Could Texas become a battleground state ?

[QueEx]

Texas, Red to Blue ???





<param name="FlashVars" value="launch=48952343&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc7d1886" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=48952343&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

 

[spider705]

If it becomes a battle ground state it's because the repugs have totally alienated the latino vote...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[QueEx]

If it becomes a battle ground state it's because the repugs have totally alienated the latino vote...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

Yeah, thats sort of the general idea expressed in this thread: RepubliKlans Destroy Any Shot of Getting Plurality of LATINO Vote -A Latino Explains

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Not in 2012 but it's going to be at least "purple" by 2020, maybe even 2016. Let Julian Castro run in 2020 (I think 2016 might be too soon), he might turn the state blue.

 

[actinanass]

Now if the Democrats turn to the Bill Clinton types again, it might can happen.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Now if the Democrats turn to the Bill Clinton types again, it might can happen.

What do you define as the "Bill Clinton type"?

Remembering that Clinton didnt win Texas either time while Jimmy Carter did.

 

[thoughtone]

Now if the Democrats turn to the Bill Clinton types again, it might can happen.

What do you define as the "Bill Clinton type"?

Remembering that Clinton didnt win Texas either time

Republicans have always had a hard-on for Clinton!

while Jimmy Carter did.

Romney won't win his home state of Michigan or the state where he served as Governor, Massachusetts.

 

[spider705]

Not in 2012 but it's going to be at least "purple" by 2020, maybe even 2016. Let Julian Castro run in 2020 (I think 2016 might be too soon), he might turn the state blue.

That dude showed up and showed out at the DNC! if anybody can blur the lines in Texas it will be him...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[actinanass]

What do you define as the "Bill Clinton type"?

Remembering that Clinton didnt win Texas either time while Jimmy Carter did.

Carter won Texas because of the Dixiecrats.

The Bill Clinton type are the centrist type.

This is still a center right country.

 

[Greed]

Not in 2012 but it's going to be at least "purple" by 2020, maybe even 2016. Let Julian Castro run in 2020 (I think 2016 might be too soon), he might turn the state blue.

Won't he just be the kind of Democrat that will piss off the liberal ones, then he'll be in the "Blue-dog Democrat Vote then out" thread.

 

[Lamarr]

Won't he just be the kind of Democrat that will piss off the liberal ones, then he'll be in the "Blue-dog Democrat Vote then out" thread.

 

[actinanass]

Won't he just be the kind of Democrat that will piss off the liberal ones, then he'll be in the "Blue-dog Democrat Vote then out" thread.

Thoughtone would make a special thread for his ass.

 

[thoughtone]

Thoughtone would make a special thread for his ass.

Seems to me you have had quite a bit to say about it in the past.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Carter won Texas because of the Dixiecrats.

The Bill Clinton type are the centrist type.

This is still a center right country.

I'm challenging that. The real "Dixiecrats" had abandoned the party by 1976. Carter was a clear liberal and choose a Northern liberal in Mondale as a running mate. Since they only won by single digits, he most likely won because he was a Southern and there were still sigificant numbers of Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats" are something very specific, not just Southern Dems).
Being a centrist didn't get Clinton Texas so why would it work for someone else?

This is NOT a center right country. Strong majorities supported social spending, are against more military spending, support the expansion of individual rights (like gay marriage and adoption), and support abortion rights. Where are we Right at? When turnout is high for elections, Republicans lose, which is why they've worked so hard since 2010 (and prior) to suppressing certain groups votes. If this was truly a "center right" country, greater turnout would work to their advantage.

Won't he just be the kind of Democrat that will piss off the liberal ones, then he'll be in the "Blue-dog Democrat Vote then out" thread.

Being a mayor of a smaller city, it's hard to tell how he's lean as he goes for higher office (he'll have to win a Governorship or Senate seat first), doesn't change what I said at all.

 

[Greed]

Being a mayor of a smaller city, it's hard to tell how he's lean as he goes for higher office (he'll have to win a Governorship or Senate seat first), doesn't change what I said at all.

I wouldn't call it a "smaller city" but whatever. Texas is still Texas. If he were in a state-wide position he wouldn't get away with governing like a Barney Frank Democrat. I bet he's not especially liberal in his governing now.

Both of our replies don't change what the other said. He could possibly win state-wide election, and the liberals would hate him because they wouldn't consider him the right kind of Democrat. He'd have a primary challenge every time he ran.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I wouldn't call it a "smaller city" but whatever. Texas is still Texas. If he were in a state-wide position he wouldn't get away with governing like a Barney Frank Democrat. I bet he's not especially liberal in his governing now.

Both of our replies don't change what the other said. He could possibly win state-wide election, and the liberals would hate him because they wouldn't consider him the right kind of Democrat. He'd have a primary challenge every time he ran.

He wouldn't need to be Barney Frank but he wouldnt be Blanche Lincoln either. This is the state that had Ann Richards as their governor not too long ago and she was a decent liberal.
Having a primary challenge wouldn't mean "the liberals hate him". There are extremes on both sides that accept no compromise. So no matter how liberal he would be, there would be someone thinking he's not liberal enough. But if he's popular enough, any possible challenge wouldn't get a foothold.

 

[actinanass]

I'm challenging that. The real "Dixiecrats" had abandoned the party by 1976. Carter was a clear liberal and choose a Northern liberal in Mondale as a running mate. Since they only won by single digits, he most likely won because he was a Southern and there were still sigificant numbers of Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats" are something very specific, not just Southern Dems).
Being a centrist didn't get Clinton Texas so why would it work for someone else?

This is NOT a center right country. Strong majorities supported social spending, are against more military spending, support the expansion of individual rights (like gay marriage and adoption), and support abortion rights. Where are we Right at? When turnout is high for elections, Republicans lose, which is why they've worked so hard since 2010 (and prior) to suppressing certain groups votes. If this was truly a "center right" country, greater turnout would work to their advantage.



Being a mayor of a smaller city, it's hard to tell how he's lean as he goes for higher office (he'll have to win a Governorship or Senate seat first), doesn't change what I said at all.

Carter was from Georgia. There were still dixiecrats in Texas during that time.

I guess you don't know what center right means. If you ask your run of the mill citizen what's important to him. Chances are, he/she will want to make a better future for their family. Chances are, they mean financially. Financial success means you will be able to raise your family in a decent community with good schools, and low crime. In order to have financial success, you have to have a good paying career. A career some rich guy help provide the opportunity for you to have. This will always be the case in the near future. Lets just agree to disagree on this issue because this is a debate that will become a fruitless endeavor for both of us.

 

[QueEx]

I guess you don't know what center right means. If you ask your run of the mill citizen what's important to him. Chances are, he/she will want to make a better future for their family. Chances are, they mean financially. Financial success means you will be able to raise your family in a decent community with good schools, and low crime. In order to have financial success, you have to have a good paying career. A career some rich guy help provide the opportunity for you to have. This will always be the case in the near future. Lets just agree to disagree on this issue because this is a debate that will become a fruitless endeavor for both of us.

So, according to your logic above, center-right, to the "run of the mill citizen" - (though run of the mill citizen is not clearly defined) - means:

• he/she will want to make a better future for [his/her] family; and

• the abl[ility] to raise your family in a decent community with good schools, and low crime.

Is this not just part of the American Dream ??? You don't think people on the right have those same dreams ??? What about people on the left, do they not share in that dream ??? Aren't people of different politicals leanings just "run of the mill" citizens -- with different leanings ???

As I've said to you numerous times in the past, those labels you find handy are really, just handicaps.

In order to have financial success, you have to have a good paying career.

What is financial success ???

In order to have financial success, you have to have a good paying career. A career some rich guy help provide the opportunity for you to have.

You want to agree with Obama, but you can't be seen doing so!

Seriously, that statement is preposterous. I buy into the "general idea" that the efforts of others are almost always, in some way, interwined with each of our successes - - but, saying it was "some rich guy" who provided the opportunity is just absurd, fanciful and oddly paternalistic. It implies that one cannot have a successful career unless some rich guy didn't wave his magic wand and grant that success. Of course, thats bullshit -- but it totally ignores and downright discredits individual determination, sacrifice, ingenuity and a list of adjectives too long to post.

 

[muckraker10021]

Texas is probably already a blue state

"In the 2006 general election, Texas ranked 48th among states for voter turnout. In the presidential election of 2008, 47th. In 2010, Texas was dead last.

Last May (2012), only 1 in 10 voters cast a ballot in mayoral elections in both Dallas and Fort Worth."

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/28/campaign-2012-texas-among-the-worst-for-voter-turnout/

Let's not forget the criminal actions of Tom Delay in the redistricting of Texas in 2003 to obliterate Democratic districts ;
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1024-04.htm

Remember, Delay was found guilty pre-'Citizens United' of soliciting and accepting corporate cash to fund RepubliKlan state legislators in their quest to attain the majority in the Texas legislature. Once that majority was achieved, the now RepubliKlan controlled legislature redistricted the state by drawing congressional district maps that favored RepubliKlans. With BuShit in the white house and his tejano alberto gonzalez at the Justice department, even though Texas falls under the jurisdiction of the 1965 Voters Rights act there was no way puppet alberto was going to block the Texas republiklan drawn maps; despite the obvious malfeasance and racism evident in the way the lines were drawn.

The Democrats, especially once Howard Dean was removed by Obama as head of the DNC, refused to spend any money in Texas; conceding the state to the republiklans. As clinton said it's "arithmetic", If Texas voter participation rates increase from the pathetic 10% -25% to 50% or more, the republiklans are dead; and that's just looking at the demographics. The largest employer in the state is walmart. All of those neo-slaves working at walmart for $9 bucks an hour are not republiklan voters; but as of now they don't vote The republiklans know this, hence the ,<s>Voter ID</s> Voter Suppression laws they are trying to push through that the Holder justice department is battling with them in court to stop.

 

[actinanass]

So, according to your logic above, center-right, to the "run of the mill citizen" - (though run of the mill citizen is not clearly defined) - means:

• he/she will want to make a better future for [his/her] family; and

• the abl[ility] to raise your family in a decent community with good schools, and low crime.

Is this not just part of the American Dream ??? You don't think people on the right have those same dreams ??? What about people on the left, do they not share in that dream ??? Aren't people of different politicals leanings just "run of the mill" citizens -- with different leanings ???

As I've said to you numerous times in the past, those labels you find handy are really, just handicaps.





What is financial success ???




You want to agree with Obama, but you can't be seen doing so!

Seriously, that statement is preposterous. I buy into the "general idea" that the efforts of others are almost always, in some way, interwined with each of our successes - - but, saying it was "some rich guy" who provided the opportunity is just absurd, fanciful and oddly paternalistic. It implies that one cannot have a successful career unless some rich guy didn't wave his magic wand and grant that success. Of course, thats bullshit -- but it totally ignores and downright discredits individual determination, sacrifice, ingenuity and a list of adjectives too long to post.

1. Run of the mill means random, and yes both sides say they want the same thing. However, the left tends to want to blame others for not achieving their goals. Most Americans would not think to blame another group of Americans for their downside unless they are told to do so. Personal responsibility is the main thing that separates the two main political leanings, in my humble opinion.

2. Financial success is whatever that person wants it to be. Maybe I should of said financial freedom because some people might view being on welfare as a financial success.

3. Obama may be saying something similar to me, but he does not believe in the policies that would make more people financially independent. All this "share the responsibility/wealth/tax burden" is the same socialist dribble that's been played throughout the course of history. In reality, everything is already "shared". You need money to pay taxes, you need a job to have money, and who do you think is going to hire you? Obama, or that rich CEO who owns that fortune 500 company? When the last time a broke person gave you a job?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Carter was from Georgia. There were still dixiecrats in Texas during that time.

"Dixiecrats" did not vote for Carter. Just being a Southern Democrat didn't make one a "dixiecrat". You notice no one ever calls Carter a "dixiecrat".

I guess you don't know what center right means. If you ask your run of the mill citizen what's important to him. Chances are, he/she will want to make a better future for their family. Chances are, they mean financially. Financial success means you will be able to raise your family in a decent community with good schools, and low crime. In order to have financial success, you have to have a good paying career. A career some rich guy help provide the opportunity for you to have. This will always be the case in the near future. Lets just agree to disagree on this issue because this is a debate that will become a fruitless endeavor for both of us.

What does any of this mean? What's right leaning about any of this? I gave a laundry list of liberal/left leaning beliefs that a strong majority of Americans agree with. So my definition of "center right" isn't the one in question.

1. Run of the mill means random, and yes both sides say they want the same thing. However, the left tends to want to blame others for not achieving their goals. Most Americans would not think to blame another group of Americans for their downside unless they are told to do so. Personal responsibility is the main thing that separates the two main political leanings, in my humble opinion.

Those are talking points that have been disproven by facts and history, things Republicans aren't good at and you keep proving that over and over.
Republicans have mastered scapegoating with the target usually being an ethnic minority with women and lately Gays thrown in.
Democrats try to pass financial reform that would prevent anymore bailouts and Republicans fought it.
Democrats wanted BP to pay to clean up their mess in the Gulf and Republicans accuse them of "shaking down" BP. And when they want to pass legislation making oil companies responsible for any other disasters, Republicans fight it.
The GOP talks a great "personal responsibility" game but it appears the only people this applies to are you and me, working class people.

2. Financial success is whatever that person wants it to be. Maybe I should of said financial freedom because some people might view being on welfare as a financial success.

3. Obama may be saying something similar to me, but he does not believe in the policies that would make more people financially independent.

Such as what? What policies would make people more financially independent that Republicans support? What policies do Obama support that prevent that?

Please don't tap out. Be specific.

All this "share the responsibility/wealth/tax burden" is the same socialist dribble that's been played throughout the course of history. In reality, everything is already "shared". You need money to pay taxes, you need a job to have money, and who do you think is going to hire you? Obama, or that rich CEO who owns that fortune 500 company?

Obama and that CEO aren't in the same business so that's not an accurate comparison.
Point of fact, the answer is neither. Companies don't hire because they're making a lof of money, they hire because they need help to meet their demand.

When the last time a broke person gave you a job?

When was the last time a rich person gave you a job? One broke person doesnt stur job creation but a lot of broke people spending their money does.
I notice you have no problem with class warfare when it's the top attacking the bottom. That's a much bigger problem than "socialism", which Republicans love by the way.

 

[thoughtone]

Carter won Texas because of the Dixiecrats.

The Bill Clinton type are the centrist type.

This is still a center right country.

Carter won Texas because of the Dixiecrats.

Dixiecrats in 1976? Virtually all racist Democrats switched to the republican party by 1968. That's one reason Nixon won with his "Southern Strategy."

The Bill Clinton type are the centrist type.

Clinton is center left. President Obama is center left. Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower were center right.

This is still a center right country.

Eliminate Social Security and we'll see hoe center right this country is.

 

[thoughtone]

Won't he just be the kind of Democrat that will piss off the liberal ones, then he'll be in the "Blue-dog Democrat Vote then out" thread.

Kinda of like what the Tea party republicans are doing to every current republican that is not lock-step in line with their radical right wings ways, right?

 

[thoughtone]

He wouldn't need to be Barney Frank but he wouldnt be Blanche Lincoln either. This is the state that had Ann Richards as their governor not too long ago and she was a decent liberal.

UD knows his shit!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XiQyZFIh0fU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

UD knows his shit!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XiQyZFIh0fU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why dont they figure this out?!

You know what, I think AAA has which is why he taps so quickly after stating some false, generalizing GOP talking point.

Richards, from what I've seen and read, wasn't a perfect liberal as governor but the bigger the stage the harder it is to be an idealogue. It only seems like "conservatives" are willing to forgo all real governing in the name of political ideology.

 

[thoughtone]

1. Run of the mill means random, and yes both sides say they want the same thing. However, the left tends to want to blame others for not achieving their goals..

Dude's brain is in wonderland. Who blames the Hispanics for the bad economy? Who created the mythical Black welfare women with 10 children, driving a Cadillac, living in a public housing project. Who blames every Muslim for terrorism. Who blames women for the so called breakdown of the family when they get pregnant (by a man) and then demand that they have that baby and then say, you're own your own. Who wants to take their country back, from what? I could go on.

When the last time a broke person gave you a job?

When was the last time a broke person spent money to buy something?

 

[thoughtone]

Why dont they figure this out?!

You know what, I think AAA has which is why he taps so quickly after stating some false, generalizing GOP talking point.

Richards, from what I've seen and read, wasn't a perfect liberal as governor but the bigger the stage the harder it is to be an idealogue. It only seems like "conservatives" are willing to forgo all real governing in the name of political ideology.

You know what, I think AAA has which is why he taps so quickly after stating some false, generalizing GOP talking point.

That is a common technique among the right when debating. Notice when I directly ask Lamarr, Greed and others direct questions, they revert to a long standing talking line (implying that only Black folk kill each other), switch topics or disappear for extended stretches only to return with the same tautologous statements.

You're beating your head against a wall. Logic is not his best suite. Not trusting science and all.

 

[actinanass]

That is a common technique among the right when debating. Notice when I directly ask Lamarr, Greed and others direct questions, they revert to a long standing talking line (implying that only Black folk kill each other), switch topics or disappear for extended stretches only to return with the same tautologous statements.

You're beating your head against a wall. Logic is not his best suite. Not trusting science and all.

*sigh* typical bullshit again.

I've never said "only black folks kill each other".

In fact, I'm the one saying that the black community should be legally armed. You were against it.

BTW, thought, I do have a life outside of politics. I can only deal with the likes of you for so long. Aren't you trying to get a record on how many republican bashing threads you can create in a week?

How can you even talk about logic when your posts are some of the more emotional rants on this forum? The whole progressive movement is based off emotion. Hell, even when your side have all the power, you are still upset. So what's that all about?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

*sigh* typical bullshit again.

I've never said "only black folks kill each other".

In fact, I'm the one saying that the black community should be legally armed. You were against it.

BTW, thought, I do have a life outside of politics. I can only deal with the likes of you for so long. Aren't you trying to get a record on how many republican bashing threads you can create in a week?

How can you even talk about logic when your posts are some of the more emotional rants on this forum? The whole progressive movement is based off emotion. Hell, even when your side have all the power, you are still upset. So what's that all about?

Then dont talk to T1, talk to me. I'm not overly emotional and very logic-based and reality-based.

and I'm very patient.

 

[actinanass]

Dude's brain is in wonderland. Who blames the Hispanics for the bad economy? Who created the mythical Black welfare women with 10 children, driving a Cadillac, living in a public housing project. Who blames every Muslim for terrorism. Who blames women for the so called breakdown of the family when they get pregnant (by a man) and then demand that they have that baby and then say, you're own your own. Who wants to take their country back, from what? I could go on.




When was the last time a broke person spent money to buy something?

This is what I'm talking about. Emotion.

1. Illegal immigration has been a factor in some states when it comes to government spending. When you have states like California, giving away welfare to any/everybody they could have, it will have an effect on that state government's well being. Is it the main cause, hell no. It's a bunch of failed social policies of both Clinton, and Bush. *remember Dodd/Frank*

2. So, it's not a good idea to reform welfare? So you want people to stay on assistance?

3. Perhaps the women you speak of might need to take responsibility for their actions. They can buy birth control, they can buy some rubbers, and they have the ultimate choice if they are going to have sex, or not. They also have the choice in what man they want to be involved with. There's plenty of places you can get this from. BTW, if you bring up this "well they can't afford it" bs, I guarantee she afford to go out, find a man, and have sex with him.

4. I don't know about anyone else, but I want to take this country back from big government. On both sides. Socialism does not work.

5. In order for a broke person to have money is from a couple of things:

A: He/She has a job/career/small business.
B: He/She is on welfare. In which, someone who has a job paid taxes for.
C: He/She is a hustler. In which, he/she is probably doing something illegal, and using welfare as well.

No matter how it goes, there's still a rich person funding this activity in some sort of way.

See, that's a very logical response to an illogical rant.

 

[actinanass]

Then dont talk to T1, talk to me. I'm not overly emotional and very logic-based and reality-based.

and I'm very patient.

Dave, you know how the game works. I respond to you, and there's four different folks responding to me. That is why I stated "lets agree to disagree". It's not about you, its about them.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This is what I'm talking about. Emotion.

1. Illegal immigration has been a factor in some states when it comes to government spending. When you have states like California, giving away welfare to any/everybody they could have, it will have an effect on that state government's well being. Is it the main cause, hell no. It's a bunch of failed social policies of both Clinton, and Bush. *remember Dodd/Frank*

Do you remember Dodd/Frank? It wasn't a Clinton or Bush policy.
It's not a social policy or failed, it's financial reform, coming off the heels of the worst economic disaster in generations.
We tried letting the banks run themselves on a honor system, they failed and took the world's economy with them.

2. So, it's not a good idea to reform welfare? So you want people to stay on assistance?

Welfare has already been reformed, under Clinton. This is a wedge issue only slightly less fraudulent than voter fraud.

3. Perhaps the women you speak of might need to take responsibility for their actions. They can buy birth control, they can buy some rubbers, and they have the ultimate choice if they are going to have sex, or not. They also have the choice in what man they want to be involved with. There's plenty of places you can get this from. BTW, if you bring up this "well they can't afford it" bs, I guarantee she afford to go out, find a man, and have sex with him.

Can they buy birth control? Republicans seem eager to legislate what kind of birth control they can buy with many of the most popular forms being illegal under the many purposed "personhood" laws and amendments.
If they choose to take responsibility and not carry a pregnancy to term, is that the business of a so-called "smaller government"?

4. I don't know about anyone else, but I want to take this country back from big government. On both sides. Socialism does not work.

That's incorrect. Socialism works great when mixed with capitalism and the United States of America has shown that.

5. In order for a broke person to have money is from a couple of things:

A: He/She has a job/career/small business.
B: He/She is on welfare. In which, someone who has a job paid taxes for.
C: He/She is a hustler. In which, he/she is probably doing something illegal, and using welfare as well.

No matter how it goes, there's still a rich person funding this activity in some sort of way.

See, that's a very logical response to an illogical rant.

For said rich person to be rich, he needs a lot of "broke" people to buy his/her goods and services. So it makes sense when crafting federal and state policy to water the tree at the roots and not at the fruit.

 

[thoughtone]

*sigh* typical bullshit again.

I've never said "only black folks kill each other".

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, but you have unloaded the party line on numerous occasions.

It is telling that you felt that I was referencing you. Guilty?

 

[thoughtone]

...and I'm very patient.

To a fault! i need to work on that.

 

[thoughtone]

However, the left tends to want to blame others for not achieving their goals..

Dude's brain is in wonderland.

This is what I'm talking about. Emotion.

1. Illegal immigration has been a factor in some states when it comes to government spending. When you have states like California, giving away welfare to any/everybody they could have, it will have an effect on that state government's well being. Is it the main cause, hell no. It's a bunch of failed social policies of both Clinton, and Bush. *remember Dodd/Frank*

2. So, it's not a good idea to reform welfare? So you want people to stay on assistance?

3. Perhaps the women you speak of might need to take responsibility for their actions. They can buy birth control, they can buy some rubbers, and they have the ultimate choice if they are going to have sex, or not. They also have the choice in what man they want to be involved with. There's plenty of places you can get this from. BTW, if you bring up this "well they can't afford it" bs, I guarantee she afford to go out, find a man, and have sex with him.

4. I don't know about anyone else, but I want to take this country back from big government. On both sides. Socialism does not work.

5. In order for a broke person to have money is from a couple of things:

A: He/She has a job/career/small business.
B: He/She is on welfare. In which, someone who has a job paid taxes for.
C: He/She is a hustler. In which, he/she is probably doing something illegal, and using welfare as well.

No matter how it goes, there's still a rich person funding this activity in some sort of way.

See, that's a very logical response to an illogical rant.

...your witness counselor!