Where did we change? (Page 6)

that's what I'm talking about... the whole BC right or wrong thing... I don't have any problem with BC one way or the other. The CC has a cow over the mere mention of it. Yes I understand some feel Chgurches should not have to provide it... well OK, I don't have a dog in that fight.

But the whole...it should just be free and the U.S. government should pay for everyones... WTF is that about? And I really think that is where the conservative/liberals butt heads so much and won't surrender one square inch... it isn't good enough to just "have" it covered or what ever... it has to be free and the taxpayer has to pay for it.

And what is this silliness that if we don't pay for BC now, we pay later... not every unplanned pregnacy ends in wellfare and incarceration... some do, certainly not all. And most can afford to pay their own.

This cultural battle both extremes are trying to ram down everyones throat is not doing one bit of good for this country.

Hummm, we incure a huge debt by passing ACA, while we still have a huge debt that has not been paid for, and we don't pay for it or cut taxes.

EXACTLY.  It's time to start paying for it. (notice I said start, not pay for it all at once)

Remember social security was passed in 1935 (anyone remember our economic state then?).  marginal tax rates shot up to 80% and then 90% on the wealthiest until everything was paid for.  I mean we could just get rid of social security.  That's the real problem anyway.  Why couldn't they have just saved their own money.  Why do I have to pay for them?

I see a lot of parallels between these two periods but the reaction is a bit different.  They are taking a different road so maybe we won't go into a second great depression.

anyway this is off topic.  might be a better idea to start a separate thread.

Well, it's on topic to the point that most Americans are much more centrist than either party is right now. The only ones it really matter to is the (R)s because they are the ones that just got their butts handed to them. But I do not think most American's want everything from the government and think it will magically be paid for out of thin air.

The (R)s are the only ones talking about cutting spending, but they have no credibility because they spend just as much as the other guys. So they don't have a leg to stand on.

Me personally... if WE as Americans agree for a universal health care, a social security net so we do not have old people dying in the streets and some sort of "hand up" to the needy and not a hand out... that's fine... but it will most certainly be expensive and we most certainly have to fund it... to be solvent TODAY... not tommorrow based on some Ponzi scheme, ever expanding ecconomy.

The (R) had some street cred for fiscal spending and helping those truely needy... but not anymore... and we most certainly need that... but they waste all their energy on two guys kissing, abortion, and birth control. And you can keep your darn hands to yourself because you are not touching our darling Defense Industry, or coorporate welfare.

And as far as my tax rate being 80% so I can pay for a bunch of lazy drug addicts getting laid all day... NO THANK YOU. Because that too is the "liberal Utopia". We can all do what ever we want to feel good and the Government will cover all the consequences. Don't worry, the rich guy will pay for it.

I can make a very strong argument that Democrats are the party of corporate welfare. GM, Wall Street, Solyndra....the list goes on big business needs big government to survive just as much as big government needs big business to grease the wheels. Sniff out who is the party of big government and you've found the corporatist.

Now getting back to the op's premise that the GOP which was once the champion of civil liberties has lost their way. I think that premise is very wrong. The GOP is still the party of civil liberties however this country is no longer the country that champions civil liberties. Or at least this citizens of this country no longer believe that civil liberties is more important than social justice.

Social justice is always confused or disguised as the expansion of civil liberties but it is in fact the removal of civil liberties. The equality of the collective is more important and therefore should come at the expense of the equality of the individual.

The GOP, or should I say the Conservatives and liberty loving in the GOP, reject that Americans should and must be grouped into classes. Social classes; gay, straight, Asian, white or economic classes; rich, middle, poor have no place in America which was founded by rejecting social classes. By creating classes you are legal assigning more rights to one class over the other and you are destroying the concept of everyone is equal before the law. You are placing the individual into a group and therefore removing the from that individual the the sovereignty that individual (i.e. their civil liberties). 

This doesn't sit well with today's America. This principles of of the GOP are seen as archaic, unwelcoming, non-inclusive, and mean. That is because today's America because equality no longer means the the protection of individual rights based on the principles of individual freedom. Equality no longer means supporting true diversity, respecting the independence of the individual, and a genuine tolerance for individuality. Today equality means human rights defined by laws formulated to obtain government's social objective. All this at the expense of the rights of the individual.

The Democrats on the other hand embrace the idea of social justice. The idea that certain social or economic classes deserve special privileges at the expense of another social or economic class. Pitting one class against another is a very powerful tool to keeping an retaining power. Vote for me and I'll protect the middle class. Vote for me and I'll make the rich pay for their fair share. It is the rich's fault you are poor and so forth. The promoting of social justice is essential to creating big government because big government is always needed to protect one class from the other by transferring rights and privilege.

Just reading this thread and looking at the results of the past election it is absolutely obvious that the most people would rather have our nation aspire to social justice than to preserve civil liberties. 

I agree with the spirit of your post and it is in much better form than what I have been trying to say. "Socialist" the term, not the negative thing conservatives like to label things... Do believe that the collective society is more important than the individual. And yes, that most certainly rubs me wrong.

In this persons case I would guess free or not, unless you forced them to use BC it wouldn't happen.

@TeaLeaf, what percentage of people like this would it take to be considered significant or a issue?  Do you think women like this are the problem or a symptom?

All this talk of BC for women, and the whole time I always looked at the problem of unwanted pregnancies as being largely the fault of irresponsible men.  Who'd of thunk it?  

I have no children I didn't want....ok, two at once was a shock for a bit     ....I never worried at all if my partner was on BC.  Always figuring I was going to be responsible for a child if my partner got pregnant, I made damn sure she didn't.  It's not a tough concept.

I know, I'm a male chauvinist.....it is what it is.

Ooh, I've been paged via an @ sign. Nice. I feel like I'm on Twitter, just with more characters.

I have no idea what percent would be significant. All I was pointing out was that you cannot use the existence of one or more cases to "disprove" the idea that some people might think twice. It would be like me saying "Well, we might have a sunny day next week," and you rebutting it by telling me that it was cloudy yesterday.

I know and can see why people don't want to pay for her kids, but believe you me, we will end up paying for them, one way or another. Either as children, or as adults. I'd guess that there is less overall cost to the taxpayers if we spend the money now instead of later. Because people like her will, sadly, almost always exist. It's a difficult problem, no doubt.

Slightly changing the subject of BC has anyone watched the freekonomics movie where they correlate a lower crime rate after abortions were legalized? It had no political ideology just looking at numbers from an economics point of view.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/

Again this goes to what the RR wants and it seems to contradict the small government and paying for others and their choices down the line.

I disagree. Look at the GOP's treatment of the most popular champion of civil liberties, Ron Paul. That right there shows me how they really feel. 

Yes I have it was very interesting. But is makes sense that children that grow up in wanted, stable homes are less likely to be social deviants when they grow up.

It is just that the conservative approach to having a higher percentage of children grow up in these types of homes is difference than the liberal approach.

Are you saying that liberals don't want children to grow up in wanted, stable homes?

I believe at one point, the Republican party used to stand for these things, and deep down they probably still do as an overall platform.

This is the very reason they have people jumping ship, especially younger people, because they are not living up to the above, which was very well stated.

Putting immigration, abortion and  gay marriage as the front of your agenda and being fervently against all of them, you are not promoting civil liberties and individual freedom.  We can debate on the forms these take in the context of civil liberty, but the view is that the Republicans are just against it, hell or high water.  And the fact that the party has been high jacked by the CC and others, is not helping the cause for civil liberties and individual freedoms.

If we agree with the freekonomics guys on this what is the best way to deal with this in the world we live in today? Abortions as far as I know are not paid for by the government so wouldn’t a women’s right to choose along with interesting data that shows it will help keep costs and crime down for society make it a good thing for people who believe in civil liberties to vote for?

So the GOP should embrace a man who 20 years ago rejected Reagan and the Republican Party, trashed conservatism and now falsely claims to be the standard for conservatism to which all other conservatives should espouse to emulate?

A man whose closest philosophical mentor was Murray Rothbard (a radical anachist-libertarian)? Not mention Paul's deplorable newsletters he produced.

The man should be rejected by the GOP as his dogma does not champion civil liberties and does not represent the the ideals of Edmund Burke, the father of modern day conservatism.

BTW, I used to drink the Paul kool aid until I did my homework. You should do yours and see if you still feel the same way.

No, I just said the approach to the solution is different. 

I'm not a fervent Ron Paul guy, I just think he's the best of the bunch.

You say Rothbard like it's a bad thing

Abortion is probably the  most polarizing issue, and not a black and white argument, even as it relates to Civil Liberties.  

From a purely economic standpoint, it may make sense to provide abortions, birth control etc.

For instance, one can be pro-choice and believe this would be the best course of action, and that it's a woman's civil liberty and individual freedom to have that choice.

On the other hand, you have  a pro-life advocate, who believes a person  is living at conception.  They would argue that the baby's civil liberties and individual freedoms are being stopped and taken away from them (even if it is prior to birth) because of the mothers choices, and no one is protecting the baby's civil liberty and individual freedoms.

And the argument can go on from there and remain endless based on many factors and a persons belief's.

Should the government fund, at the taxpayers expense, abortion and/or BC?

How many people will actually take advantage of these programs or funding?

Where are the incentives for the individual?  Are they to have a government funded abortion, or have a child which they cannot take care, but may receive increased support from the government in  other forms?

People do not always make the most prudent or intelligent decision as we discuss here on a internet board.  The problems are a  lot more complex than they are presented here.  We can all have our opinions, and vote accordingly, but running government is complex and gray, not as black and white as is made out.

Of course, I have no experience in running government, but it's the way I see it and even I tend to be opinionated about many subjects as it relates to politics, but I always try to at least take one step back and try to look at it from all perspectives, then decide what the end goal should be.  Government is a long term view, not a short term fix.

I am not familiar with the process but from what I understand abortions are not government subsidized and are paid for by the client is this correct?

To make a generalization most people that are pro life are religious on both sides of the political view point and their religious views are what drive their view not political.

For me personally when you take religion out of it I see it as an individual’s choice for their body and that is a civil liberty issue.

Other than Bush's Immigration Reform Bill, which looks a lot like Obama's, what agenda are you talking about?

What specific front of the burner proposals have been made regarding abortion or gay marriage have been made?

We have had 26 years of GOP in the White House since Roe v. Wade show me the evidence that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a top agenda item in any of those 26 years.

Your comment is the exact example I was talking about regarding the use of social justice to divide Americans. It groups all gays in the class and saying that we'll protect you from the religious zelots. Using women's health issues to divide Americans by gender "Those old white men of the GOP want to take away your birth control".

Look I understand why young people are dropping or not joining the GOP (except the Paulians). Young people have been taught that societal change can only occur with the force of government and that teaching is contrary to conservatism and the idea of civil liberties.

Conservative thought is that a free society, a society that recognizes the points I made above about civil liberties, could never maintain injustices in its civil institutions and that eventually those injustices will be rejected and washed from our civil institutions.

I will give you the example of slavery. Slavery was doomed the day the slave states ratified the Constitution. Slavery could never last in a country that recognized the unalienable rights of the individual. And that proved to happen when the people who lived in the free states, not the federal government, said enough was enough. Now when would slavery have ended if the southern state never ratified the constitution. I am sure is would have ended much later than it did.  

Yeah, I think Rothbard's political ideology is very dangerous even though I agree with Austrian Economics.

I'm not really sure how they are funded.  If I knew, I would answer that specifically. So, FWIW,  I don't believe they are directly funded by the government, or mandated to be covered (don't know what's in the ACA for it).  They could be funded by other organizations, that get government monies though.  I'm not sure.  So, possibly privately paid, but supported though organizations that may receive federal funding.  Again, I'm not certain.

I'm not sure it's totally a religious view for all pro-life, although the majority probably have some sort of religious affiliation.  I'm not sure science can determine "when life begins" and solve this issue.  Don't confuse economic decisions with political decisions.  Political decisions have to take into account all people, including those that may be religiously affiliated.

It's easy to say, take religion out of the decision, and there you have it.  Regardless of what we think should happen in decision making, religion will play a part in driving policy, unless we become a totally agnostic society and wipe religion and the free exercise thereof out.   Then we are looking at a totally different type of society.

It doesn't matter what the actual agenda may be, it's what's been framed to the public.

I never even said that I have left the Republican party, although I've thought about it.  If there was a viable alternative, I probably would have this year, maybe not formally, but with my vote.

You can't have states passing anti-gay marriage legislation under the GOP, and tell me  they don't have that as part of their agenda? Maybe it's not at the top, but it's there, and that's what's getting the press (whether it's linked or not with the GOP directly), so it might as well be.

I agree with what you are saying, it's very well stated.  I don't believe in a social agenda either, but the GOP isn't doing a very good job of framing the civil liberties argument.

Do you believe that the CC and the Tea Party have high jacked the GOP in some form, which is causing a lot of the problems?

The standard canned response on that is that arming every citizen will reduce crime and cut the cost of public safety. So since it is a right should the government give everyone a gun? No, of course not.

If I believe in civil liberties what right do I or a central government to interject in that decision? If I believe in civil liberties what right does the person seeking an abortion have to my labor to pay for the abortion without being in debt to me?

We can all strive for Utopia but the cost of that is individual freedom.