Liberals as the most innocent people on earth

According to liberal themselves, they suffer fiscal calamity, they live in poverty not because:

They are dumb. No, no no, they are very smart, they went to public schools just like other kids but for some reason, they didn't end up too well.

They are less ambitious. No, no no, they wanted to be managers, bosses, architects and industrial designers. But for some reason, they ended up writting for liberal blogs or frying ... fries.

They are lazy. No way Jose! They are diligent. They work hard and never waste a minute in climbing up the career ladder. They work tirelessly toward their goals. But somehow, they just ended up with minimum wages. Hey, it's all because capitalism sucks!

Their own fault. What are you talking about? How come when liberals' life suck, it's their own fault? No! No! No!

So what's the reason behind their doing not so good? Well there are many factors, too many to list. But here is one of them: the evil, greedy, son-of-biscuit top 1 percenter. That's right, somehow them top 1% just love to personally attack, persecute, victimize and pick on liberals. For apparently no reason. Or because they belong to 2 rival classes. You know, class warfare and stuff. So it's logical.

So let me draw a picture of a typical INNOCENT progressive™ liberal for you: He studied hard, got straight As through out his grade schools, got awesome GPAs in college, and enrolled in a doctorate program in Chemistry and ... ended up earning minimum wages as a menial worker. Yea, that's pretty much what a typical liberals are like. I mean, c'mon it's completely not their fault.

It's all because capitalism, top 1% and America suck. Liberals are completely innocent, they are the ultimate victim.

 

Is there any impartial and probative source to give credence to the claim that these beliefs are pervasive within liberal thought processes?

Or could it be that this is just another Conservative smear thread because none of this is provable and is, in fact, disproved by people such as myself?

 

Should we ask how many of this mythical 1% actually earned the money and how many inherited it?

 

The rich are where they are because they're psychopath con-men. Otherwise they'd be using their money to help other people.

 

Please explain what difference it makes to Libs, Wiz??? The Kennedy's inherited their money which came from bootlegging but that was ALLLLRIGHT with the Libs. Romney gave away the money he inherited and made it on his own so he must be a back stabbing, money cheating S.O.B. according to the libs. So tell me, what difference does it make if you make the money yourself or inherit it??? According to the Libs, it's what political party you belong to that makes the difference.

 

The Kennedy family fortune was made through Wall Street and Hollywood. There is no hard evidence that Kennedy imported liquor illegally during Prohibition. It is acknowledged that Kennedy did import liquor during the prohibition period, many sources claim that it was done after the Eighteenth Amendment was already well on its way to being repealed and that it was nevertheless done legally and under supervision of the United States Government.

I used to believe the myth too.

I'm not about to go through all of the Forbes 400, but in the Top 10, there's four Waltons, the bastards that have made their billions on the backs of hard-working Americans. I would be surprised if any of them has zoned a department in one of their stores in the past two decades.

The two Kochs also inherited their billions and made the top ten. Although they did expand their fortunes, they would not have done so without their father's investments in the beginning.

So, in the top ten on the Forbes 2013 list, six of them did, in fact, inherit their fortunes, whether or not they made money later.

The other four on the top ten list made their billions in their own right, insofar as they were the founder or co-founder of the source of their fortune. The top two, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are noteworthy for their philanthropic pursuits, and Buffett especially is known for his frugality.

Larry Page and Jeff Bezos, the last two of the top ten are still largely involved with the day-to-day operations of their company in a way Bill Gates was ten to twenty years ago. Their fortunes could still be growing, and as a result would prefer to let the money accrue before giving it away.

 

You should make a movie. The innocence of liberals.

 

Ask your erstwhile OP

Obviously he has never heard of inherited wealth. Does grandpappy Kennedy fit into the above description?. Obviously no, so maybe conservatives might explain how well this profile fits the 1%

 

What's wrong with inheriting money?

 

Ask the OP he seems to think the only way to become part of the 1% is to subscribe to his version of getting rich

 

Are you talking about social liberals or economic liberals?

Oftentimes, the poorest people are socially conservative. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more socially liberal you are, and with more education, that often means more prosperity.

Economic liberalism is more varied by demographics. The poorest people are often economically liberal because they depend on government benefits. However, a lot of very wealthy people are also economically liberal (like Warren Buffett and the Kennedies). Economic conservatives tend to be in the middle. They cluster mostly among the upper middle and lower upper classes.

 

So by choosing not to help other people out with your money makes someone a psychopathic con-man? Wake up.

 

Closed thread, does not meet PF's requirement for respectable debate,,Flamebait!

Thank you
flounder