[ClearCase_guy]

My position is this -- get rid of the government charity first. As a taxpayer, I do not wish to pay for your housing, your food, your healthcare or your retirement. Maybe your local church or neighborhood benevolent association can help you out, but I don't know you, and I don't want government to put a gun to my head and force me to pay for your stuff.

Now, once we get that government charity out of the way, as far as I'm concerned, you can eat whatever, drink whatever, smoke whatever and do whatever. If you run into trouble and cannot take care of yourself or your children ... [shrug]. Talk to your local church or neighborhood benevolent association. It's not my problem.

Fiscal Conservatism FIRST
then Social Liberalism ... but people need to have a sense of personal responsibility.

Within our current social climate and expectations, I say that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism need to be connected: because right now people do not have a sense of personal responsibility and they expect government to put a gun to my head and force me to pay for their stuff.

[ConservingFreedom]

The freedom to eat what one chooses causes health problems in many people’s lives and leads them to start looking around for government charity to rescue them. Is a Diet Police a conservative idea?

once we get that government charity out of the way, as far as I'm concerned, you can eat whatever

So that's a (provisional and temporary) yes to a Diet Police?