NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people tend to be fiscal conservatives, others ino the whole social platform as well..so just out of curiousity -how conservative are you?
I'm sorry if I couldn't capture everyone-

Wha.. there was supposed to be another option as well...
Oh heck if you're a lot more moderate let evry1 know

None of the above.

I dont agree with any of these options....I guess I'm an oddity

Wha.. there was supposed to be another option as well...
Oh heck if you're a lot more moderate let evry1 know

If moderate is what were calling it then, yeah. I'm a lot more of that. Just out of curiosity, what was the fourth option supposed to be?

I'm into Fiscal Responsibility, and more efficient Government. I believ in tax cuts (although i do or do not have problems with the ones Bush passed).. and yes I nearly voted Democrat once ...scary

So Peri-Pella, where do you put people who think that as a nation we should be fiscally responsible, but that doesn't mean we should cut services--it means that we should have a level of taxation that allows the government to provide services that benefit all citizens and that we should pay for those services as we go? Where do you put people who think that taxes are the dues we pay for an advanced society, not an onerous burden that should be shirked at the earliest responsibility?

I'm into Fiscal Responsibility, and more efficient Government. I believ in tax cuts (although i do or do not have problems with the ones Bush passed).. and yes I nearly voted Democrat once ...scary

Yeah, that would have to fit me best. I do belive in fiscal responsibility. But to me, responsibility means taking a lot from dirty rich people and spending a lot.

I'm into Fiscal Responsibility, and more efficient Government. I believ in tax cuts (although i do or do not have problems with the ones Bush passed).. and yes I nearly voted Democrat once ...scary

Yeah, that would have to fit me best. I do belive in fiscal responsibility. But to me, responsibility means taking a lot from dirty rich people and spending a lot.


I say when a person makes over 1 million dollars a year we get a company that mugs them and steals their money

Well you're pretty much like me then! except htat i'm a little more into free trade and the like and do think that we should encourage moral behaviour thru incentives..anyway ..that I think that might put you in the fifth category..though you might fast be becoming a minority..

sorry my last post was in reply to Incertonia..

Well you're pretty much like me then! except htat i'm a little more into free trade and the like and do think that we should encourage moral behaviour thru incentives..anyway ..that I think that might put you in the fifth category..though you might fast be becoming a minority..Actually, I think our numbers are growing. I'm in favor of free trade as well, as long as there are built in protections for workers in those countries we trade in and environmental protections as well. Our current free trade policies with countries like China and Honduras, just to name a couple, aren't free and they aren't fair.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by moral behavior through incentives, although if you're talking about using education to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion and the like, then I'm probably in agreement.

Well you're pretty much like me then! except htat i'm a little more into free trade and the like and do think that we should encourage moral behaviour thru incentives..anyway ..that I think that might put you in the fifth category..though you might fast be becoming a minority..Actually, I think our numbers are growing. I'm in favor of free trade as well, as long as there are built in protections for workers in those countries we trade in and environmental protections as well. Our current free trade policies with countries like China and Honduras, just to name a couple, aren't free and they aren't fair.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by moral behavior through incentives, although if you're talking about using education to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion and the like, then I'm probably in agreement.

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.

Eh, none of those sounded good to me. A few parts of each started to sound good, but then I read the rest and noticed that none of them appealed to me.

I don't agree with any of them...

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

None of the above.

Seconded

Apart from all of the religious nonsense in one of the options, most of it.

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens.

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens.

Ok, the state DOES have an intest in protecting unborn life. Roe v. Wade acknowledged this as well as every other Supreme Court case dealing with abortion. However, there is also the right to privacy that the woman has. Education does not violate this right to privacy. And your slippery slope argument is rediculous. Since when was legal personhood granted by a law extending felony murder? Such things do not threaten a woman's right to abortion, you are committing a fallacy of non sequiter. One does threaten it, however, is a second term of W. Bush...

Hututu, the problem is that the current move that this legislation takes--the move that makes the killing of the fetus a separate crime--is an end run around Roe v Wade. The idea is that if they can get the fetus recognized as a separate entity, then it can have rights of its own, and then the government can step in and determine whose rights supersede whose. Eventually, if the anti-abortion foes get their way, the idea is that the fetus, due to its helpless position, would have the majority of the rights, turning the mother into a host of sorts with little or no control over her reproductive organs. She would in effect become a dual citizen with competing rights. The scary part is that it just might work. Make no mistake about it--abortion foes aren't going to be satisfied with any compromise. They want it outlawed, even if the health or life of the mother is in danger, and they won't stop until that happens.

If the fetus is viable, it shouldn't be aborted. Late term pregancies are somewhat problematic in my mind. I would say that in general, abortions past the 5th or 6th months are unethical and avoidable; surely we should be able to make up our minds whether to carry the child prior to that? I mean most women know, at the very latest, by the 3rd or 4th month, which gives them plenty of time to decide, I would think. Before the 6th month, I have no problem with abortion.

Hututu, the problem is that the current move that this legislation takes--the move that makes the killing of the fetus a separate crime--is an end run around Roe v Wade. The idea is that if they can get the fetus recognized as a separate entity, then it can have rights of its own, and then the government can step in and determine whose rights supersede whose. Eventually, if the anti-abortion foes get their way, the idea is that the fetus, due to its helpless position, would have the majority of the rights, turning the mother into a host of sorts with little or no control over her reproductive organs. She would in effect become a dual citizen with competing rights. The scary part is that it just might work. Make no mistake about it--abortion foes aren't going to be satisfied with any compromise. They want it outlawed, even if the health or life of the mother is in danger, and they won't stop until that happens.

Personhood does and always will come from the Fourteenth Amendment which grants the rights therein to all persons BORN or naturalized in the United States. No UVVA or CHIPS legislation is going to change that. The UVVA would have been much more favorable with the Amendment which would have made the crime specificly agianst the preganant mother, but it was defeated (49-50). The bill in itself is still a good one though. I like fetuses and so does the state, let's protect them!

If the fetus is viable, it shouldn't be aborted. Late term pregancies are somewhat problematic in my mind. I would say that in general, abortions past the 5th or 6th months are unethical and avoidable; surely we should be able to make up our minds whether to carry the child prior to that? I mean most women know, at the very latest, by the 3rd or 4th month, which gives them plenty of time to decide, I would think. Before the 6th month, I have no problem with abortion.This is another case in which the big lie has been allowed to carry the day. Late term abortions are almost never done in the first place, and they are certainly never elective. But abortion foes would have you believe that you can traipse into your doctor's office at 8 months and tell your doc you want an abortion and he/she will say "sure thing" and start carving you up. It just doesn't happen. Hell, it's hard to get a doctor to do an elective abortion once the baby's out of the first trimester, mainly because that's all Roe v Wade covered.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being least conservative and 10 being most conservative I'd say I'm probably about a -7... hundred.

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens.

"Womens' bodies?" I seem to recall woman being created from Adam's rib... that's right, gimme the rib and we can talk "rights." :wink:

bump

This is another case in which the big lie has been allowed to carry the day. Late term abortions are almost never done in the first place, and they are certainly never elective. But abortion foes would have you believe that you can traipse into your doctor's office at 8 months and tell your doc you want an abortion and he/she will say "sure thing" and start carving you up. It just doesn't happen. Hell, it's hard to get a doctor to do an elective abortion once the baby's out of the first trimester, mainly because that's all Roe v Wade covered.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Restrictions of late term abortions are fine with me, because they're probably unethical, difficul, and very rare. I don't really see any good reason to allow them to continue, barring health issue.

Eesh, those choices are like asking, "Which do you like better: Vomit or Vomit-flavored ice cream?"

Eesh, those choices are like asking, "Which do you like better: Vomit or Vomit-flavored ice cream?" :lol:

And dead right too.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens. (Stephistan-quote)

Frightening when you agree about something with Stephistan! Am going to go lay down just in case am coming down with something.

It does make you think however, science claiming a very young fetus can experience pain. Hope said that right? :?

I'm conservative, I'm not going to call for the abolition of the income tax but I think it should be reduced, I'm all in favor of letting women only decide the abortion issue, considering women are more against abortion then men are.

It does make you think however, science claiming a very young fetus can experience pain. Hope said that right? :?

Nope, actually, science can't make that claim. What they're claiming is that a second trimester fetus can exhibit autonomic/reflex responses that may be indicitive of pain as they are often observed in adults who claim to be undergoing pain. However, these responses are not in and of themselves solely indicitive of pain and to make that claim is to infer a colossal logical leap.

I believe that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, or if the fetus can kill the mother. The baby has the potential to live and you are ending that.

This is a good thread. I'd definatly outlaw abortions past the 6 month stage, provided the womans health/life wasn't at risk. But before that, it is ultimatly the womans choice. The man has no say in the life of its baby until it is born (and I am a man, to let you know)

As far as conservatism goes, I vote Conservative in the UK, although in reality I'd rather vote elsewhere. I don't vote Labour because I'm not a socialist. I don't vote Lib-Dem because I am anti-Euro. I like income equality, but Labours 'wealth re-distribution through taxing and welfare' makes me sear with anger. What will annoy a rich person enough to make him leave the country? 50% tax will, I'm sure of that. I'm not saying we should let people become stinking rich though, infact quite the opposite. Capitalism is the bane of the modern world. Heavy industry and public services should be nationalised, light manufacturing and sales-based businesses should be in the hands of worker co-operatives. any business over 100 employed should be worker owned.

I'd also describe myself of somewhat of an isolationist nationalist. The focus of any government should be to care primarily for its own citizens. no foreign aid while our pensioners lie on trolleys in under staffed wards, that sort of thing. if every country did that, then the successul countries would prosper beyond belief. we also shouldnt interfere with other countries.

I could bring in the example of america here. If it didnt interfere in the middle east in the firstplace it wouldnt have a war on terror on its hands. If we didnt allow immigration from 'unsafe countries' then there would be no terrorism, as terrorists couldnt get in. Plus they would have far less of a motive.

So yeah, thats my policy. Am I Conservative?

I am a conservative in all platforms. Capitalism all the way, survival of the fittest, morals, straight and narrow (not-homosexuality or any of that crap), and if you can't work for a living, and you need OTHER PEOPLE to live off of, you are a paracite that needs a cure, and capitalism is it. Granted, if people lost their jobs, they deserve something until they find another one, but the government should not support people who don't WANT to work. Also, America needs to completely close its borders.

I am a conservative in all platforms. Capitalism all the way, survival of the fittest, morals, straight and narrow (not-homosexuality or any of that crap), and if you can't work for a living, and you need OTHER PEOPLE to live off of, you are a paracite that needs a cure, and capitalism is it. Granted, if people lost their jobs, they deserve something until they find another one, but the government should not support people who don't WANT to work. Also, America needs to completely close its borders.

Conservative = Right

That is rather communistic/socialistic with the nationalization and those things, so not conservative, but with some conservative ideals.

In a nutshell, Conservatives want less govt control.

Conservative = Right

That is rather communistic/socialistic with the nationalization and those things, so not conservative, but with some conservative ideals.

In a nutshell, Conservatives want less govt control.

To Strensall:

Conservative = Right

That is rather communistic/socialistic with the nationalization and those things, so not conservative, but with some conservative ideals.

In a nutshell, Conservatives want less govt control.

To Strensall:

Conservative = Right

That is rather communistic/socialistic with the nationalization and those things, so not conservative, but with some conservative ideals.

In a nutshell, Conservatives want less govt control.

I am a conservative in all platforms. Capitalism all the way, survival of the fittest, morals, straight and narrow (not-homosexuality or any of that crap), and if you can't work for a living, and you need OTHER PEOPLE to live off of, you are a paracite that needs a cure, and capitalism is it. Granted, if people lost their jobs, they deserve something until they find another one, but the government should not support people who don't WANT to work. Also, America needs to completely close its borders.

Okay. Why?

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens.
Thats correct, but that child that is inside her isn't her body. It is as much the father's child as it is hers. She can't just kill the child, its not part of her, its a seperate being. With your argument I should be able to say that it is my choice to murder so and so and the state has no business in regulating that.

This is a good thread. I'd definatly outlaw abortions past the 6 month stage, provided the womans health/life wasn't at risk. But before that, it is ultimatly the womans choice. The man has no say in the life of its baby until it is born (and I am a man, to let you know)

As far as conservatism goes, I vote Conservative in the UK, although in reality I'd rather vote elsewhere. I don't vote Labour because I'm not a socialist. I don't vote Lib-Dem because I am anti-Euro. I like income equality, but Labours 'wealth re-distribution through taxing and welfare' makes me sear with anger. What will annoy a rich person enough to make him leave the country? 50% tax will, I'm sure of that. I'm not saying we should let people become stinking rich though, infact quite the opposite. Capitalism is the bane of the modern world. Heavy industry and public services should be nationalised, light manufacturing and sales-based businesses should be in the hands of worker co-operatives. any business over 100 employed should be worker owned.

I'd also describe myself of somewhat of an isolationist nationalist. The focus of any government should be to care primarily for its own citizens. no foreign aid while our pensioners lie on trolleys in under staffed wards, that sort of thing. if every country did that, then the successul countries would prosper beyond belief. we also shouldnt interfere with other countries.

I could bring in the example of america here. If it didnt interfere in the middle east in the firstplace it wouldnt have a war on terror on its hands. If we didnt allow immigration from 'unsafe countries' then there would be no terrorism, as terrorists couldnt get in. Plus they would have far less of a motive.

So yeah, thats my policy. Am I Conservative?


I guess its harder to compare European or British Conservatism with that which you find here..

On taxes- most conservatives here believe taxes should be cut for all - some believe it should be more for the poor and middle class, and others believe more for the rich. That doesn't however make you a Conservative here because even some in the Democratic Party believe in tax cuts (Clinton-style Democrats)

You sound to me more like an "isolationist" conservative ...forgive my labelling but there are many different schools of thought that I am trying to get across. I think however that you may share the most in common with this guy..
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/buchanan.html

i.e closed borders, limited immigration ..and America for Americans (all those who share our values)

This is a good thread. I'd definatly outlaw abortions past the 6 month stage, provided the womans health/life wasn't at risk. But before that, it is ultimatly the womans choice. The man has no say in the life of its baby until it is born (and I am a man, to let you know)

As far as conservatism goes, I vote Conservative in the UK, although in reality I'd rather vote elsewhere. I don't vote Labour because I'm not a socialist. I don't vote Lib-Dem because I am anti-Euro. I like income equality, but Labours 'wealth re-distribution through taxing and welfare' makes me sear with anger. What will annoy a rich person enough to make him leave the country? 50% tax will, I'm sure of that. I'm not saying we should let people become stinking rich though, infact quite the opposite. Capitalism is the bane of the modern world. Heavy industry and public services should be nationalised, light manufacturing and sales-based businesses should be in the hands of worker co-operatives. any business over 100 employed should be worker owned.

I'd also describe myself of somewhat of an isolationist nationalist. The focus of any government should be to care primarily for its own citizens. no foreign aid while our pensioners lie on trolleys in under staffed wards, that sort of thing. if every country did that, then the successul countries would prosper beyond belief. we also shouldnt interfere with other countries.

I could bring in the example of america here. If it didnt interfere in the middle east in the firstplace it wouldnt have a war on terror on its hands. If we didnt allow immigration from 'unsafe countries' then there would be no terrorism, as terrorists couldnt get in. Plus they would have far less of a motive.

So yeah, thats my policy. Am I Conservative?


I guess its harder to compare European or British Conservatism with that which you find here..

On taxes- most conservatives here believe taxes should be cut for all - some believe it should be more for the poor and middle class, and others believe more for the rich. That doesn't however make you a Conservative here because even some in the Democratic Party believe in tax cuts (Clinton-style Democrats)

You sound to me more like an "isolationist" conservative ...forgive my labelling but there are many different schools of thought that I am trying to get across. I think however that you may share the most in common with this guy..
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/buchanan.html

i.e closed borders, limited immigration ..and America for Americans (all those who share our values and obey our laws)

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that one can be Pro-choice and still advocate government action to reduce abortions. The Constitution allows women to have abortions and we cannot deny that, but the Court has also said that the state has the power to the state interest of protecting unborn life.I'm in favor of trying to reduce abortions whenever possible as well, as long as we don't intrude legislatively on a woman's right to choose. That's why I specified educational methods.

I am glad someone else recognizes BOTH the interests of the woman and of the state in this matter. Too often you just have crazies who want supreme protection for the fetus and crazies who want to oppose every piece of legislation (i.e. Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that seeks to protect the fetus. There is a middle ground, and it is called education. No undue burden, state interest fulfilled, beautiful thing.

The state has no business in a woman's body.. nadda.. not one. If they wanted to give harsher penalties for attacking pregnant woman that would of been one thing.. but what they did is a slippery slope on the way to over-turing Roe vs. Wade and any one who has ever held freedom dear, better hope it never happens.

This is nothing new. A lot of states (including liberal California) have laws on the books like this already.

The Roe v. Wade decision deals with a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases. If a woman chooses to have a baby, why shouldn't there be a crime for ending the baby's life? You recently had a baby, and I assume that you chose to have it. What would have happened if you were attacked and the baby died?

The right to choose is in no way encroached upon by this law. A woman still has the right, and the right is not transferrable to a third party (the criminal).

The bill even makes it clear that it isn't about women losing their right to an abortion.

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

Well I am not exactly sure where I fit on the political spectrum in terms of the degree of conservatism. I think I am more centre-right

I believe that the free market should determine everything except essential services e.g. electricity, basic communications, water, public transport (infrastructure). The infrastructure in these services are always let down by private enterprise. Corporatisation is the way to go (government owns shares and a board od directors runs things). The government should also not bail out private firms if they collapse.

I am rather more aggressive in my foreign policy and defence ideas...I tend to lean towards General Macarthur and his zero tolerance approach...lets just say Bush was weak on Iraq...he should have levelled it.

I am against welfare for those who can work but are too lazy to get a job and I believe that there is no excuse (other than disability) as to why you cannot get a job within 4 months (hence you should cut support after this time). There are too many people who have been on unemployment benefits for over a year...its unacceptable.

Also single mothers get too much welfare! Abortion I am for, but only in exceptional circumstances (such as if the woman was raped). Other than that, there is no excuse to abort a child.

However, I believe in gay rights and civil unions (and to claim benefits as married couples do such as superannuation to one partner if one dies etc). I am not a churchie and I believe that Church and State must be separate.

There, how conservative am I?

Some people tend to be fiscal conservatives, others ino the whole social platform as well..so just out of curiousity -how conservative are you?
I'm sorry if I couldn't capture everyone-

You forgot to include "all of the above"

Some people tend to be fiscal conservatives, others ino the whole social platform as well..so just out of curiousity -how conservative are you?
I'm sorry if I couldn't capture everyone-

You forgot to include "all of the above"

because some of them are slightly contradictory..for example Religious Conservatives tend to be slightly at odds with 'Government skeptic' (option1) style conservatives... Neocons clash with a classical Fiscal Responsibilty position (atleast for now) and so on..