Bombs_Away - that's just ridiculous. The meaning of 'liberal' has changed meaning quite drastically since the 18th and 19th centuries. If you actually did a little research to find out what liberals believed during the American Revolution and around the Civil War, you'd probably find that they're more in line with some segments of the Republican and Libertarian parties. That's why academics commonly refer to 18th and 19th century liberals as "classical liberals" - to differentiate them from modern liberals, who are a fusion of Progressive era politics and Marxism.
To respond to the question, those numbers aren't surprising. Democrats and Republicans have always captured those blocs of the populace.
2007-07-06 08:45:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by TheOrange Evil 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
lol, that's a funny comparison, us being liberal as you so blantantly put it, doesn't make us not hard working. I work 60 hours a week and do very well for myself. Now my problem is, that there are quite a few people as your statistics suggest that work and don't get compensated for it. I have nothing against people making money, but when you have ceo's setting up shell company's to launder money from pension funds and buying solid gold toilet seats, while one in every 7 americans is going to declare bankruptcy this year, than something is wrong. Maybe we should take care of middle america. Outsourcing work and spending money elsewhere forces us into a downward spiral. That's great if you're not an american, but sooner or later, the bottom falls out. The truth is those conservative policies lose this country money, that's why as your statistics put it, the lower income families don't vote conservative and it's so impossible for you to see that people want to invest in america, not big business.
2007-07-06 08:54:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by marxistharpist 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
First of all, I am a Conservative. You know and I know that the successful tend to be Republican. Republicans also tend to be more highly educated.
The problem that I have is when people start making comments/questions like this, it only pushes liberals farther away. I know the liberals do the same thing, but that doesn't make it right.
These statements only serve to galvanize polarization. We have to get Liberals and Conservatives on the same page, not push eachother away.
We can show the Liberals how to see it our way, but nobody wants to be spoken down to. They just stop listening and start fighting back. Then our democracy becomes stagnant, and nothing gets done.
2007-07-06 08:50:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Cold Hard Fact 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I knew a guy in Arizona who made $100,000 a year. His wife got educated and he no longer needed to make that much. He left his terrible and awful corporate job to come relax in a small retail store. Two months later when his old boss said he could use a good man he left without even giving two weeks. I know a total of three people who were working these horrible high paying jobs who came down to retail. One lasted three months but that was the longest. Moral of the story, he who gets paid the most doesn't usually work the hardest.
Besides, globalists want to move all food production to China. They say it is a waste of our land to grow food in the US. I guess it is a good place to get pet food, catfish, and toothpaste (at least if you are suicidal).
2007-07-06 08:53:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Memnoch 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
you've got to be kidding me... Bush, honest and trustworthy?
This being the man who LIED about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq so he could start a brand-new war which we are still stuck in, in order to prove to Daddy that he is a big man?
As far as I know, food prices have severely gone UP since Bush took office, as well as the price of fuel tripling. I seriously think Bush's big goal while in office is to see as many people as possible die on his watch, or be kicked out of their homes.
Is he doing a good job of that? You bet. Our soldiers, who work harder in one day than Bush has in nearly 7 years, are dying left and right. We are supplying guns to other nations so they can continue their wars, while our people are starving and sleeping in the streets.
If this country has ever been "by the people and for the people", that notion died out long before I was ever alive. Bush's "me me me" policy has given us the biggest national debt we have ever faced and we lose $275 million per DAY to the war in Iraq.
I don't care one way or another what you think of Kerry- I didn't think that much of him myself. But ANYBODY can do a better job in the White House than little Georgie has.
Most Conservatives I know personally were born into their money- they did not earn it unless they were given jobs at their parents' companies. The hard workers in America are the liberals- they may earn less, but they earn their money the honest way. What used to be referred to as the American way.
Oh and by the way, I work 70-80 hours a week in order to support myself in a Bush-ruled country. And no, I don't earn minimum wage.
2007-07-06 08:57:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lily Iris 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all....whether or not you supported Bush in 04' doesn't make you a liberal...it makes you a democrat.
While I agree with those numbers, I don't agree with your logic. All this chart shows is that people with higher incomes are more likely to support Bush.....because Bush favored them more in his tax plan obviously. Not to mention.....people with lower incomes are more likely to want a change in leadership in general.
your assertion that liberals would starve to death...is kind of odd as well......how many farmers do you know make 200k or more per year ? what about commercial fisherman ? I don't think so buddy...nice try though..... Most people I know that make over 200k per year don't work hard at all....they have other people who work hard for them.
2007-07-06 08:47:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
The Liberal ideology is a street to failure! they seem to have deserted good judgment and reason. they're Advocates of a coverage that empowers a solid federal government to enslave its those with the severe tax burden incident to the help of extravagant and pointless social courses adverse to the two the artwork ethic between the decrease classification, and the motivation to innovate and be triumphant between the working human beings . ===============================
2016-10-01 01:01:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since conservatives want to keep everything they get (and the few that earn what they get) and take as much away from everone else if they can get away with, not to mention make everybody else pay for what they enjoy, I would say the conservatives would starve if it weren't for liberals who tolerate that behavior. Time for a new revolution in this country.
2007-07-06 08:48:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by thylawyer 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Well, I don't quite know how to argue with you being as how you only define "success" buy how much money you make. Income levels to not determine how successful,hard working or productive someone is.
I don't think either political affiliation would "starve" if the other didn't exist.
2007-07-06 08:47:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by joecool123_us 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Looks as if as soon has you make enough money to actually pay taxes you elect people to cut your taxes so you can have even more .
If conservatives did not take all the liberals money they could by their own food .
I have to steal my internet connection cause I can not afford to pay for it .
Pieced together parts from several computers to get this one running . I found in the trash dumpster diving .
2007-07-06 08:49:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋