket to the extent that is only really necessary. This needs to happen unless we want an eventual economic collapse. IMO, folks will stop really caring about the social issues if our economy leads us to worry about our next meal, etc.

(09-14-2010 10:26 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Social/moral issues or economic issues?

I for sure say economic issues. While I would love to see huge steps forward in cases such as gay rights and decriminalizing pot, right now, the economy needs to be fixed. Hippies not having access to some dope can wait for now.

Social / Moral, in a second!

But I think my social moral issues are more focused than most 'conservatives'...

Abortion <- Will not vote for a pro choice candidate, nor a convenient convert like Romney

Gay Marrage <- Opposed at the state level, agnostic at the federal level

School Prayer <- Opposed to teacher sponsored prayer and against aggressive crackdowns on student prayers (they are two different things)

Basically outside of Abortion I can stomach a candidate who I disagree on so long as they are 10thers (small fed government)

economic. WTF do i care about two dudes getting married when i'm worried about my company laying people off?

Being fiscally conservative allows one the luxury of being socially liberal.

The opposite cannot be said.

Mine are related. I'd say economic, but the answer to both is the same. Less government intrusion. My socially liberal opinions CAN be (but rarely are) supported by a laissez-faire government.

I understand that some believe the state needs to protect innocent life... but the courts have decided WHEN life begins. I don't agree, but I'm willing to accept it for my personal freedoms... including the right not to pay for them in any way. If you can't afford it, then there are pro-abortion groups who will pay for it for you and pro-life groups who will pay your bils and help you put the child up for adoption. While those sides may put stress on you, you are under no obligation to listen to either one. Other than reacting to changing scientific evidence of "viability" (which in current medicine, keeps getting sooner) by the courts... the government should butt out. It should stay out of my bedroom entirely, and I shouldn't be dragged into yours. You want it? Pay for it. Can't?? Find others who will help you. Can't? then you've just learned the definition of the PURSUIT of happiness... not happiness itself.

In MY mind, THIS is where we've gone wrong with "minority rights". The phrase Majority rule with minority rights SHOULD mean that while minorities have the right to pursue their goals, the majority doesn't need to fund every minority whim... which means MANY whims don't get funded... even some pretty popular (but still minority) ones.

Federal spending is head and shoulders number one in my book. To be honest, most of the social issues should be the states' concerns.

(09-14-2010 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Mine are related. I'd say economic, but the answer to both is the same. Less government intrusion. My socially liberal opinions CAN be (but rarely are) supported by a laissez-faire government.

I understand that some believe the state needs to protect innocent life... but the courts have decided WHEN life begins. I don't agree, but I'm willing to accept it for my personal freedoms... including the right not to pay for them in any way. If you can't afford it, then there are pro-abortion groups who will pay for it for you and pro-life groups who will pay your bils and help you put the child up for adoption. While those sides may put stress on you, you are under no obligation to listen to either one. Other than reacting to changing scientific evidence of "viability" (which in current medicine, keeps getting sooner) by the courts... the government should butt out. It should stay out of my bedroom entirely, and I shouldn't be dragged into yours. You want it? Pay for it. Can't?? Find others who will help you. Can't? then you've just learned the definition of the PURSUIT of happiness... not happiness itself.

In MY mind, THIS is where we've gone wrong with "minority rights". The phrase Majority rule with minority rights SHOULD mean that while minorities have the right to pursue their goals, the majority doesn't need to fund every minority whim... which means MANY whims don't get funded... even some pretty popular (but still minority) ones.

Very well stated!

(09-14-2010 01:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Being fiscally conservative allows one the luxury of being socially liberal.

I would say that's categorically false.