2007-11-08 04:00:30 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Gee, that sounds like Bush! Let's see. He was admitted to Yale and Harvard Business School through legacy. Come to think of it, he was admitted to Harvard Business School only after he was rejected by the law school at the University of Texas at Austin on account of his bad grades at Yale. (I guess UT-Austin has higher standards than Harvard!:)) He has several failed businesses on his belt and the only reason why he became President in 2000 is because the Oval Office was handed to him on a silver platter by his dad's Supreme Court buddies. He has now turned Clinton's surplus into a record deficit, failed to capture the main culprit behind attacks on US soil (bin Laden), invaded a country that posed no threat to us, dragged us into a disastrous war with no end in sight, and exacerbated the global terrorist situation. Need I say more?
2007-11-08 06:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You need to do some research. Of course the rich are going to vote for lower taxes. Liberals tend to be more educated than conservatives and the red states in the South are the poorest states in the country. Most poor people don't even vote.
2007-11-08 12:12:51 · answer #2 · answered by speaking_my_mind 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Citation for your generalization, please.
From the same website, PNAC:
VOTE BY EDUCATION BUSH KERRY
No High School (4%) 49% 50%
H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% 47%
Some College (32%) 54% 46%
College Graduate (26%) 52% 46%
Postgrad Study (16%) 44% 55%
Isn't going into a postgrad study an achievement?
2007-11-08 12:03:44 · answer #3 · answered by BNP 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Let's see your resume, Hot Shot! I'm pulling 6 figures and did it all on my own. Hardly what I'd call "underachievement." But then, folks who generalize like that aren't too bright, IMHO.
2007-11-08 12:11:44 · answer #4 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
liberals fought england and won independence for the colonies while the cons of the day were brit boot lickers. That's your idea of "underachievement"?
LOL
No wonder you support bush's quagmire in iraq, but won't go fight!
2007-11-08 13:42:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean liberals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and George Soros?
2007-11-08 12:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 0⤋
nah, we usually reserve "underachievement" for conservatives.
2007-11-08 13:25:23 · answer #7 · answered by adam w 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did you take your meds today? Such a general statement, lacking thought.
2007-11-08 12:22:08 · answer #8 · answered by zoman 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
i believe that is a gross generalization.
why not shame us with your stunning resume'?
**********
refer to PNAC's figures, which can be interpreted in several ways. you can say that a person's underachievement motivates their political views and economic status...but you would be wrong.
in reality, people usually vote for the person that will be of the greatest benefit to themselves. the poor understand that the democratic party works for them, and the ultra-rich understand that the republican party works for them, so its no surprise that people vote along personal interest.
there are exceptions. many lower middle class people vote on non-economic issues (i.e. moral issues, abortion, etc.) and many wealthy people are philanthropists. the exceptions prove the rule.
2007-11-08 12:03:05 · answer #9 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 10⤊ 2⤋
According to you guys, we control the media and every college in the US...seems like we're doing okay.
2007-11-08 12:07:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 0⤋