Name positions you're 'conservative' on ....

... or at least ones you think you might.

Mine:

(1) pro-gun
(2) against gambling (destructive to families)
(3) anti-hip-hop ( or certain versions that hold 'street' knowledge over
book knowledge - street knowledge won't get people off the street).

Repukes fuck up the economy every time they get their dick-beaters on it. Dems then have to come in and fix it (a la Clinton.) Why is being a "fiscal conservative" a good thing?

It's because the term "fiscal conservative" has become polluted.

The real fiscal conservatives (like myself) believe that government should be able to pay for anything they do with CASH. If that means increasing taxes to increase revenues. What passes for "fiscal conservatism" today has come to mean low taxes and supposedly reduced spending, the latter of which never happens. (National defense, ya know!)

Anyway, the true form of fiscal conservatism does not inherently assume low taxes. It just requires that the government does what it needs to do to operate at zero or minimum deficits.

The conservative movement has stolen the definition of that term, so the overall fiscal policy ends up the disaster you describe.
The Professor

I would add this: the programs we have, whether social, military, or whatever, need to provide us a reasonable return on the money we spend. In other words, the programs should be both effective and cost efficient.

Although i don't know if that's fiscal conservativism or just common sense. We should all get at least what we pay for.

Of course, whatever we call it, i agree with you 100%. It's pretty darned obvious, i would think, that our investment in public education has paid back many fold its cost.

Not sure the B-1 bomber program advocates can say the same.
The Professor

said in "The Triumph of Politics" (the book that exposed Reaganomics for what it was) that there's nothing wrong with a Welfare State, as long as you're willing to pay for it.

That's an emminently sound statement. Want universal health care? Pay for it! Want Head Start? Pay for it! I'm all for both of these programs, and I'm willing to pay cash for them. That's fiscal conservativism.

Fiscal conservatism is a great thing--no deficit spending, balanced budgets, all that.

Republicans will throw the budget into bankruptcy in a second if they think they can get rid of a social program by doing so.

cause I no longer know what is "conservative" and what's not anymore. Obviously, they aren't conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility these days so what is conservative anyway? I mean they elected that very liberal guy out in California, so I just do not know anymore!

The Bush administration has moved me into the pro-gun column. Not because of their arguments, but because of their existence.

I don't think it is a bad idea to require parental notification when a girl under 16 wants to get an abortion. Families need to be involved in decisions like that, and we keep 16 year olds in school all day because they are congenitally stupid. I was a teacher; I know this.

I think globalization could be a good thing if we could get it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Bush. An International Minimum Wage, environmental standards, and a whole slew of other standards would go a long way towards making globalization a force for good.

I believe in capitalism, but as a social democrat I also believe in regulation.

If I think of more, I'll post again.

... it's the key to understanding the middle, and I'm no centrist.

I don't think it is a bad idea to require parental notification when a girl under 16 wants to get an abortion. Families need to be involved in decisions like that, and we keep 16 year olds in school all day because they are congenitally stupid. I was a teacher; I know this.

Agreed re: stupidity. However, how is it fair for the parents to make a decision like that for their child, when it will fundamentally alter the course of their life?

No, you can't get your license until your grades improve (even though a 16yo is legally able to get a license, and yeah my mom used that one on me). No, you can't leave the house (imprisonment?). No you can't date that guy/girl.

Etc.

I do agree with you on everything else from your post #3, though. :)

we can't do a freaking tattoo on anyone under 18 without the parent's permision and attendance yet a 15 year old can get an abortion on her own?

that's wacky.

It was one of my lieutenants, and she was in favor of the parental notification law. Said she, "I couldn't have gone to the dentist when I was under 18 without parental consent, why should I have been able to have major surgery?"

Said I, "okay, imagine you're fifteen. Go to your mom and tell her you've got a cavity. What would have happened?"

'She would have taken me to the dentist.'

"Would it have 'ruined the family name'?"

'Only if I was a Colgate, or my dad was a dentist.'

"Now, imagine you're still fifteen and you went to your mom and told her you were pregnant. What would have happened?"

'She'd have killed me.' No hesitation here.

"Well, now you know why parental notification is a bad idea. Because some parents really would kill their daughters over that."

Yes, the parents would be mad, feel disappointed and likely start enforcing some strict rules on the girl. However, I tend to agree with parental notification in MOST cases. If a kid makes a mistake they need to take responsibility for that mistake. Ideally, the kid and parents would be able to communicate well enough to get through it. There CAN be complications with abortions, and it's a VERY heavy issue. It's not something a teenage girl "just gets over", it stays with her forever. I have a teenage daughter and if this happened with her I already know she wouldn't want an abortion. She would want to have and keep the baby, and I would encourage her to do that, and I would help her in any way I could. I know people who have had abortions when they were teenagers and every one of them are STILL haunted emotionally over it. I don't think kids should go through something like this without their parents. There are a coupld of situations where I think a kid should be able to get a waiver from notification and that is if the pregnancy is the result of incest or if their parents are physically abusive and would harm the girl. This isn't many cases, but this does need to be acknowledged and the girl needs to be protected.

I see both sides clearly, and don't feel totally comfortable with either.

On the one side, I'd sure like parents to know about any health issues/medical procedures a daughter deals with.

On the other, I'm not totally comfortable with parents making the daughter's choices for her. Many parents would make reasoned decisions. But...what about the fundamentalist parent who forces a young girl to have and keep a baby? Her choices for the rest of her life have been severely limited. What about the parent who pressures a young girl into abortion when she hasn't resolved that issue with herself? You have a lifetime of doubt, regret, guilt...

And that's incest. It's more common than you think, and the families of incest are sick, twisted, and controlling. Those poor girls don't have a chance against parents who are abusing them or are ignoring the abuse.

allow the youth to talk to a judge if she feels she cannot talk to a parent. That seems like a reasonable safeguard.

I worry about parental notification requirements because of the possibility of the young woman coming from an abusive or fundamentally religious family. Then, we get into the issues of home remedy and back alley procedures.

I think something like parental, court, or social worker notification would be more appropriate. The courts would have to be lenient about appointing guardian ad litems who could talk to the girl and take over the role of a parent. Because you mentioned teaching, I think it would make sense that a teacher or guidance counselor could be substituted for a parent. I can agree with the basic premise that a young person would be well served discussing the decision with an understanding adult. I also think the girl should get the choice of who she would notify without having to show abuse to the courts.

Fiscal Responsibility .

I don't consider pro-gun a conservative stance .

Just curious. I am a big fan of guns to answer the question.

He was the conservative who started the evironmental
movement . A fine Repuublican President , back when
being a Republican was honorable .

I believe the gun issue is a Constitutional issue
and does not belong to either party .

The environment shouldn't be a partisan issue but the conservatives as we know them today have abandoned Teddy Roosevelt's vision of environmental stewardship and protection.

IMHO

Nixon has the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act to his credit.

If you want to really fuck up a program, send it down to the states.

Is the only thing I have that might be considered Conservative, and in this day and age I don't even know if Conservative can claim it as their own anymore.

Don't dream it, be it

1 - Pro Gun (against assault weapons / pro-brady bill though)

2 - Pro hunting/fishing

3 - ? I think there should be more, but I can't think of any


Damn, I am liberal

---

I don't think that being against gambling is a conservative stance. The repugs in my state (MN) are trying to get more gambling.

Flame suit on!

what specifically are you conservative on?

1 - Parental consent?
2 - Partial Birth? (or whatever the medical term is)
3 - Overuse?

etc...

I really don't like all abortion but it should be a state issue.

I don't see how anyone can think it is a state issue. If you think it is a right they should have the right regardless of where they are in the country. If you don't think it is a right then it should be banned everyone in the country.

Mike

I figure the let the pro-lifes live in pro-life states and let the pro-choicers live in pro-choice states.

IMHO you DO NOT have a right to kill an unborn child. JMHO

What do we get? Another Civil War?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Constitution defines a certain minimal set of rights that everybody has. States are allowed to recognize additional rights if the particular subject is not addressed in the Constitution. This is an aspect of something called federalism.

Roe v. Wade argued that the subject of abortion was somewhat addressed by the Constitution and somewhat not addressed by the Constitution.

Under Roe, the way that the Court said abortion was addressed is that they said there is a "right to privacy" emanating from the "penumbras" of explicit rights. They further reasoned that this right to privacy includes the right of a woman to get an abortion until such time as the fetus is viable.

Under Roe, the way that the Constitution does not address abortion is that this right of privacy supposedly does not extend to abortion after the point of fetal viability. The Court therefore reasoned that this matter was left up to the states. After viability a state can say that a woman has a right to abortion. Alternatively, after viability, a state can say that a fetus has a right to live, or a conditional right to live. Under Roe v. Wade, 40 of the 50 states severely restrict abortion after the point of viability. Federalism at work!

Now, you can criticize the Supreme Court's ruling from either the pro-choice or the anti-choice side. For example, on the pro-choice side, many DUers on other threads have expressed the opinion that a woman's right to abortion should extend past the point of fetal viability as a matter of Constitutional right.

On the other hand, on the anti-choice side, when the Supreme Court is pulling rights out of "penumbras" (that is, shadows) of a document that does not use the words "fetus" or "abortion," then there is a powerful argument that the Court is wrongly using the Constitution to define rights on subjects that the Constitution simply does not address. As a matter of Constitutional law, I personally believe that there is not a direct enough connection between any portions of the Constitution (whether taken alone or in combination) and the abortion issue to make it fair to say that the Constitution actually speaks to the abortion issue. In other words, since the Constitution does not directly or indirectly address the abortion issue, it is a matter that should be left to the states (unless and until a Constitutional amendment is passed that actually addresses the subject head on).

Although I called the position of the previous paragraph "anti-choice," it should be noted that one can believe that abortion should generally be legal, but still believe that abortion should be left to the states as a matter of integrity of the federalist framework specified by the Constitution.

Nice analysis - I've actually never heard it broken into logical schemata like that - the dichotomy (federalist is not) is buried in some structural opposition.

who taught my Con Law class. I don't think he would like my analysis somehow, though.

If courts are allowed to use penumbras to interpret the Constitution, then the document has no meaning at all because the court can find a shodow under any unrelated item to do what it wants.

In this case since I'm pro-choice (with restrictions), their discovery was to my benefit but I still don't like it. Next time when a conservative court discovers a penumbra within the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) that gives the government the right to restrict whether woman may work outside the home or not, I will like it even less. It's just a bad way of running a government.

results-oriented-outcomes versus procedural integrity is a difficult conflict for people anywhere on the political spectrum. These conflicting values often give conflicting results.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

If you don't agree with slavery -- don't have one.

makes abortion a state issue.

Why would you say it doesn't?

... including medical procedures.

And I will start out by saying,
Who the fuck do you think you are????

And then, I will proceede to agree with you. I have no intention of flaming you, because I have agreement with you (depending on your personal stance).

Guns: I don't see any problem with registering handguns. And I don't have a problem at all with rifles for hunting, a shotgun, anything like that. You want guns, that's great, go buy them and be a good example for your beliefs by using them responsibly. Also, teach others to do the same.
I am not so "conservative" on guns to the point of letting anyone who wants any kind of gun own one, however. I do not think any private citizen needs an assault rifle with an infared, laser-guided scope.


Abortion: Personally, I am against the idea of abortion. I am male, so I don't spend much time thinking on the idea of it. I figure, if I get a girl pregnant (I am assuming one that I am not married to) then it is up to her if she wants to get an abortion. I would probably try to discourage it, but I believe that it is her choice.
The thing that makes me not completely "conservative" on this issue is that I don't think that just because I don't believe in something, that no one else should be able to do it. Besides, I may be put in a postion in which an abortion (early on) is the best option.

Anyway, thank you for posting two good ideas.

but the fact is , if we outlawed choice, it would become a national cataclysm quickly - 1 million unwanted babies on the market. I've seen a study that attributes drops in crime statistics to the avaiability of abortions. Some women are not ready, know it, and make the right decisions.

Abortion becomes illegal. Then what?

What would conservatives rather have?
Legal abortion clinics with licensed doctors?
Or illegal abortion "clinics" in back alleys performed by literally anyone with unsafe and unclean tools?


I mean, just because abortion is illegal (hypothetically) doesn't mean that people won't have them.
It will be much worse, because people will have dangerous abortions, some will be do-it-yourself projects (I don't mean to make light of this).

And, assuming people do take their pregnancies to term: What the hell kind of life is an unwanted child going to have?????

just wondering because I don't think there's a chance that more than 4-5 states would outlaw it. I think there's a better chance that none would than that 10 would.

I personally oppose abortion, and wish it would be a thing of the past, but I think we should settle the matter democratically. Cut out the middlemen of the politicians and the judges, and let's just let the people decide.

The Death Penalty
Three Strikes Law
The FL Right to Die case that is going on right now

... missed death penalty. But not the way it's applied now - we have to have a much improved legal climate before it can be applied fairly.

And I don't want the entire country mirroring the Texas judicial system. However, I do believe in the death penalty for some very high crimes.

...I understand how otherwise reasonable people might be inclined to favor it.

Now, the Three Strikes law. It's so evil it's not even funny. Steal a pizza and go to prison for 20 years? Suuuure, very just.

Third one: that's not a principle, but a specific case (which, I agree with you, stinks to high heaven and is therefore not representative of a general "right to die" position).

And that is literally the only thing.

Seems to be a popular dissent too. Maybe the platform could be changed...

BTW I consider myself conservative on all of these but it doesn't mean I agree with the Republicans on them.

1) Defense and Foreign Policy, however the Bush administration's pentagon is sickening.

2) Fiscal Responsability, and that doesn't include massive tax cuts for people who don't need it so we can further drive up the defecit.

3) Pro-Gun but with regulations, I'm definatley not an NRA democrat because I hate how a lot of them say that the government is coming to take away their guns and enslave them. After watching the movie Bowling for Columbine, I've decided that basically our gun control laws should be exactly like Canada's.

4) Prayer in schools IF initiated by students and not teachers.

5) The concept of vouchers and faith based rehab. I would support these to a certain extent if they weren't being run by Bush who is just looking for an excuse to give money to religious organizations.

6) Death Penalty

They have more checks in place to make sure that criminals don't get guns. I think it's pretty much everything that Clinton wanted to do with gun control but the Republicans wouldn't let him.

1) Unconditionally pro-gun rights.
2) I am against most forms of affirmative action in academia and the workplace. The most qualified should get the position, period. This also applies to the preference for children of alumni. That is no different.
3) Moderately anti-abortion. I just can not make the leap to say that a fetus is not a life.
4) I am a paleo-conservative isolationist and I am against globalization in about every form.

The Right invented gun control, not us. They are the ones who made it impossible for non-whites to own guns in the 18th and 19th century. When you take away a man's ability to defend himself, you can oppress him.

As a proud leftist, I don't trust George W. Bush's government to protect the people that we stand up for every day: gays, non-whites, striking workers, non-Christians, anti-war demonstrators and women who are abused. Nor do I want John Ashcroft's "Justice" Department to have ever more powers to confiscate guns from law-abiding Americans. Leave it to them to take guns away from everybody with an Arab or a Hispanic last name.

(Child molester/killers, rapists)

also

Gun rights
A strong military
Support of the CIA
Bussing for forced integration

That's all I can think of.

I'm your worst nightmare...a liberal feminist with a gun!

Seriously, though, I tend to agree with Howard Dean on guns: I support the ban on assault weapons and want to close the gun show loophole; other than that, additional gun laws should be left up to individual states.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much on the left side of every other issue.

n/t

we should pay off the debt and spend our money wisely so that every citizen can benefit from their taxes. But maybe that isn't even a conservative idea. Remember Al Gore wanted to pay off the debt, so we wouldn't have those huge interest payments and maybe then we could lower taxes after all, once we weren't in the hole. Look where the conservatives have taken us instead.

We end up paying more for everything if we borrow and have to pay interest later.

give me a minute...




Oh, okay, here's one:

I think if you have kids with someone, you should stay together and raise those kids until they're grown and out of the "nest". NOT saying there should be any laws about that, I'm just saying that's what people SHOULD do.

I think if the parents are constantly at each others throats, maybe its better for the kids that the parents divorce. Speaking from personal experience.

I'm a Birminghamian (Birminghammer?) But, yes, of course there are tons of exceptions to my general feeling. It's a personal matter, and everyone gets to act according to his own interests in his own situation.

Which I guess is a totally non-conservative way of looking at my one conservative opinion, huh?

Love your sig logo, btw. :)

NO THANKS, I CAN FARE BETTER ON MY OWN!!

There are lots of things that make it impossible to stay with someone. Forgive me for not enumerating every possible exception, but I was just answering the question in the most general of terms.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...are now gone. Vanished! Liquidated! I refuse on principle now to agree with a single "conservative" policy, simply because anyone remotely associated with this regime might believe the same thing.

I used to wobble on the gun-control issue a bit toward the conservative side. Now (although I completely agree with you, Will Pitt), I would die before I admitted I thought the law ought to keep its slimy hands off my gun. (It's the principle of the thing!)

As far as any other "conservative" issue, just put me down in the agin' column, by damn. As in, if they're fer it, I'm agin' it.

I have a "personal decision" position on abortion, and I don't really think that's conservative.

I'm also a staunch meat-eater, and some of my veggie friends think that's a pretty conservative position, but at the same time they're far more conservative than me on economic issues.

I'm pro-hunter, but at the same time, I don't have problems with new gun control laws. I think it's reactionary right wing crap to think that gun control leads to gun confiscation.

That's about as far as I go. I would describe those as my moderate positions.

I am not for the illegalization of abortion in early stages of fetal development but I think it is wrong.

I say Guns, everyone should have one but armor piercing bullets or automatic machine guns should be banned. Those are only designed to murder.

Mike

This is a grey area, to be sure.

But I feel that if by some great miracle I was to become "rich", I would think it only fair to not accept social security or medicare in my old age.

It seems to me that social programs were originally intended as a safety net. I just don't like the idea that things like social security are viewed as savings account for old age.

I would feel the same way if I were to become unable to care for myself. If I were blinded or maimed in a wreck, and started receiving disability, I would WANT to do something for the money. Whatever I was capable of. Something to be pitching in and helping my fellow citizens, and my country. Whatever. Stuffing envelopes. Helping other people with disabilities to be productive.

It seems bad to look at something like that as means testing in the first place, in that it would drive me crazy, getting something, in effect, for nothing.

I know a lot of people are putting down the pro-gun as a point to be "conservative" on, but not I. Of course, I'm in Colorado so I'm a bit biased.

and draconian immigration laws

so that would make you pro-cockfighting?

I'm not flaming, I'm just curious. Living in rural Upstate SC I know there are plenty of underground cockfighting rings, but I never really thought of it as a political issue, more like a law enforcement issue. Can't say I agree with you if you are pro-cockfighting, but I'd be interested to hear your position.

who are generally associated with the left (which really has never made any sense to me) I don't endorse dogfighting. That is a cruel and barbaric "sport"; the dogs must be trained to kill. That is not the case with game birds. They live to maim and kill one another. I've actually attended some of those SC matches, and while I never found myself discussing Flaubert or Debussy with any of my fellow spectators, i have to admit that i got quite an aesthetic kick from the action in the pit.

... and we did graduate from a College whose mascot is the Gamecock.

as are all pussies.
Honestly, they should ditch that football team, have the General Assembly legalise cockfighting, and stage marathon matches in WB Stadium. The university could sell broadcast rights throughout the world (where there is far more interest in game birds than there is in college football)

... but I don't know about animal bloodsports. Seems like it's meant for closed environs. Noisy, sweaty. Some edge, sure - but how much more?.

that the birds were going to classes

I must admit I've always thought it was odd that we have this problem with cockfighting yet we eat millions of chickens each year.

My family kept chickens for most of my youth (and hogs, but that's another story) and the we never kept more than one rooster alive cause they would kill each other. it really is in their nature. so in a way I guess I'm not opposed to cockfighting either. Never thought about it, but I guess that's a conservative position that I hold.

I am a vegetarian, so I have every right to protest against cockfighting.

And cockfighting certainly upsets me. Just like dogfighting, it is a cruel sport (if you want to call making animals kill one another a sport).

That is what they are genetically programmed to do. It is their deepest desire. As an animal "rights" advocate, aren't you being cruel by thwarting their desires?

And cock-fighting. Can't forget that.

Oh, yeah, and I'm absolutely against bilingual education. I think that's a horrible idea.

Weren't those conservative positions at one time? Bush has twisted the meaning of conservatism into grabbing all of the power for himself, at the expense of everyone else.

Do you mean for the status quo and restrained government involvement, or the "conservative" of neo-con fame?

... (or where the right would be if they lived it and instead of lied it) I thought 'conservative' covered that, though.

Considering that most liberals would probably live more conservatively in that they live within their means.

While most conservatives live "liberally". Living on maxed out credit cards and minimum payments.

n/t

would the statment be made?

Since the terminology has been flip flopped.
As it were.

My car is paid off.
My credit cards have a zero balance.
Hrm, and my 4 cylinder car "conserves" on gas compared to all the SUV's I drive with every day.

and indeed, more of my 'liberal' friends, live simply - and acrue less debt (go for the used cars, keep cars longer, go for the smaller but more affordable house, etc.) than my conservative friends of the same age. But I can't say that it is a hard and fast rule by any means.

unless we are in an economic downturn like the Depression. I'm for evaluating and auditing government programs to ensure effectiveness. I support small business but not at the expense of workers.

I'm willing to not fight for the gun issue. I believe in banning handguns and assault weapons but I think it's a losing stance. Winning so we can promote other issues matters more.

Many leftists oppose both gun control (because then the government, and thus the wealthy, would be the only ones with the guns) and gambling (because it exploits the poor).

once or twice is something...after that, you're terminating liitle people...there have to be limits

Even if a woman, somewhere, in some mythical land, was aborting babies for pure pleasure or as a method of birth control - who are you to say that she can't keep terminating her pregnancies?

Why does it even matter to you so much that you feel that there is an invisible line that must not be crossed?

I simply state that so many abortions are improper and usually unnecessary. I agree with the concepts of birth-control and pregnancy prevention, so if a woman didn't want a kid, she wouldn't have to have so many abortions. If she was unable to get birth-control, that is a separate issue which I'm very liberal on...namely, that antiquated ideas about leaving women with few choices should be vastly overhauled...but if she has access and still gets abortions, there's a problem.

Things of that sort.

I'm not so much pro-gun as I am pro constitution as it exists. We have no guns, just some pepper spray and attack kitties. But I respect others (others meaning sane, non felonious, mentally sound persons) right to own. But no automatics, RPG's etc.

That makes me conservative in some circles

Lots of people call themselves "fiscal conservatives" and with all due respect that's become a bullshit catagory. It means "I don't think money should be spent on stuff I don't care about."

I guess the closest thing I come to on in the "conservative" department is age ratings for TV, video, music, movies etc.

I just don't think it's in the best interests of kids or society at large for 10 year olds to be sold on S&M, pimping, etc. I could be all wrong here.......... but I've not yet heard why that should be honky dory or under what utopian conditions all parents will assume this responsibility.

1- pro-gun

2- Pro nuclear power

Let's discuss the nuclear issue later. :shrug: It needs discussing because there are valid opinions on both sides. But welcome!

... to extract hydrogen for FCV's - which is a blend of conservative and progressive (Like Nixon and the EPA).

All current methods of large scale hydrogen production tend to be very energy expensive since its not a very efficient process. With fuel cell technology on the verge of becoming an economically viable tech the infrastructre of this production will be need to increase the power supply enormously.

But anti-nuke weapons. Stuck in the middle again.

You're against choice. Choice of what I do with my money and choice of what entertainment I choose. That's beyond "conservative," its fascist. Boo to you, sir.

I believe in the preservation of life,from conception until its natural end. I've tried for years to come to a less rigid point of view,but nothing has been able to change my mind. It's been a struggle for me,but I've made my peace with balancing this position with my other beliefs. I will do nothing to prevent other people from doing as they choose in this,but neither can I support abortion as an issue or a "cause". Most people I have met who are as pro-life as I am agree with me about nothing else. This is really my only "conservative" or right-wing position,but I know it's a big one.If people want to flame me for it,feel free. I've tried for many years to come to another conclusion,but I just can't see it any other way.

It's known as the consistent (human) life ethic. I too oppose not only abortion, but also the death penalty, aggressive war, and discrimination (up to a reasonable point). In other words, we have to protect life, both born and unborn, and for any one of us to pick and choose renders one a hypocrite! This just in: the right doesn't exactly have a monopoly on hypocrisy; many lefties live a different kind of lie.


Abortion isn't the only issue where I "turn around and bat right." Other issues (let the flaming begin) include same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and guns (I changed my position on guns). I can't, in good conscience, support that. Besides, I think the argument which supports same-sex unions, under the banner of equality, is specious; it's absurd to assume that because it's OK for opposite sex couples to marry, it should be OK for same-sex couples. Marriage, even in its secular form, is about reproducing and raising the next generation, and for same-sex couples to do likewise requires intervention from a third party.

Nor can I condone euthanasia, or "death with dignity" as the "right to die" people (read: right to kill) would say. It makes the lives of sick, elderly, and disabled people expendable, and is more in line with fascism than liberalism.

I can't support a one-size-fits-all gun law. Urban/suburban and rural environments are totally different, so we can't apply rural gun standards to urban situations, or vice versa.

An embryo at the first stages of development has NO nervous system, and therefore NO mind, self or soul. I'm not certain where to draw the line (2 months? 3? 4?) but it certainly is NOT at conception.

You're entitled to your opinion,and your certainty that life doesn't begin at conception. I have a different view,and I don't see it changing...certainly comments like "you can't be serious" won't do it.

Life begins even before conception (sperms and eggs are alive, aren't they?) It's sentient/feeling/thinking/self-aware life that I believe sacred, and that implies, at the very least, a brain. Conception is nothing more than the selection of your genetic layout, and you're much much more than your genes.

Do you establish conception as "the line" based on the Bible or other sources?

As I said,I've tried to see it otherwise. I'm also against the death penalty,aggressive war(not in true defense)and euthanasia. I'm not lobbying against abortion,but I can never support it either.That's the best I can do:)

Sorta where I'm at, too, although I do believe their is a secular right to have one---up to a point.

And there are few positions which I'm "democrat" on - seeing as how these days it feels like an abbreviation for "conservative."

Republican party = politically conservative and socially conservative
Democratic party = politically moderate and socially moderate

Neither of the two parties are politically and socially liberal, and no alternative party will ever have a chance at significance unless the entire society comes down and is rebuilt from square one, which I don't forsee happening in a "happy" way, nor in the near future.

That's my cup of joy for the day. :D

I think antitrust law should be applied more vigorously as it was back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Trade protectionism, too. Excessively free trade is a recent change and a bad idea.

btw

By the way, the Sherman Act kicked off antitrust and that was 1890 -- what could be more conservative than the year 1890?

Mark Hannah, who was the string-puller for the party. Had McKinley lived, trust busting would never have been taken seriously. FDR, I believe, was the next president to take busting trusts seriously.

It's a lilberal notion.

Republicans love monopolies and hate economic competition and level playing fields.

Who is my candidate in '04 then?

was very big into anti-trust. Dissertation on anti-competitive practices in a specific industry. 1950s... funny you should say that - I think his dissertation was just in that time frame. He did a bit of consulting work and testifying before congress (and as a witness for one supreme court case) in the 60s and 70s. Thus, at least to me, anti-trust has always been defined as a New Deal sorta liberal thing (due to the source of my introduction).

I'm in favor of a society that is organically rooted in families and communities, with most higher-order functions being handled by ad hoc networking among communities, rather than by permanent governmental bodies.

I'm in favor of community control of local resources and sources of livelihood. I think that people should be intimately involved with the places they live and the work they do.

I'm in favor of gradual organic evolution of social structures as new needs become apparent, rather than sweeping theoretical systems imposed from above.

I believe that the more social transactions that can be handled by mutual trust and personal knowledge of the other participants, the better. I see online communities like this one as a way of extending that sort of mutuality beyond one's own local community. I believe that many of the impersonal and depersonalizing social institutions we now suffer under can be eliminated as the network of mutual trust is extended.

I'm in favor of religion that is rooted in the inner voice within each individual, and in an attentiveness to the "voices" of the beings and objects around us. I think that the concept of a transcendent deity, while mildly intriguing in a philosophical way, is best kept well away from daily life, since it tends to make people narrow-minded and intolerant.

Those are my core political beliefs. They are based on my best understanding of human nature and of what worked well for human beings during the first 200,000 or so years of their existence. That is my definition of a conservative philosophy.

... the ATF and FBI killed those women and children - but Ashcroft turned coat on that impulse at the first opportunity - he is big guv'mint now.

Mostly just a T-shirt with jeans or shit. Now politically you gotta be kidding me.

.

The Liberal Party of Canada mantra is "social responsability with fiscal accountability", that's where I stand. I wouldn't call it 'conservative' by any means.

I'd like to see education for the poor and middle class in the UK cheaper by having higher tuition fees and then use the money the rich kids pay to help pay for grants for people who can't afford university. I think charging a rich kid who goes to Oxford or Cambridge (which get half the education budget, and gives ten times the career opportunities) the same fee that a poor kid pays at a polytechnic is an outrageous subsidy for the privileged. I also think that it drives down starting wages when employers aren't forced to compensate students for the true cost of their education.

Educatioin should be progressively priced in the UK.

Marijuana, etc.

Although I would consider fiscal responsibility to officially be a liberal value now.

I hate that term for them, but it pretty much sums it up well. These are the laws enacted by the We Know What's Best For You lobby and they cut across both parties, but the Dems tend to be the first ones on board.

These laws force common sense-using people to be hampered by and subsidize the brainless.

Examples:

daytime running lights laws
21 drinking age
seat belt laws

etc. etc.

and helmet laws and drug laws and anything designed to protect me from myself. One of my favorite hobbies is jumping from airplanes. I keep expecting them to put a ban on that at some point.

I'm not really sure if that's a conservative-liberal thing though...more libertarian-authoritarian.



I'll say this much from reading this thread (i.e. anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-prison industry, pro-imperialist), I'm beginning to think I'm definitely on the wrong board.

You don't wear your seatbelts? You don't want people ahead of you to see your coming?

The alcohol one is pretty dumb, but understandable. Although the DUI stories would be kind of sad.

I just don't think it should be a concern of the government.

I got a $ 75 ticket recently.

The cop told me it was for my safety. Nice young man.

I told him I appreciated his concern, but as a 44 year old man, I don't need someone telling me how to sit properly in my chair.

When I learn more and more Dems are pro gun, I wonder how our party got where it is on gun control

I don't like abortion when it is used ONLY as birth control. I would like a Right To Life Bill in which Abortion (excluding health of the mother) and the Death Penalty are outlawed

Tort Reform - this is a tough one, because I don't want companies to ignore safety, but I hate ambulance chasing doctors and individuals winning millions for being stupid

Strong Military - because its a fucked up world with power hungry MFers, and that isn't limited to this country.

but I tend to be more supportive of the family structure--as demonstrated in Mediterranean cultures, compared to the present US model of warehousing children and our parents.

Also inclined to view that many of the strides in women's lib were at the expense of the values of nuturing and compassion. The liberation of women should not mean they elevate and emulate the traits of male dominance. Rather elevate the traits suppressed by male dominance.

Similar to Democrats beliving they have to imitate Republicans in order to compete with them.

Politically or...?

I'll give it a try, here:

1. There are certain things I like to conserve; to keep in safety,and protect from harm, decay, loss, or destruction:

Open space;
Ecosystems;
the planet;
human rights;
privacy;
independence...probably a few others.

2. While I firmly support the a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy, I don't like abortion. I like prevention. And I lean anti-choice the other direction; I don't think everyone should be able to pop out baby after baby that they abuse, neglect, or don't nurture. That comes from having spent 2 decades working with other people's children, I guess.

3. I'm conservative when it comes to population growth. A fiscal conservative is frugal with money, advocates reducing debt, etc.
I advocate reducing the number of humans we expect the planet to support through lowering the birth rate.

4. I object to conspicuous consumption.

Are these things conservative?

the underpinning of democracy.

Since we don't seem to have an accepted definition for 'conservative', I'll use examples where I self-identify as conservative:

1.) 2nd Amendment: I am a gun-totin' liberal. My support for gun control begins somewher in the vicinity of assault weapons and tactical nuclear weapons; otherwise, butt out!

2.) Fiscal-responsibility and balanced budgets: I believe that all governments should, except in times of great national emergency, live within their means. I have no great problem with 'progressive' ideas and legislation, but I believe that NO law should be enacted requiring the expenditure of public monies WITHOUT and corresponding appropriations bill being introduced at the same time. No money = no program.

3.) "Nanny Laws": I find seat-belt laws, laws against gambling, prostitution and 'illicit' drugs to be the best (though hardly the only) examples of these. If I want to drive without a seat belt, that is my right; if I am involved in an accident wherein I am injured, that's MY fault. Similarly, if I want to pay for a quality piece of ass, and we are both consenting adults, what business is it of yours, or anyone else's? I am of a *distinctly* "Libertarian" bent in this area.

4.) Crimes involving guns, or physical injury to the victim: *ANY* crime involving the use of a firearm should result in an automatic, non-suspendable, non-probationable prison term *independent of* any sentence received for the underlying criminal offense, period. Crimes which result in physical injury to the victim, such as domestic battery, aggravated battery, felony assault, sexual battery, child molestation, etc., should result in *mandatory* jail or prison time, period; if you are going to behave like an animal, you should be caged like an animal.

Those are my 'big' conservative issues.

Because neo-conservatives beat their breasts about them?

It might surprise folks to know that at Michigan Dem conventions there are pro-gun groups, anti-abortion groups, etc. that meet at any convention function. Things things aren't necessarily owned by "conservatives" on the political scene, it's just that conservatives beat their breasts about them as the most "American" of themes, and play on peeps' emotions.

It's time not to let the right-wing define American life. Liberalism isn't defined necessarily by one or two issues. While we can disagree on gun rights or abortion, folks who are pro-gun and anti-abortion should still accepted in the party. There are other, more compelling, reasons for these folks to be in the party. Why lose them on one or two issues?

I don't consider myself "conservative" because I might not follow generally accepted party guidelines on some social issues.

School funding favors the rich districts, and you are worried about music?

Poor people lose their teeth because they can't afford dental care, and you are worried about music?

Black people are still discriminated against in hiring, and you are worried about music?

Racial profiling by law enforcement is ongoing, and you are worried about music?

The tax burden is being shifted onto the working class, and you are worried about music?

Our economy is about to collapse due to an energy shortage because energy policy is written by oil company lobbyists, and you are worried about music?

Our government tried to overthrow two governments in two years (Venezuela and Iraq), and you are worried about music?

I'm very pro-family, I'd LOVE to just be a housewife and tons of kids :D

I'm very pro-gun, if we ban guns only ones who would have guns would be criminals.

I'm pro-death penalty, just put yourself in the position of someone who got your family murdered. Then imagine the criminal just gets life sentence.

I'm pro low-taxes, i think income tax could be lowered quite alot if we taxed big business correctly. We are wasting alot of money of stupid stuff while big business harldy pay any tax.


I'll see if i come up with anything else

And I STILL am against the death penalty.

And many people who, sadly, were put in that position for real are too. There was a big case here in Brazil where a famous actress was murdered. A reporter interviewed the grieving mother and tried to bait her, asking if she would like Brazil to have DP. She said NO. I greatly respect that woman.

I'm pretty religious too, unfortunately conservatives have kidnapped that so I guess I'll write that here aswell.

I dont mind a Christian President at all aslong as he doesn't dictate Americas politics in some religious way

I hunt and have a concealed handgun liscense.

which should be a conservative position--which just goes to show how the republican party perverts even their own movement.

my position on tv, i guess could be considered conservative.

i saw an ad last night featuring some guys bare butt as he attempted to impale himself on porcupine quills. i mean...wtf?

just can't stand the stuff....

these kids these days running around with lint in their belly buttons just pisses me off....

...and I think that's all. "Orthodox" liberal in all other fronts.

Re: 1) Gambling has NO redeeming qualities, although a few state-run lotteries are acceptable.

Re: 2) Think about it: Liberalism, Enlightenment, Humanism, Socialism... all are Western inventions!

... like another poster, here.

And ditto on Western Culture - I think tolerance of other cultures is paramount in a democracy, but we shouldn't pretend like reason-centric cultures aren't more stable.

nm

These are mainly right leaning.

I am for the death penalty with DNA testing.
I conceptually support free trade.
I do not want to legalize any drugs including weed.
I believe in inprisonment and rehab together.

I like the Anti-ballistic missle program if we can get Russia and China to agree. Mainly Russia.

I want to limit immigration. Not close the doors.
I am sympathetic to the gun rights issue. Though idealy I would like to get the guns out of people's homes.

I don't know why I should be against school vouchers.

Glad to see gambling on a lot of people's lists. Gambling is just an organized scam against people who don't understand math. People who make money from gambling are reprehensible con artists.

"Gambling is just an organized scam against people who don't understand math"

:pals: Math geeks unite!

... and they don't call it 'probability' for nothing.

I don't own one, but have no problem with people who legally purchase handguns. I do think the NRA should put more of their money into safety training in poor neighborhoods. I'd have more respect for them.

I do support the assualt rifle ban. I liked Clark's comment about that.

I do not wish to see the right of women to choose diminished either.

I don't really see these as conservative positions because mine beliefs/practices are much more nuanced. I do support some reasonable forms of gun control. I don't believe people need to own heavy machineguns and anti-tank weapons.

Flame away!

On edit: It seems to me that many of us here at DU say we subscribe to a few conservative positions such as "strong military" but I don't see the right wingers as having a monopoly on strong military. We just have different ideas on what makes a military strong and how much money it will take. Abortion is another issue. I would guess that most of us, while espousing pro-choice, do not feel comfortable with abortion- we would not like to be in a position to have to choose.

Conservatives...at least of the Barry Goldwater kind...should be against all kinds of government intrusion in people's homes. That should, to me, include the right to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home. Well, that's my interpretation, anyway.

I'm against this idiotic "war". Declare victory and decriminalize all drugs.

I had a friend in High School who used abortion as birth control and she had about 5 or 6 of them.
I hated her for what she was doing and she must have been sick in the head.

I think that you should only be able to have one abortion unless you are raped or your health or the babies health is in danger.


The 10 commandments can be posted at a court house and if someone doesn't want to look at it let them turn their head. The monument in Alabama should have been left their because it wasn't hurting anyone.

I'm pretty much your gold-standard, card-carrying liberal on every issue.

I may veer off into libertarian areas sometimes, but never on the conservative side.

Conserve what's best about America.

Other than that, I'm as Liberal as the day is long. And proud.

1) In favor of gun ownership with common sense regulation.

2) Oppose deficit spending except for wartime and recession.

3) Oppose cash payments for welfare (prefer a Living Wage paid by
the employer).

4) In favor of First Amendment rights, no matter how repulsive the
opinion might be.

-Against gambling, too.

-The big one I can think of: While officially supportive of abortion, I have severe reservations about its use in cases where the mother's health is not threatened.

In the event of rape, I'd find it preferable that the rapist (in addition to his other punishments) be forced to pay for costs related to the pregnancy; if the rapist isn't captured, then the government should pay them. If the mother does not wish to keep the baby once born, it should be moved to an adoptive household as quickly as possible.

In the event of being financially unable to care for a coming child, the mother should have the option of arranging an adoption as with rape.

BUT, I do not believe that someone should be told that they cannot have an abortion, period.

-Whether this is or isn't strictly a conservative position, I'm not really sure, but I support the exploration and colonization of space to the fullest extent possible. I would even go so far as to say that if the only way to do so were to take money away from enivronmental concerns, then so be it, though in my opinion the money would be more properly diverted from military spending.

-I am probably one of the few people in the U.S. who think it would be really, really awesome to have a king or queen or other monarch instead of a president (though with strictly limited powers, of course). Since this is the ultimate lost cause in American politics (the issue hasn't even come up since the 1700s!), I can only assume that this is a conservative position.

What kind of powers? Wow - I am actually shocked, but would love to hear more about this idea.

1) military / national security...I'm practically a neo-con compared to some of the people on this board, who seem to think we could resolve hostilities with our adversaries by sitting down with some international coffee and talking about our feelings.

2) opposition to communism

3) environment...I think the environmentalists are increasingly shrill and hysterical despite the fact that our treatment of the environment is vastly better than it was even 20 years ago and is getting better all the time

The biggest reason is that it is a regressive form of taxation, and as you point out, it is destructive to families. I have never bought a lottery ticket for that reason. Dean is against gambling also.

Support the right to bear arms, but not semi-automatic assault weapons.

Conservative of the environment.

Conservative of our willingness to wage war. Only support necessary wars, not pre-emptive strikes as PNAC justifies.

Fiscally conservative in regards to our corporate subsidies, e.g., deficit spending, subsidies to oil, automobile, airline, mining, corporate farming, and lumbering industries.

I do not agree that the entire abortion issue can or should be summed up as "women should have the right to choose", end-of-discussion. But nor do I believe that abortion should be made illegal all the way back to conception.

I would look to science for different perspectives on the issue. If brain waves started at 6 months, perhaps the issue would be less controversial. Even though they start at 6 weeks, I think there are differences in the brain waves in an embryo compared to a young infant -- corresponding to different states of consciousness. And in the first trimester, nature aborts a high percentage of embryos.

A very interesting book called Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy -- she's very pro-choice and a feminist -- talked realistically about the challenges and choices of motherhood from an evolutionary perspective. I believe that a wholistic answer to the abortion question must look at issues such as 1) creating a more supportive environment for raising children 2) increasing awareness of the facts of the body including both sexuality and fetal development 3) understanding the ramifications of choices and the variety of family situations which lead women to make the decisions they do.

I believe that politicians should also have "a right to choose" -- i.e, the two parties should stop herding candidates onto a party line on either side of the fence. I would prefer that Democrats and Republicans stop pretending that it is a simple issue and admit that there are serious consequences on both sides.

Whichever political party learns to think this way is going win alot of elections in the future when abortion becomes more of an active issue.

I'm pro-gun ownership: if the NRA would start some actual real and thoughtful outreach, Columbine would not have happened (sorry, Mr. Moore)

I'm cheap: tax me only for roads, K-college schools, healthcare for all, cops (real, not rent), firefighters, libraries, senior centers, reasonable national defense, the post office, the internet (which should be free, thank you DARPA), and government salaries. (I'm sure I've left something important out)

I am all for keeping the wall between church and state high, thick, and topped with barbed wire.

?

The current Governer of CA should help doubters to understand that there do need to be checks to the vagaries of public opinion.

FWIW, being anti-hip-hop is like saying you are against dancing. As a social phenomenon, there is only so much influence music can have. You may want to think of new ways to concentrate your mental energies on the topics of education, black culture and African American history.

I'd say I'm pro gun-rights - BUT with licensing (like cars) - No automatic weapons obviously.

I'm certainly pro-nuke power. Man, after learning what a nuclear powered sub can do - it's hard not to be amazed at the possibilities. The focus on nuke power should be in safety and redundant protection in case of any problems.

Not totally comfortable with affirmative action.

Wish we could stop surgical abortions by making chemical "abortions" (morning after , RU486,etc) more available.

I tend to think welfare should take a more proactive role in helping those on it get off of it. Or at least doing something that will bring a sense of 'working for it' (some small amount of community service, etc) - It's too easy to get in to a self imposed rut on welfare as it is.

That's about it - I think.

affirmative action (I believe it is racist), gun control, education (choice, vouchers, and homeschooling are good the state level), CFR (I'm with the ACLU here on pragmatic and principled grounds), foreign policy to some extent (I believe unilateralism is justified in the case of rogue states with nuclear weapons and/or harboring international terrorists), and fiscal restraint with spending (I feel social security should be streamlined from a political gift to old people to a genuine safety net, for instance).

Jay

I have my reservations about the idea but I have serious reservations about the system we have now. It is failing inner city kids and quite frankly, I am tired of all these Democrats, many of whom send their own kids to private school, opposing vouchers and insisting that inner city kids stay in schools they would never in a zillion years send their own children to.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

... but within the public school framework.

However, a radically revamped death penalty. And I don't need any government coming in and playing my ma-ma or da-da. I don't feel I need protection from myself. If I want to smoke a joint, I should be able to. If I wanna have sex with a prostitute, it is my business. If I want to drive around without a seatbelt or helmet, it is my right. I don't smoke pot, have sex with prostitutes, or drive around without a seatbelt or helmet, but I should be able to if I so choose.

When on public highways, you have to follow the law. It's not for your sake - if some idiot gets hurt because he didn't wear his seatbelt or helmet, he has only himself to blame - but injured drivers have a way of hurting other people too.

Drive around on your own property without a seatbelt or a helmet.

I said that I DO in fact wear my seatbelt. If I drove a motorcycle I would wear a helmet. But if I DO NOT want to it should be my right not to.

I don't want burquas of course, but do we really need to see so many navels? Butt cracks? Our local high school cracked down on bare stomachs, hats, spaghetti straps - I felt like an old fogie but I was glad they did.

... but I definitely agree.

is that a conservative position?... LOL, if hiphop is bad... -C

I still have some residual paleo-con left in me.

1: Pro-life - I'm an Agnostic. Since I believe we only have one life, this life is precious. Never understood why the fundies care about abortion. Wouldn't the baby, in their view, just go straight to heaven and not have to deal with this hellhole we call life?

2: Anti-illegal immigration - I fully support legal immigrants, but detest illegal immigrants. I consider them low-life criminals on the same level as thieves.


My liberal side: pro-gay rights, anti-WOD, anti-corporate abuse, helping the elderly and poor, etc. outweigh my few conservative positions.

Specifically the civil right of bearing arms.

I am definatley *not* pro-gun, to start off!

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to what another poster called "nanny laws". Try telling me not to smoke on the fucking sidewalk, and you will find out for yourself. I don't wear a seat belt, put me in jail!!

I have mixed feelings about the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban, because I know from anecdotical evidence that late-term abortions have been abused. I don't believe it's an open door to overturning Roe v. Wade, as many fear. If Roe survived Reagan and two Bushes, it will survive this. Even the rethugs know the majority of Americans won't accept a ban on legal abortions.

I don't believe in persecuting illegal immigrants, but I don't have the "let'em all in!" attitude that I see a lot of people have here. I think giving out licenses to illegals is absurd. What next, social security cards? It's bad enough Atta and crew could get their hands on fake licenses, should we have made it even easier?

I think the way our kids our force-fed the worst kind of "sexuality" through the media is sickening and degrading. It has nothing to do with the very natural sexuality and curiosity that children have growing up and everything to do with brainwashing them with images of twisted, sexist and dehumanizing "sex" to sell them shit. It robs them of their own sexuality and humanity.

I don't consider fiscal responisiblity a "conservative" agenda.

I am not a passivist. There are very rare times when forceful action is necessary, imho.

for psychopaths - and when I say psychopath I mean as defined by Dr. Robert Hare - who commit premeditated murder(s). Those who don't kill but do serious damage through repeated scams and major crimes affecting large numbers of people should be locked up for life and forced to do some kind of socially valuable or necessary work.

That's about as conservative as I get, without inviting nitpicky debates I'm not equipped for. In general, if it prevents a significant portion of the population from being neglected, abused, or physically injured, I'm for it. And if it's based on religious principles or motivated by greed, I'm against it.

If there is anything that represents a "liberal elite" that actually hates working people, this is it.

A regressive tax on habits indulged in by and large by working people, espoused by "liberals" who are going to save us from ourselves and not have to breathe smoke at public gatherings.

Thanks much "liberals".

For the following (liberal)reasons

1. The rich do not gamble at the same rate at the poor, gambling worsens our position in the class warfare battle and for me class struggle trumps libertarian sensibilities.

2. Tabacco if used correctly results in death. Not only that but its use is a burden on the collective resources of society in terms of healthcare and lost productivity. Unlike other vices such as alcohol or pot there is no medicinal value in using tabacco and its effects are hard to limit to the individual.

3.Peaceful use of nuclear energy sure beats pumping tons of CO2, mercury and other shit into the air and unlike oil does not tie us to the middle east. Additionally for the energy gained the waste is very small both in volume and mass. Seems logical to me.

... right after 9/11. Echoing what Will Pitt said earlier in this thread, I guess I believe now that if they're all going to have guns, I'd better have one, too.

And I'd also add that my other "conservative" view is that I'm not inherently distrustful of the military, and in fact admire certain aspects of it. The existence of the power itself isn't what makes me lose sleep at night; it's the oft-misguided use of that power that troubles me, and I just don't blame it on the military itself.

That's really all I can come up with. I rock with the liberal side of most of the other issues. :-)

This is a really intriguing question... thanks for posing it, the_real_38.

...n/t

I'm pro-death penalty when it comes to republicans or the christian right.

While we've lost millions of jobs to China, that country is gradually opening up and is headed in the right direction socially. It may take a generation or two, but it is getting there. And, yes, I know there are still a lot of problems in China with repression and lack of civil rights... but, it is more open than just 10 years ago.

Now, we have to balance that out with stricter, enforceable international laws on protecting the environment, safe working conditions for all workers, minimum wages, etc. And, we also have to train (or re-train) and educate the American workforce better.

I would also say that while I support bilingual education (in fact, I think Americans should get earlier & more education in foreign languages), I think everybody should be taught English from the beginning.

... I'm for playing hardball with them on this currency issue - where they're reneging on free market principles by pegging their (under-valued) yuan to the dollar.

Plus, they get most favored nation status - it's time to stop spotting them points. They're ready to trade with the big boys, they can play by the same rules.

They'll get there eventually. I'm guessing it won't be till after the 2008 Olympics, though.

1. Pro 2nd Amendment rights
2. Don't like affirmative action (I think everyone should be treated equally)
3. Don't like abortions after a certain point in development of the fetus (unless the mother's health is at risk)
4. Pro nuclear power until we find something better (coal power sucks)

I would say fiscal responsibility, but the neocons lately are anything BUT fiscally responsible.

not whippings and dunce hat conservative, but i'd be way, way quicker to give the teachers power to deal with things. i'd also be way quicker to put kids in alterntive programs, at least temporarily. i also would make graduation mandatory, if i could.

especially gun control and abortion.