President Romney?

[iris lily]

....I am a woman of faith...

Gosh, congrats! When did that change take place?

[Zigzagman]

Gosh, congrats! When did that change take place?

"This is from Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop."

I guess the issue is not important to you, Lilly? Times change - if that is the prevailing opinion of most women that who the heck am I to care? Nanny government at it's best. The conservative female mind is something to behold.

Peace

[Spartana]

You often hear people refer to themselves as “social liberals and fiscal conservatives”, but I wonder what that means in practical terms. Keep my entitlements coming, but don’t tax me? Allow the free market to operate, except for critical items like health care, food, energy and education? Keep government value-free, but crack down on hate speech? Legalize drugs and regulate fast food? Guard us but don’t watch us?

I think its probably easier to define “fiscal conservative”, because you can quantify it in terms of budgets and deficits. My problem is more on the “social liberal” side. Should that be taken in the libertarian, let-me-starve-but-leave-me-alone sense, or in the progressive we’re-all-responsible-for-each-other-so-pay-your-dues-to-the-common-good sense?

For me the "social liberal" is more about social issues rather than increasing or even maintaining many of our current entitlements. It's about protecting constitutional freedoms, civil liberties, and equallity for all - i.e supporting Gay marriage, women in combat, etc... It's not giving Octo-Mom a life of luxury on the tax payer dime. And of course as far as entitlements go, I have no problem with increased taxes for thibgs like universal healthcare, education, or the military. The military is our biggest social entitlement after all. A fully tax payer funded protection program for all citizens and US interests at home and abroad (whether we like it or not :-)!). Haven't seen too mant privately funded militias around lately - Halliburtons Green Mountain Boys anyone? "Fiscally conservative" would mean to keep govmint out of the free market (other than corporations paying their fair share of taxes and being minimally regulated for public safety and environmental protection reasons) and let it sink or swim on it's own. No bailouts for corporations or their shareholders. When you choose to invest in a company , you shouldn't expect taxpayer funds to rescue you if it all goes south. And the same if you live beyond your means in a home that is too expensive, then you sink or swim with the rest of the corporate world and investors.

[loosechickens]

Of course, the legislators so insistent on coercing women to bear unwanted children lose their concern for said children the minute they exit the womb into the world. That's what gets me.....all those guys SO concerned about the welfare of a fetus, and with so little concern at all for all the already born children who lack food, clothing, good education, health care, etc. Give me a break!
Those guys never found a fetus they didn't want to force a woman to bear, but never found an already born child that they gave a tinker's dam for what quality of life might await him or her after exiting said womb.

[redfox]

Where will the revenue needed for entitlements come from?

Where is the revenue for all these frickin' wars coming from? I'd rather support social security and health care than wars. Entitlements help keep our populace healthy... wars kill people. That's my pro-life stance.

[Catwoman]

Re: the ultrasound before the abortion: well, ya have to have a blood test before you get married. Looking at your fetus on a screen before you abort...hmmm, if you are determined to abort anyway, what's the big deal? Also, ultrasounds to check size, postion, etc on fetuses are not done with a probe.

[Alan]

Where is the revenue for all these frickin' wars coming from? I'd rather support social security and health care than wars. Entitlements help keep our populace healthy... wars kill people. That's my pro-life stance.

I think you should petition your congress on this. You know our latest foray into war hasn't been approved by congress yet and the time limitations on the war powers act have expired and there's really no difference between a war and a "kinetic action". Someone really needs to be held accountable for such things.

[Gregg]

Of course, the legislators so insistent on coercing women to bear unwanted children lose their concern for said children the minute they exit the womb into the world. That's what gets me.....all those guys SO concerned about the welfare of a fetus, and with so little concern at all for all the already born children who lack food, clothing, good education, health care, etc. Give me a break!
Those guys never found a fetus they didn't want to force a woman to bear, but never found an already born child that they gave a tinker's dam for what quality of life might await him or her after exiting said womb.

Agreed, with an exception. There are circumstances where young women are basically encouraged to have more children because of the way some welfare programs work. There are very real monetary incentives in the form of ever increasing monthly payments meant to support more and more children when the parent(s) *can't*. The IDEA behind the program is valid and the right thing to do. The way those programs are set up simply encourage abuse so they need to be overhauled. As long as you're reworking it why not limit payments to a maximum of one/two/? children and provide birth control to anyone who asks for it. That is the socially liberal view of this fiscal conservative. BTW...abortion is between a woman and her God (and her man in a perfect world). My government doesn't fit in that puzzle.

[Alan]

BTW...abortion is between a woman and her God (and her man in a perfect world). My government doesn't fit in that puzzle.

Now if you had said 'birth control' instead of abortion I could easily agree with you. If government will not protect the weakest among us, those without a voice, what good is it?

[peggy]

Now if you had said 'birth control' instead of abortion I could easily agree with you. If government will not protect the weakest among us, those without a voice, what good is it?

The weakest among us? You mean, like the elderly on a very limited fixed income? You mean, like people who cannot afford health care for themselves or their families? You're right! Gee Alan, welcome to the reasonable side of universal health care. You're absolutely right. We SHOULD take care of the weakest PEOPLE among us, i.e. medicare for the elderly. And general health care for everyone else, just like Romney did in Mass. Thank you.