And this is the main point. When the only marketable difference between the two candidates is rhetoric on social issues, it's clear which issues will end up being the swing issues.Originally Posted by sailingaway
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business making any decisions on social issues. Those are state and local issues. The Feds don't need a Dept. of Education, and other tax wasting depts., either. I thought Romney was pretty clear on that. He offered a stronger economy with jobs instead of handouts. The people on the dole either didn't believe it, or would rather stay on the government money, without realizing that the system cannot sustain itself at current levels, and they're not going to keep it anyway. I suppose he could have pressed that point more.
So it is not OK for a bureaucrat/politician in DC to meddle in my personal affairs but perfectly OK for a bureaucrat/politician at the state capital/city hall to meddle in my personal affairs?
I am so tired of this state/local issue meme. As long as someone who is not you meddles in your personal affairs does it matter where he/she is located?
Yes, it does somewhat. If it's a State issue, at least you can find a suitable State. If it's a federal issue, nowhere on the planet is safe.
"The Patriarch"
To answer the OP, "Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues." The answer is obviously no, some people will never stop saying that no matter what.
"The Patriarch"
My point is that social issues are neither federal nor state issues. They are nobody's issues except the persons concerned.
And I don't argue that point, but there has to be a point of turning to get there. If you bring it down to the State and then the local level, you have a much greater ability to excercise autonomy.
It used to be thought that the feds were a shield against State abuses...........
Last edited by Origanalist; 11-15-2012 at 11:41 AM.
"The Patriarch"
RPFs sez: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again."
I was going to reply to shoshanshopon, but Originalist said everything I was going to say.
So I'll just reiterate/elaborate: there is nothing "better" about state/local tyranny relative to federal tyranny. What is "better" are the chances of fighting back effectively against state/local tyrannies.
Federal "one-size-fits-all" tyrannies are harder to fight. Those are often driven by well-connected special interests. Imagine if those special interests were forced to expend resources fighting 50 seperate battles, instead of just one ...
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
This thread is like a football game on William F Buckley Crack
Right! You're much closer to the government and representatives. Case in point: forced annexation got out of hand here. It was to the point where cities would spot annex: pick a wealthy subdivision that was not even connected to the city, and claim it. So, citizens took action and went to Raleigh to fight it. A new law was passed this year banning forced annexation in North Carolina.
The biggest turn off is how a lot of Republicans (and Democrats) think they know what is best for me and think they should decide what I can and cannot put in my own body. So if a Republican candidate supports the war on drugs, or anything else that undermines our personal liberty, they will not ever ever ever get my vote.
"Can't get healthcare to our old people, can't educate our young people, but we can bomb the sh*t out of your country alright" - George Carlin
"We're in two wars that are costing us trillions of dollars. Those trillions of dollars should have been left in the economy to build jobs and produce prosperity here at home" - Ron Paul
"We spend 1.5 trillion dollars overseas in wars we don't need to be in and we need to cut there. And then put that money back into our economy here." - Ron Paul
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us