This is from a chat on a chair lift while skiing. Clearly OT, but perhaps
topical for this ever present liberal-conservative issue in the NG.

Does conservatism mean gov't should not interfere as much as is possible in
the lives of citizens? If so, how do those who want less gov't
interference - perhaps we could call them "fiscal conservatives" - find
themselves allied with "social conservatives" re issues like gay marriage,
abortion rights, public prayer, etc. Freedom from gov't interference
should mean freedom to live your life as you so choose? How does it offend
my lifestyle is someone wants to live contrary to the way I do? Is the
alliance between the fiscal and social conservative a thinly disguised
religious agenda? Can't say as I know the answers, but there sure are alot
of people prepared to boss others around, and they come from all levels
between socialist and conservative. Frankly, fiscal responsibility but
with non-interference in others' lives sounds more conservative than the
current social policies I see stated by conservatives. Maybe this is just
trying to appeal to voters and ideals be damned.

Where are these fiscal conservatives you speak of?

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:13:00 -0600, uncle arnie
wrote:

This is from a chat on a chair lift while skiing. Clearly OT, but perhaps
topical for this ever present liberal-conservative issue in the NG.

Does conservatism mean gov't should not interfere as much as is possible in
the lives of citizens? If so, how do those who want less gov't
interference - perhaps we could call them "fiscal conservatives" - find
themselves allied with "social conservatives" re issues like gay marriage,
abortion rights, public prayer, etc. Freedom from gov't interference
should mean freedom to live your life as you so choose? How does it offend
my lifestyle is someone wants to live contrary to the way I do? Is the
alliance between the fiscal and social conservative a thinly disguised
religious agenda? Can't say as I know the answers, but there sure are alot
of people prepared to boss others around, and they come from all levels
between socialist and conservative. Frankly, fiscal responsibility but
with non-interference in others' lives sounds more conservative than the
current social policies I see stated by conservatives. Maybe this is just
trying to appeal to voters and ideals be damned.

"David" wrote in message
...
Where are these fiscal conservatives you speak of?


They are called Democrats.


On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:13:00 -0600, uncle arnie
wrote:

This is from a chat on a chair lift while skiing. Clearly OT, but perhaps
topical for this ever present liberal-conservative issue in the NG.

Does conservatism mean gov't should not interfere as much as is possible
in
the lives of citizens? If so, how do those who want less gov't
interference - perhaps we could call them "fiscal conservatives" - find
themselves allied with "social conservatives" re issues like gay marriage,
abortion rights, public prayer, etc. Freedom from gov't interference
should mean freedom to live your life as you so choose? How does it offend
my lifestyle is someone wants to live contrary to the way I do? Is the
alliance between the fiscal and social conservative a thinly disguised
religious agenda? Can't say as I know the answers, but there sure are alot
of people prepared to boss others around, and they come from all levels
between socialist and conservative. Frankly, fiscal responsibility but
with non-interference in others' lives sounds more conservative than the
current social policies I see stated by conservatives. Maybe this is just
trying to appeal to voters and ideals be damned.

Balanced budgets for Cdn federal and majority of provincial gov'ts in
Canada. Tax breaks for all of us both federally and provincially.

David wrote:

Where are these fiscal conservatives you speak of?

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:13:00 -0600, uncle arnie
wrote:

This is from a chat on a chair lift while skiing. Clearly OT, but perhaps
topical for this ever present liberal-conservative issue in the NG.

Does conservatism mean gov't should not interfere as much as is possible
in
the lives of citizens? If so, how do those who want less gov't
interference - perhaps we could call them "fiscal conservatives" - find
themselves allied with "social conservatives" re issues like gay marriage,
abortion rights, public prayer, etc. Freedom from gov't interference
should mean freedom to live your life as you so choose? How does it offend
my lifestyle is someone wants to live contrary to the way I do? Is the
alliance between the fiscal and social conservative a thinly disguised
religious agenda? Can't say as I know the answers, but there sure are alot
of people prepared to boss others around, and they come from all levels
between socialist and conservative. Frankly, fiscal responsibility but
with non-interference in others' lives sounds more conservative than the
current social policies I see stated by conservatives. Maybe this is just
trying to appeal to voters and ideals be damned.