It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Libs getting out after Bush wins 2nd Term

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
2 out of 3 articles of impeachement were passed. all three should have been passed after what the clintons did to the white house as they left sending white house furniture it a arkansas warehouse.
too late though




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Interesting to note how many more people with degress vote for Kerry. The rest of the slack jawed ape people vote red.

Guess you missed this link I provided on page 2, so
let me give it to you again
www.lsureveille.com...
Try again Elf ... you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off on this one.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej



Interesting to note how many more people with degress vote for Kerry. The rest of the slack jawed ape people vote red.


There is brilliance at its best. Anyhow, In my neighborhood, there were many signs up for Kerry. Much more so than in the less educated white areas, which were all for Bush. The less educated poor black areas, were all for Kerry. All of my family has *at least* a BA/BS and most of us have advanced degrees, same with all of my friends. Out of all the people I can think of, one of my friend's husband voted Kerry, and a couple from CA voted Kerry. The rest of us voted Bush

It is VERY arrogant to believe that people who voted for Bush did so out of ignorance. Yah ever though maybe Kerry was LESS desireable?? Maybe he didn't seem like a very good leader? At least Bush can make up his mind. I don't agree with him on everything, but given the choice of the two, he was the lessor of two evils. I don't understand how that is so difficult to comprehend.

From the debates(which Kerry was CLEARLY a superior speaker and debator) I like Kerry less and less. He cannot answer a question with a straight answer to save his life. If he could not take a stand on the issues, what would he do when he got in office?? That was the question! What the heck would he do! At least Bush is predictable. God only knows what worse fate we could have faced.

It isn't ignorance that led Bush to win. It is the fact that Kerry was too far to the left and too wishy freakin' washy. There wasn't a conspiracy to fix the election, Bush actually won this one. And believe it or not, people do have degrees outside of LA/NYC/DC and those sort of large cities. I know it is hard to comprehend, but it is true.


Very well said. I'll admit right here and now that I'm not a very smart kid. I do go to High School and I'm in the 11th grade so I understand that I'm not quite as educated as most of you on subjects but I am voiced to have an opinion. Now that thats out in the open and will probably regret it later on in the thread... lol I'd like to reply and get in on this action. I'm Republican and I do support Bush because I feel like I can sorta relate to him in some ways or another like similar personalities and so none of you tricky liberals bash me out of this thread I'm not exactly like him because were both very different from each other so please don't link me to everything he does that you(democrats) dislike about him. Now, after the election was over and after months and weeks of debating with students & teachers of opposing sides throughout my school, I noticed the Kerry supporters were parading around school that the election was rigged because Bush got a whole 3 points more then Kerry.(as if that was a "land slide victory".) I couldn't help but laugh at them because over the past year of campaigning, Democrats seemed extremely desperate and tried to make sure they didn't screw up or make wrong decisions like picking a running mate. I asked them how it was rigged and none of them could give me a reasonable answer about it. Then the new arguement was that everyone who voted for Bush were people with low IQs or that they thought kerry looked like a freak or like Count Chocula from the cereal box and decided not to vote for him because of his weird lookin' face. While that was funny and I had to laugh it seemed like another desperate excuse from kerry supporters to ease the pain of the defeat they had just endured,so of course I debated them about it and like alot of them that I've fought with they got really quiet which was rewarding that I had them speechless but I also got really bored because I seem to enjoy debating with people.
lol These students were alot smarter than me grade wise and would definitly have a higher IQ then me(not all, but most) I was alittle more educated on things than them. So my point is just because you have better grades doesn't mean your not educated on politics. I'm pretty interested in politics because I plan on going into the military so I think it's a good idea to get involved with voting and to have idea's about whats going on in the country and around the world. Anyways thanks for taking my opinion into acount and I would like to state that I don't think a high divorce & crime rates and all that other stuff that was fought between Blue & red states really matter. Those are personal problems between Americans and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a whole lot to do with being Republican or democrat or making educated decisions when voting.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
numerous high income Republicans suck their enormous
incomes out of urban centers then flee back to suburbs
where they pay property and local taxes.

Sure everyone living in "Mansion Estates"...


Middle income Republican here... we are paid our modest
salary in PA, and live in DE. Yes we pay property and
local taxes in DE. We also pay INCOME tax for both
PA and DE. Yep. Double hit. We can't afford to live in
PA. The property taxes are waaaaaaaaay too high. DE
is easier on our budget.

Mansion Estates ... around here we call those McMansions.
Built fast, look big and filling, actually aren't healthy for you ....
(the heating bills are deadly, and the time spent cleaning
them is sickening). McMansions.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Good riddance to those lousy whining Libs and Dems we are better off without them so we can help our elected President to get the hard work done. Our President got over 50% of the vote in a clean election no matter what you say, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

As a world leader with the greatest economy and military force and baseball teams that the globe has ever seen it is our responsibility to get rid of dangerous weapons everywhere and to bring peace and stability and freedom and democracy to countries run by oppressive tyrants and evil dictators. While we are there we will show the people how much we love them by beating and killing all terrorists and insurgents who stand in the way of them being liberated.

That is our God-given task, and we should share in the God-ordained profits with our friends who have seen the light and support us and we should secure strategic positions in those countries rich in evildoers and oil and resources, for the good of our future and all Americans.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Middle income Republican here... we are paid our modest
salary in PA, and live in DE. Yes we pay property and
local taxes in DE. We also pay INCOME tax for both
PA and DE. Yep. Double hit. We can't afford to live in
PA. The property taxes are waaaaaaaaay too high. DE
is easier on our budget.

Mansion Estates ... around here we call those McMansions.
Built fast, look big and filling, actually aren't healthy for you ....
(the heating bills are deadly, and the time spent cleaning
them is sickening). McMansions.



Ya, I hate those.

You're right though, there are certainly disadvantages as well as advantages to crossing state lines to work, though I was complaining more about intra-state county crossers. Unfortunately, those extreme situations of interstate living are no longer limited to just the northeast as all states now fiercely compete for the property taxes of border city workers. Usually it's the "city" side that loses, but the gentrification movement is helping to reshape that (affluent singles and young couples taking "back" inner cities).

I seriously feel for your tax situation, but I don't think you'll find a bigger "economic martyr" than the affluent childless gay couples bidding up inner city bungelows for the privelege of dutifully paying all those taxes to their loyal ideological home, knowing full well they'll never get a single benefit of marriage, social services support or public education back in return.

Not that just gays pay city taxes though.
No, the inner city liberatti of latte sipping loft dwellers funding the "hubs" of American commerce take all kinds.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Rant, not only gay couples who choose not to have children(because MANY gay couples DO) but couples who choose not to get married and/or have kids and couples who choose not to have children have the same LACK of benefit from social services and public schools

Not many people who are above poverty level in the larger cities(who live in urban areas) send their children to private school anyhow, how about those who choose to send their children to private school. They pay double! Their taxes go to pay for public school and they get the double whammy of private tuition on top.

LIfe isn't always perfectly equitable. We all pay taxes to make sure the next generation has the benefit of education, of protection from crappy abusive parents ect;

I can't believe you are whining about a gay couple when it isn't just them that doesn't get the return on their tax dollars. You can always move to an area with very low property taxes and problem is solved. Move to Sevier county TN. No state income tax, many areas are DIRT cheap to live, $200,000 would buy you a NICE 2500-3000 sf home with crown moulding and alot of custom touches. You know what your total property tax would be??? $332. That is it.

If people CHOOSE to live in a high tax area, that is a CHOICE. You have the freedom to move where you would like. I live in the county area ,that doens't have city tax, and BETTER schools. I pay significantly more than Sevier county, but NOTHING like what people in the NE pay. One of the reasons we CHOOSE to live here. Good public schools and low tax. Not to mention there is not state income tax.

Where one lives is a choice. Having or not having children is a choice(even if you are gay) ect; and so on. Life isn't always equitable. Nor is it always easy or fair. You make of it what you want. Cry and complain or smile and make the best of it. However you will.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I can't believe people still are embracing ignorance about impeachment. Clinton WAS impeached! He was not removed from office because he was acquitted in the trial by the Senate.

Anyway I agree with the good Doctor, let the liberals flee. It will make the country stronger.
He was acquited? then he wasnt impeached.
Djohn, why would you possibly want to get rid of sweet libs like myself? thats not nice to say about half the country. How unamerican of you.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
I can't believe you are whining about a gay couple when it isn't just them that doesn't get the return on their tax dollars. You can always move to an area with very low property taxes and problem is solved.


I'm not sure you were following the entire track of my argument. I wasn't whining about the unfairness of inner city taxes at all, or pointing out the inequities of taxation on a gay couple for any reason other than to show how FlyersFan (from her example) didn't have it too terribly bad.

In the bigger picture of this thread I'm pro-urban efficiencies. Pro-city. And defending against the notion of some that America rests entirely on the shoulders of rural America where the "real americans" live.

From my perspective, it's difficult to not consider those braving and contributing to America's great cities (not just draining income from it) not among the most patriotic of all!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
From my perspective, it's difficult to not consider those braving and contributing to America's great cities (not just draining income from it) not among the most patriotic of all!



*unintended double negative alert*

Is there generally an urban drift, or not?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by RANT
From my perspective, it's difficult to not consider those braving and contributing to America's great cities (not just draining income from it) not among the most patriotic of all!



*unintended double negative alert*

Is there generally an urban drift, or not?


Yeah, I did goof that one.


What do you mean about the drift though? There's been a couple. First the "white flight" of the 70's and 80's and now the "regentrification" drift back toward cities. (Or did you mean something else?)


As for the population shifts though, either politics are driving it to some degree, or one's surroundings tend to influence politics.

Some liberals are fleeing, as the thread suggests, but they are fleeing to cities (not the country en mass despite giddy conservative hype). Or maybe it's more like they're being called together (ala Stephen King) to make the final STAND.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I might suggest that instead of Canada, socialist.. er, lib.. ah, progressive Americans could move to Massachu#s, where an urbanized state has all the wonderful state programs and enlighted leadership that one would expect from Vancouver.
They would find a lot of vacancies, as it seems there is a net loss of residents in the state that exceeds all others, even North Dakota.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Rant you would agree that most urban centers trend democratic correct?
You would also agree that urban centers have the highest populations of poor?
You would also agree that for the most part, thse who have the highest incomes do not live within the city they work?
I am simply saying that there is a connection there.
As for educaton Rant, well to be honest depending on the type of degree I dont think it really gives any indicaton of intelligence.
For example would you consider someone with a four year degree in philosophy to be more able to make a good decision in reference to policy than someone with a trade school 2 year degree in automotive mechanics? I sure wouldn't.
The simple fact is most college degrees, especilly the liberal arts degrees, aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
The demographic makeup of those who live in the city are the poor as the largest percentage, the youth, and the trendy.
None of which historically trend conservative.
However those who own the companies, and make the money in cities tend to live in the suburbs.
So all you have really managed to prove is that the poor, the young, and the trendy vote heavily democratic, and we already knew that.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Rant you would agree that most urban centers trend democratic correct?


Of course. That would be the little blue spots on the map that account for 48% of the vote.



You would also agree that urban centers have the highest populations of poor?


I agree they have the highest populations of people which includes concentrations of poor, average, wealthy and superwealthy.

And there's the rub. Don't you have poor in red areas? Millions of them? Millions and millions of them in fact, only they're spread out all over the country helping ensure that red states suck the most out of the federal government as per the tax foundation?

North Dakota, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas...

Still "value voters" mind you. But people as poor as any ghetto minority in dreaded New York City?

Do you further agree these red areas don't have the highest concentrations of affluent people? Of course they don't. But then you press this point...



You would also agree that for the most part, thse who have the highest incomes do not live within the city they work?


Well you said "for the most part" so I'm assuming we exclude Donald Trump from your proof and all my high earning inner city friends in Atlanta, NYC and Boston. I already said alot of people contribute to inner city problems by sucking incomes out of them then fleeing to outside counties to pay property taxes. So assuming some do flee, let's look at the impact of those that don't but still vote overwhelmingly democratic.

Fulton County, Georgia: One of those "little blue spots" (I happen to know quite well) in a big red state. Median income $47K. Sure the surrounding counties people "flee" to have somewhat higher median incomes and a lower poverty index overall (even though several still went blue), but they also have exponentially less people. And a "median" being a median (not an average), that's one hell of alot of people earning about $50K a year that voted for John Kerry.

That shouldn't be that suprising though. Look at the national vote by demographics:

~50% of people earning $30K-$50K a year (22% of America) voted Kerry.
~43% of people earning $50K-$75K a year (23% of America) voted Kerry.
~45% of people earning $75K-$100K a year (14% of America) voted Kerry.

That's nearly 60% of America right there paying MOST of the taxes with nearly half voting Kerry. Of course Bush edged out, but don't make it predicated on some poor versus rich thing.

Those earning under $15K (on welfare, etc) are only about 8% of the country but a third of them still voted Bush! Are you sure you want to disown those votes? Please do!
I'll take those 3 points right now.


Also about 40% of those earning over $100K (though only 18% of the country) voted Kerry. Of course those $200K plus went 63% Bush, but don't act like a third to half of America's highest tax payers (a relatively small population) don't vote liberal.


I am simply saying that there is a connection there.


One vastly overblown by conservatives that believe they carry America on their shoulders alone, speak for the working and wealthy classes or "know best" for the rest of us.

What I'm pointing out with these high concentrations of working and wealthy Democratic voters is that they probably live in cities (as per vote map) and have a unique perspective to the benefits of democratic platforms someone in llpoolej's example of Sevier County, TN may not share.


Originally posted by llpoolej
You can always move to an area with very low property taxes and problem is solved. Move to Sevier county TN. No state income tax, many areas are DIRT cheap to live, $200,000 would buy you a NICE 2500-3000 sf home with crown moulding and alot of custom touches. You know what your total property tax would be??? $332. That is it.

If people CHOOSE to live in a high tax area, that is a CHOICE. You have the freedom to move where you would like. I live in the county area ,that doens't have city tax, and BETTER schools. I pay significantly more than Sevier county, but NOTHING like what people in the NE pay. One of the reasons we CHOOSE to live here. Good public schools and low tax. Not to mention there is not state income tax.


Sounds great...a Republican paradise. Only 71,000 people (97.3% white) with a per capita income of $24K (20% below the national average) and already non-supportive LOW taxes that voted Bush in 2004 in order to lower their federal taxes even more.

Not a unique red county by any stretch of the imagination. I live in one at the moment not doing nearly as well, but pro-Bush just the same. What all these counties tend share are two things though. They relatively contribute very little to the federal budget while sucking more per capita out of it than their blue minority "laden" neighbors and all think they're the "real" America upon which supposedly lazy Democrats that don't pay taxes suckle.

According to them only the "poor, the young, and the trendy vote heavily democratic."

What a load of crap.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Rant - I am not saying that only the poor, young or trendy vote democratic. I am however saying that those people do make up the largest part of the democratic voter base.
Also your original contention as I understood it was that those with the higest income and educaton levels vote more heavily democratic was it not? However your own figures deny this assertion.

~50% of people earning $30K-$50K a year (22% of America) voted Kerry.
~43% of people earning $50K-$75K a year (23% of America) voted Kerry.
~45% of people earning $75K-$100K a year (14% of America) voted Kerry.
Also about 40% of those earning over $100K (though only 18% of the country) voted Kerry. Of course those $200K plus went 63% Bush,

While those in what i would consider to be middle class, 30-50k per year were evenly split between democrat and republican your own figures did show a trend of declining support for kerry as incomes levels increased.
I have no doubt that there are many high income individuals who vote heavily democratic. Most of the affluent liberals I know are so mired in guilt at thier own success that it wouldn't surprise me at all. However your original assertion that those with the highest levels of income and education vote democratic while the poor ignorant rednecks voted for bush has been shown false.
The simple fact is the more you make the more likely you are to vote Republican.
As for education I do not know having not seen any figures, However considering that most cllege degrees have no practical applicaton, the notoriously liberal bent of professors on average(with the possible exception of economic and business professors) and the vast amounts of "ivy league white mans guilt" that I have seen in americas colleges I dont think it would mean anything anyway.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
My original premise (I believe...it's been so long ago) was a reaction to the original charge that libs aren't real Americans or somehow ruined this country and the subsequent assertion that America would be stronger if all the liberals left.

And in that reaction I asserted that the "blue areas" are the cities that have among the highest concentrations of educated and affluent individuals which would account for why blue states end up on the losing end of federal distributions. That was never to say they don't have the most poor too. Or that rural red has affluent and educated as well.

I was just attempting to correct a prevalent misconception on urban/liberal America, not say Republican voters on average are poorer or less educated.

I think I've tried to make the point of relative class parity several times now in this thread but people keep wanting to disagree. You just did again pointing out the trend for income (at a certain point) to lean conservative as it gets higher or liberal as it gets lower despite being relatively slpit in the middle.

I don't deny that on average. But as shown in the urban/rural proofs, it not only takes alot of urban voters to equal 48% of the vote, but alot of really affluent urban democratic voters to make those national averages work out how they do.

I don't think you and I are saying much different, just emphasizing divergent aspects of the same data. The thing is though, I'm really not trying to say Democrats are somehow better Americans or contribute more, or are more educated or any of that. I'm just saying they aren't the second class citizens some would have you believe.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Ok then my bad, I was under the impression (apparenty mistaken) that you were attempting to prove that democrats were better educated and paid on average than republicans.
However I agree that this country would not be better off if all liberals were to leave the country, I do feel there is a need for dffering opnions if for no other reason than to help keep the national debate going.
However there are quite a few liberals who I would not mind helping to pack.

At the head of this list are those who feel the 9/11 attacks were justified and that those who died were not innocent victims.
That being said Rant, think you are on the wrong track by attempting to tie the Urban democratic voter base to either education or income. I feel its more to do with social pressure than anything else. If you dwell or work in a city and you let it be known that you fell homosexualty to be immoral, you are attacked, critisized, and ostracisized untill you change your beliefs, or at the very least give lidservice to the opposng camp. Do this lonbg enough and human nature beng what it is people will come to actually believe anything they say for long enough. The same concept applies to all the democratic planks.
Welfare, abortion, AA, Hate crimes legislation, etc.
The cities which have the highest density of poverty, along with the highest rates of crime, and highest densty of minorties are of course going to trend heavily democratic. It only stands to reason that those who gain the most from the democratic planks will be the biggest supporters of it. But how many of the well paid professional democrats vote dem because they truly agree with those planks and how many do so because they have been condtioned to believe it by peer pressure?
Anyone who goes to college is more likely to develop liberal ideas, is this because they have been educated and are smarter or because those who educate them have planted these ideas?
I have a very dim view of professors overall, save for those I have met who teach an course which has practical apllication in society. Even many of those I have met in fields which require the most rigourous proofs such as math and chemistry do not seem to apply the same standards to politcs. In point of fact as my grandpa woulda said, " most college professors aint got the good sense to get in outta the rain"
Unfortunately the "ivory tower" mentality is still very strong within academics and untill I begin to see more proof of professors having anything approaching practical life intelligence (ie the abillity to cope with and succeed in the non academic world) I will cntinue to look upon the large percentage of them as overeducated buffons.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
MWM, everything you're saying about urban peer pressure may have truth to it, but wouldn't the same be true of rural and suburban peer pressure?

If being around Democrats makes you a democrat, then wouldn't being surrounded by Republicans do the same? I know if you don't vote like the preacher says where I live, you're brow beat until you do or run out of church and might as well close your business and move because you're done in this town.

Obviously a third of America's poorest people voted Bush for some reason, despite your contention the prevalent driver of the vote is economics (if I read you right), followed next by peer pressure and surroundings.

I'd almost reverse those indicators myself knowing that every single person in this country earning under $200K a year (like 97% of us) stood to benefit economically under Kerry's proposed platform. (Though I'm sure we could argue all day about whether or not it would have worked.)


As for liberal arts degrees, versus advanced degrees, versus the school of hard knocks... I don't really hold a position there. Though anecdotally in my business dealings, I've never seen anyone that required more hand holding than MBA's.


I personally prefer the broad spectrum of critical thinking skills developed in liberal arts and sciences to very specific one trick ponies (no matter how talented), but that's in my profession. There's a place for all somewhere.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
to show how FlyersFan (from her example)
didn't have it too terribly bad.


You are absolutely right. We don't have it bad at all.
There are MANY more families that are in tough situations.
We gave up having a duel income. We made the decision
that I'd stay home and take care of our children (unfortunately
we only were able to adopt one). If we wanted all those
'things' more than our lifestyle, I'd be at work and Emily would
be a latch key kid.

The double hit on taxes is a real pain in the bank account, but
we can't afford any closer to Philly and we definately don't want
to raise our daughter inside the city. Nope. I'm not going to
sacrifice her just to 'raise up' Philly. If that's selfish, then
so be it.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Or maybe it's more like they're being called together
(ala Stephen King) to make the final STAND.


Excellent book. One of my favorites is 'The Talisman' that
King wrote with Peter Straub. Excellent.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join