Do we like Ryan?

[Odysseus]

Well, where exactly DOES Paul Ryan stand on the social issues? The ONLY thing I have ever heard Paul Ryan talk about is cutting taxes, the defecit and the national debt. As a SOCIAL conservative, that does NOTHING for me! So where is Paul Ryan on the social issues? Do you know, or even care??

As I've repeatedly tried to tell you, taxes, deficits and debt are social issues. The principles of self-reliance, integrity, thrift and respect for property are undermined by profligate government. The social ills of our society are exacerbated by government intrusions into areas where it has no business, and those intrusions are almost always financial. Legal abortion without federal subsidies would be far fewer. Illegal immigration without welfare and mandated social services would be significantly reduced. Urban blight became worse, not better, with the advent of federal housing programs. Unemployment, crime, drugs and illegitimacy rates are all made worse by government subsidies that underwrite them. Federal borrowing and debt crushes private sector financial incentives and increases dependence on the public sector, and that culture of dependency is what makes enslaves formerly free people. The the best example of this are the Greeks, who fought to the death against foreign domination for centuries, but who are now rioting in favor of foreign bailouts.

You need to read Alexis de Tocqueville. He described the moral standards of America when people were expected to see to their own business, and predicted the dangers that would come from a welfare state. The national debate is not whether America our government should promote morality, but whether a free people need to have government promote morality.

[3rd-try]

Odysseus, I was going to say that. Probably not nearly as well so thank you. The money side fuels the social side. They can't be separated in reality, only in rhetoric.

Of course this begs the question. Can someone still get elected without buying votes? I hope so. If not, we're done for.

[Starbuck]

.................Of course this begs the question. Can someone still get elected without buying votes? I hope so. If not, we're done for.

Of course. Elections are lost all the time by big spenders. Here's a website which will show you how much money was spent and what the results were. You'll find a lot of big spenders you never heard of because they lost, but generally the bigger spender wins. Does that reveal the fact that the election was bought, or the fact that people go with the winner....?
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/ele...=CA&cycle=2010

[Odysseus]

Odysseus, I was going to say that. Probably not nearly as well so thank you. The money side fuels the social side. They can't be separated in reality, only in rhetoric.

Of course this begs the question. Can someone still get elected without buying votes? I hope so. If not, we're done for.

Thanks much.

There is a difference between spending money to get a message out and buying votes, which is what the big city machines used to do blatantly, but now do much more subtly. As long as people see themselves as free citizens of a nation, a state or a city, rather than as beggars in line for services, the former will beat the latter.

[SaintLouieWoman]

you're such a fucking idiot. Fiscal issues is what matter this election. Social issues will drive a lot of people away if they are focused on too heavily. There are several places you can find out exactly how he matches up with your idioticy. Use google

You are absolutely right. In the words of Bubba Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid".

[Zathras]

.

Just calling it as I see it.