Where did we change? (Page 3)

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are veering away from the center where most American reside.

I would love to see a "New Republican Party" that believes in states rights, a smaller federal government, a strong yet measured defense department, does not oppose gay marriage, does not have an opinion on abortion, will work to cut spending in major ways to get our spending under control before looking at raising taxes, strong support of the constitution (including the 2nd amendment).

Not quite Libertarian (there are a lot of people who just can't handle them) but a lot closer to the Libs than the current GOP.

No. When you remove the economic cost of an individual's decision and and place that cost of that decision on the public then obviously you get politicians like Grandma Bloomberg restricting choices for the "Good of the People". 

Any grab by the government to regulate or manage, including things that are best left in your bedroom will eventual result in restrictions of personal choice and bigger government. 

The economic axiom holds pretty true; If you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less of it tax it. I think most Republicans get that which it why they tend to always get my vote. 

I did point out that my comment was crass.

But your comment is a perfect example of my point on the liberal mind set.

A couple of questions for you;

1. How does subsidizing irresponsible behavior result in less irresponsible behavior?

2. Where is the requirement stated that if you want to engage in a high risk behavior it is my responsibility to pay for that high risk behavior? 

So unhealthy sexual behavior will have an effect on health care but normal unhealthy wont?

I think the normal unhealthy would be a larger impact if you look at the pure % difference in numbers of people partaking in either activity. As for the health care itself it would come down to if there was nationalized health care or private. If it’s private than it doesn’t matter what people do.

No. When you remove the economic cost of an individual's decision and and place that cost of that decision on the public then obviously you get politicians like Grandma Bloomberg restricting choices for the "Good of the People". 

Any grab by the government to regulate or manage, including things that are best left in your bedroom will eventual result in restrictions of personal choice and bigger government. 

The economic axiom holds pretty true; If you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less of it tax it. I think most Republicans get that which it why they tend to always get my vote. 

Yes...thank you. 

You're doing it wrong.

You're doing it wrong.

As for question 1, I often ask that about the oil industry, but that's neither her nor there.  Sex isn't irresponsible, and you're not going to make people stop having it by not providing affordable birth control.  I fail to see how keeping the status quo will change anything.  Affordable birth control and comprehensive sex education will prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease.  That is a huge benefit to society, especially in future costs. 

2.  Sex isn't high risk unless you are uneducated (in terms of disease prevention) and don't have access to birth control.

So what you are saying is it is the governments job to make sure people are responsible individually. What ever happen to personal responsibility? That's where the liberal side of things looses me... that somewhere along the line it became governments job to take responsibility for people's actions. 

So what you are saying is it is the governments job to make sure people are responsible individually. What ever happen to personal responsibility? That's where the liberal side of things looses me... that somewhere along the line it became governments job to take responsibility for people's actions. 

Why is it the government responsibility to pay for your decisions? If you do not want to get pregnant, then use birth control. Most people get that. Why do person choices have to be subsidized. BC is a perscription covered under prescription plans and now covered by the government plan... what needs to be "subsidized"... and why the heck does it have to be free?

Providing access to affordable birth control is not the same as forcing people to use it.  I don't see how this is forcing people to be responsible.  It's simply making it easier to be responsible and preventing huge future cost to tax payers.

Providing access to affordable birth control is not the same as forcing people to use it.  I don't see how this is forcing people to be responsible.  It's simply making it easier to be responsible and preventing huge future cost to tax payers.

I just don't see how birth control got to be such a big issue.  You can get a month's supply at WalMart or Target for $9. Condoms are even cheaper.

I just don't see how birth control got to be such a big issue.  You can get a month's supply at WalMart or Target for $9. Condoms are even cheaper.

How is this not affordable for a VAST majority of people?  And those who are on government assistance can get them even cheaper.

It's a non issue. It's just used by the left to try to villainize the right for being "anti-woman".

i don't know about you, but a month's worth of condoms can run way more than $9, know what i'm sayin?