WebsterMark wrote on 04/01/13 at 04:45:39:I think my point would be that adding those two together makes up for a lot of those ‘backward’ Red States and secondly, you’d be hard pressed to call either Virginia or Maryland hardcore red or blue states.
I think the original point, which any reasonable person would tend to agree with, is you can’t have demographic shifts and not have corresponding effects elsewhere. If more and more children are born to single households, there will be a change in society. You can’t get around that fact. Good or bad is up to debate, but there will be a change.
And I think the article misses several points, the largest being government mismanagement is driving a lot of the migration and illegal immigration isn't a saving grace.
Quote:Right now, the current administration seems to push policy changes / benefits that make this change easier to deal with. I’d rather see these shifts harder to deal with.
I've never liked how government likes to get in the way.
Quote: Having a baby out of wedlock will never carry the stigma it once did, which is too bad, but at least we shouldn’t increase government safety nets further than they already are. (makes for a handy voter base for democrats come November however….)
And there it is, the impetus behind the whole debacle, the "I will give you stuff with other people's money if you vote for me" mentality of government and the "I want what that rich guy has but I don't want to do any of the work or take any of the risk the rich guy did" kind of envy that the welfare recipients are encouraged to believe.
Quote:Now Sirnath, you should do yourself a favor and shut up on this topic for a couple days and see if a few others will weigh in with their opinions. You comment on practically every single post and honestly, if most people are like me, when they open the tall table up and see your name on every topic, they shut down and go elsewhere. I know I do. Give some people space to breath.
Nuff said.
Pages: 
