Are there any fiscal conservatives who are NOT social conservatives? (legal, drugs)

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Then they are either truly confused about those terms, or complete idiots. One cannot be both.

To me liberal does not mean "pay for".

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by nature's message

Don't libertarians fit in this category?

Libertarians are nothing more than closet anarchists.

[Willsson]

I support small government that keeps its hands out of my pockets and its nose out of my ass. At all levels.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Driller1

To me liberal does not mean "pay for".

Tell me about it. For the last four years we had nothing but social liberals in Congress spending more than we have. They certainly are not "paying for it", our future generations will be the ones footing the bill. Like I said, social liberals are fiscally irresponsible, therefore, they cannot be fiscal conservatives. They are diametrically opposed terms.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Glitch

That is not possible. To be socially liberal means you want government to spend more than we have on social problems, which is not being fiscally conservative. They call that being fiscally irresponsible.

That would be FISCALLY liberal. Social liberalism advocates that the government should NOT be involved in personal behavior choices that don't adversely affect others. Social/fiscal conservatives are the ones I consider hypocrites because they don't want big government except in areas of personal behavior.

[bobtn]

Amen, Amaznjohn. Wanting smaller gov't includes not having gov't making choices in individuals lives. Pat Buchanan's Pitchfork team NEED NOT apply.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Ron Paul's ideology of personal freedom and responsibility isn't good enough for you?

Ron Paul isn't for personal freedom.....he just thinks the states should take away those freedoms instead of the fed.

That is why he wants to turn abortion rights over to the states.....so women can lose their personal freedoms......one state at a time.

If he were truly for personal freedom.....he would support Roe v Wade instead of advocating for its demise.

His back door approach to banning abortion isn't fooling anyone.

[bobtn]

Annie, If Roe were overturned and I'm not advocating it, only a handful of states would enact bans. Its not 1965 anymore. Many states banning than have changed so dramatically they would not ban now.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

That would be FISCALLY liberal.

That is precisely my point. If someone is truly a fiscal conservative, then they cannot be socially liberal. Only those who are fiscally liberal can be socially liberal.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Social liberalism advocates that the government should NOT be involved in personal behavior choices that don't adversely affect others. Social/fiscal conservatives are the ones I consider hypocrites because they don't want big government except in areas of personal behavior.

You have that exactly backwards. Social conservatives do not want government involved in any social issues, social liberals want nothing but government involvement in every social issue. Which is what makes them fiscally irresponsible.

[bobtn]

Glitch, Social conservs are BIG gov't, simply big in involving gov't in individuals choices ..i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. BANS = Gov't involvement.

They are hypocrites.

Libertarians are small gov't in EVERY sense.