- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
ahhhhh ok thank you
and why do they have so many kids if they can not feed them?
Maybe their jobs got outsourced?
ahhhhh ok thank you
and why do they have so many kids if they can not feed them?
Just google "Newt Gingrich southern strategy' and take your pick. Karl Rove wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ that said he didn't think Newt's southern strategy would work in the rest of the country like it would in southern states. I guess he was right about that but it hasn't stopped Newt from doing it now that he isn't a candidate anymore.Please cite this... I have never heard that and if so it is disgusting, if it is what you say it is...
Maybe their jobs got outsourced?
Wow! that's interesting .... like very socialist isn't it?
Just google "Newt Gingrich southern strategy' and take your pick. Karl Rove wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ that said he didn't think Newt's southern strategy would work in the rest of the country like it would in southern states. I guess he was right about that but it hasn't stopped Newt from doing it now that he isn't a candidate anymore.
huh? I don't understand
Tell that to Romney.I guess POLITICALLY I could see why one would continue a "Southern Strategy" if it worked... but it doesn't
Well, you could have just read the link I provided and followed the sources at the bottom of the page. But that was probably too easy.I still havent found where Newt said that he was going for a "Southern Strategy" ... but I will keep looking.
Also, Reagan won a heck of a lot more states than just the south,
in 1980,
View attachment 67133273
and he won 49 states in 1984
View attachment 67133274
... I dont think for a moment you can accuse him of a "Southern Strategy"
Probably because they don't have access to sex education, contraception or abortions.ahhhhh ok thank you
and why do they have so many kids if they can not feed them?
ahhhhh ok thank you
and why do they have so many kids if they can not feed them?
Probably because they don't have access to sex education, contraception or abortions.
Every possible "program" there ever has been or will be is "socialistic". We couldn't function without it. Now, how much for whom are issues of debate. But a country of 307M people without SOME programs would probably not be a very nice or safe place to be in.
We suffer from an overabundance of programs, many poorly thought through, executed or guarded. The USG kind of sucks, for sure.
At least this one makes SOME sense and probably does far more good than harm.
yes ... well... sometime democracies seem to copy socialist and communist ideas ... don't they? that's strange isn't it? It's funny almost! do they have faith in them? why do they do it? weird! :2razz:
Probably because they don't have access to sex education, contraception or abortions.
yes ... well... sometime democracies seem to copy socialist and communist ideas ... don't they? that's strange isn't it? It's funny almost! do they have faith in them? why do they do it? weird! :2razz:
Tell that to Romney.
Well, you could have just read the link I provided and followed the sources at the bottom of the page. But that was probably too easy.
The link you put up said:Carter, Dan T. From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994.
Probably because they don't have access to sex education, contraception or abortions.
The USA has had a "mixed" Economy as far back as when FDR became president. A mixed economy has qualities of free market and state having direct effect on the economy.
Umm ok.... but I thought there is no mix economy.
there is left or there is right.
there is communism or capitalism.
what it's going to be?
a mix bag? I am not so sure.
Umm ok.... but I thought there is no mix economy.
there is left or there is right.
there is communism or capitalism.
what it's going to be?
a mix bag? I am not so sure.
Benjamin Franklin said:I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
I am very sure and it is based upon Keynesian economics. Moreover, the idea is that putting food stamps into the hands of recipients causes them to spend in the market place and therefore stimulates the economy.
ok...look...I'm all for people not starving.. whatever it takes.
ok...look...I'm all for people not starving.. whatever it takes.
I agree, i this very rich nation, no one should starve...
Ummm... I did... the only mention of newt, was a book title
So please I ask, instead of inuendo... please give me proof... even your own link said the southern strategy is dead... and it is VERY biased... it forgets to mention the party of nearly every democrat ... but doesnt make the same mistake with republicans...