Where did we change? (Page 7)

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?

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. 

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.  

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.

How are you paying? Where is your tax money paying for abortions?

Gay Mariage - the republican primary was full of candidates proposing amending the constitution to define marriage as one man one woman. It wouldn't be a big deal IMO, if there weren't so many benefits that go along with a marriage license.

Regarding Governments being the provider of civil liberties, I agree that it is sad that we have come to that point. The problem is people are so resistant to change. We've had slaves for as long as I can remember, Women can't vote for as long as I can remember, etc. At an individual level people can be expected to do good I think, but at a collective level, I don't think so. They will just segregate themselves into like minded communities, much like we have today.

The real problem with Republicans, is that they are so far from anything that resembles promoting civil liberties. As I was arguing prior to the election, there is so little difference between the two parties, it's pathetic. Both parties support NDAA, Patriot Act, indefinite detention of American citizens, massive expansion of the DHS ability to pry into everything we do. Just look at the massive data center in UT. Why is that there? It's not just for fighting the bad guys in the Middle East.

That is why people like Ron Paul are garnering so much support.

Not full of them....just really Santorum and that issue has no traction anyway as the majority of GOP agree that marriage is an issue for the States the regulate. 

I believe people and groups of individuals are generally virtuous and that when left to their own devices and are free they will do the right thing.  

I gave my argument regarding civil liberties, you disagree with me. I really have nothing more to add on the topic.

Not full of them....just really Santorum and that issue has no traction anyway as the majority of GOP agree that marriage is an issue for the States the regulate. 

I believe people and groups of individuals are generally virtuous and that when left to their own devices and are free they will do the right thing.  

I gave my argument regarding civil liberties, you disagree with me. I really have nothing more to add on the topic.

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.

Believe it or not I am happy to see you have returned after your absence in your local government. I think you have good insight, even when I disagree with it.

I think what Republicans should really focus on if they want to regain the high ground as fiscal conservatives and champions of personal liberties, is to work on some REAL budget reductions and remove the social agenda.

Paul Ryan's budget didn't balance the budget in a time frame that my 16 month old son would still be living in my house (I hope). They also need to use a balanced approach to spending cuts. If you go out and say we need to cut spending and then only focus on the things that you don't like, no one will believe you. If they were to focus on cuts across the board, I think they would be taken more seriously. Also, ditch Norquist. He makes everyone who signs his pledge seem like a follower, not a leader. 

Removing the social issues from their platform would make it easier to promote themselves as real believers in civil liberties. Saying government shouldn't be involved in the private sector because they are incompetent is confusing when you then say they should be involved in the private life. Dropping social issues and really focusing on the economic ones, particularly in this day and age would bring a lot of people back into the fold IMO.

Not full of them....just really Santorum and that issue has no traction anyway as the majority of GOP agree that marriage is an issue for the States the regulate. 

I believe people and groups of individuals are generally virtuous and that when left to their own devices and are free they will do the right thing.  

I gave my argument regarding civil liberties, you disagree with me. I really have nothing more to add on the topic.

Believe it or not I am happy to see you have returned after your absence in your local government. I think you have good insight, even when I disagree with it.

I think what Republicans should really focus on if they want to regain the high ground as fiscal conservatives and champions of personal liberties, is to work on some REAL budget reductions and remove the social agenda.

Paul Ryan's budget didn't balance the budget in a time frame that my 16 month old son would still be living in my house (I hope). They also need to use a balanced approach to spending cuts. If you go out and say we need to cut spending and then only focus on the things that you don't like, no one will believe you. If they were to focus on cuts across the board, I think they would be taken more seriously. Also, ditch Norquist. He makes everyone who signs his pledge seem like a follower, not a leader. 

Removing the social issues from their platform would make it easier to promote themselves as real believers in civil liberties. Saying government shouldn't be involved in the private sector because they are incompetent is confusing when you then say they should be involved in the private life. Dropping social issues and really focusing on the economic ones, particularly in this day and age would bring a lot of people back into the fold IMO.