What are you politically?

[Gustaf]

If I had to lable myself, I would have to say that I am a compassionate conservative/neo-con.

When it comes to social issues, I'm split.  I believe in strong law enforcment, but I'm against the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.  

I am passionatly pro-life.  I personaly would never recomend someone get an abortion under any circumstances, but wouldn't oppose allowing it legally in RILM cases.  I am pro-national Civil Unions, but not certain about gay marriage, although I tend MORE toward pro.  

I believe in social programs, and think that they are nessesary and moral, to a point.  I am for government health care for the very poor, but not Universal Health Care.

I am definatly in favor of traditional family life, but aggree with the ideas of the ERA, if not the acctual amendement.

I am pro-lower taxes.  I don't believe that ANYONE should have to hand more than 30% of their income to the federal government.  Optimally, I would say 25%.

I am VERY anti-regulation.  Government regulation is the great thief of American ingenuity and enterprise.

I am VERY pro-military intervention.  I have no problem with interviening in places where we have no real interests at stake, in fact I believe it to be our responsibility to the world to do so.  WMD or no WMD, the Iraq War was the right decision.

Thanks, Supersoulty, you basically saved med the trouble of writing a post of my own.

I am really moderate I think on both issues, but I voted conservative on economy and liberal on social issues.

[Gustaf]

On behalf of myself, Gustaf, and others, I would like to note for the record that economic conservative/social liberal remains in the lead by a wide margin.

There, now go about your daily lives.

I think that, in an abstract, idealistic sense, everyone is an economic conservative/social liberal.  Who *isn't* for freedom?  This was, by far, the most common political philosophy I encountered in college.  People should be free to do what they want, live the way they want, without government interference and taxes.

When you get into the real world, things get more complex.  You start to see the consequences of too much freedom.  You learn that sometimes the absense of government leads to the natural, unjust domination of the strong over the weak.  You learn that some stuff has to be paid for by everyone, and we share a world in which our actions have an effect on everyone else.  Hard-core libertarianism gets softened after time.

Just my $0.02.

Very true. That's what happened to me.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was cruel...LOL

The baseball part really should have tipped you off...

[Gustaf]

I'm liberal with some conservative leanings. And when I say liberal I don't mean pseudo-socialist like in America and I don't mean libertarian like some people do, I mean actually liberal. Basically, I believe that politics should focus on the rights and needs of the individual, and should never, ever sacrifice an individual for some abstract greater good that is fundamentally irrelevant to human beings.

And in the popular terminology of the forum, I'm socially moderately libertarian and economically very centrist. I believe in the free market and in the economic freedom of the individual but also in our obligation to provide quite a bit of things for those who need our assistance.

[Gustaf]

I am conservative on social issues, but am practically a socialist when it comes to economics. The social issues matter a tad more to me. I don't agree with a single thing Bush has done for the economy, but he is strong on defense, and strong on family values.

I reckon I'm spot on center.  Swing voter.  On social issues I'm way down near the bottom, but they don't generally affect my vote so much.  On the important stuff, though, I'm about as centrist as they come.  Or so that's what the tests say.  In reality, I take leftist positions on some issues (e.g., when in doubt I'd go with environmental protection over its alternative) and I take rightist positions on others (I'm very much opposed to any form of socialized medicine) so on those tests I always come up with zero. 

I think we may have some overlap on Bush.  I think he's stronger of defense than either of his two most recent rivals, Gore and Kerry.  I can't say I'm with him on stuff like gay marriage, though.  But then that's not as relevant to me as defense.

I also think we agree that Bush has turned out to be a really big spender of the public money.  Bigger than his predecessor, for whom I also voted.  In fact, I am no longer convinced that Republicans are really more conservative than Democrats, necessarily, on the issues that matter.  Not that I'd consider voting for Clinton's wife, mind you, but I'd pick Obama over a big spender if the republicans want to try their luck with another big spender like Bush next time (e.g., Giuliani).  So if you want your party to win, you might try going back to your fiscally responsible roots.

wanting the Republicans to win=getting Angus's vote?