Only the rich may lead us

[Stunt]

In the 2004 primaries:
(Percentage self-funding for campaign)
George W. Bush - 0%
John Kerry - 0%
Ralph Nader - 3%
Michael Badnarik - 0%
Michael Peroutka - 63%
David Cobb - 0%
Carol Moseley Braun - 2%
Wesley Clark - 0%
Howard Dean - 0%
John Edwards - 0%
Dick Gephardt - 0%
Bob Graham - 0%
Dennis Kucinich - 0%
Lyndon LaRouche - 0%
Joe Lieberman - 0%
Al Sharpton - 13%

No personal money is needed to run for president.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
In the 2004 primaries:
(Percentage self-funding for campaign)
George W. Bush - 0%
John Kerry - 0%
Ralph Nader - 3%
Michael Badnarik - 0%
Michael Peroutka - 63%
David Cobb - 0%
Carol Moseley Braun - 2%
Wesley Clark - 0%
Howard Dean - 0%
John Edwards - 0%
Dick Gephardt - 0%
Bob Graham - 0%
Dennis Kucinich - 0%
Lyndon LaRouche - 0%
Joe Lieberman - 0%
Al Sharpton - 13%

No personal money is needed to run for president.

I guess that this means that the homeless bum with mental disorders that urinates in public that RichardE supports can become president!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE
A homeless person? That is a pretty big jump....

It's about as big of a jump as your earlier statement.

Though.. someone with intimiate knowlegde of the political arena, with a knack for dealing with people, who is also extremly intelligent and centered, who only makes 200k/year at a university cannot afford to run either. In a country of almost 350 million people, you are saying only the upper echelon, elite of the elite financially should be able to run?

Anyone can run for the presidency, but only the elite of the elite in terms of success will hopefully win. Why can't someone making $200k/year afford to run? How much does a governor make? What about a congressman? Senator?

Read the article, 100million dollar entry..where are they going to get the money? Corps and lobbyist.. what does that mean? That the admin is controlled by corps and lobbyist....

I'm not sure if you know this, but you can donate money, too.

Of course I know that, where do the majority of political donations come from?

So? And how is that relevant to you having to be obscenely rich to run for the presidency? However, it depends on the candidate. Kucinich had most of his donations come from donations of less than $200.

You have lost your argument in regards to personal wealth and the presidency. You may now go support homeless and mentally ill candidate.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I totally agree; hilton and the rest of hollywood are morons. But i will garantee those 8.2 million are the best and brightest in the country.

Firstly, having all your assets add up to $1M is not a measure of being "wealthy" anymore. With the recent real estate prize bonanza, most families I know are already close to, or have crossed that barrier. Having a million in assets is not being rich... it's not even the top of the middle class - it's the middle of the middle class.

Now if you want to talk about people who make more than $1M per year, then we'll start getting into the wealthier category, and I doubt there's more than 100'000 of them. Now let's take those people, and then let's take the top 10% of the last 5 years worth of law, medical, math, science, and engineering graduates. It'll probably work out to be the same number. And you're still going to claim that the former group is smarter?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE
A homeless person? That is a pretty big jump....

It's about as big of a jump as your earlier statement.

Though.. someone with intimiate knowlegde of the political arena, with a knack for dealing with people, who is also extremly intelligent and centered, who only makes 200k/year at a university cannot afford to run either. In a country of almost 350 million people, you are saying only the upper echelon, elite of the elite financially should be able to run?

Anyone can run for the presidency, but only the elite of the elite in terms of success will hopefully win. Why can't someone making $200k/year afford to run? How much does a governor make? What about a congressman? Senator?

Your "argument" is a steaming pile of cow dung. It seems that your only definition of "success" is making money... while money is the only thing that is guaranteed to pass from generation to generation.

In your view, someone who won the Nobel Prize in medicine is dumber than the shmuck who inherited $500M from his uncle, and is now rapidly spending it on drugs and whores.

You must have been reading a different argument. Please try to respond correctly next time.

Anyways, a person who wins the Nobel Prize in medicine is likely to be successful in terms of finances as well.

LOL...

Not even close.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Stunt
In the 2004 primaries:
(Percentage self-funding for campaign)
George W. Bush - 0%
John Kerry - 0%
Ralph Nader - 3%
Michael Badnarik - 0%
Michael Peroutka - 63%
David Cobb - 0%
Carol Moseley Braun - 2%
Wesley Clark - 0%
Howard Dean - 0%
John Edwards - 0%
Dick Gephardt - 0%
Bob Graham - 0%
Dennis Kucinich - 0%
Lyndon LaRouche - 0%
Joe Lieberman - 0%
Al Sharpton - 13%

No personal money is needed to run for president.

I guess that this means that the homeless bum with mental disorders that urinates in public that RichardE supports can become president!

As long as the electorate believes in the person, they can win.

Can anyone just jump into the presidency; of course not. Starting at the state level and moving up is how most make their way to the top. You definately don't have to be rich to start getting elected though.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I guess that this means that the homeless bum with mental disorders that urinates in public that RichardE supports can become president!

That homeless bum would probably do more to save you from those European Arisocrates then anyone on that list

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Stunt
Actually the rich tend to be the most intelligent in a nation. I trust someone with experience leading and managing large amounts of projects and issues than your regular old joe shmoe.

Also, the man you voted for in the last Canadian election was worth more than Bush and Cheney combined...ironic?? 😀

There is virtually no linear correlation between wealth and intelligence. Just look at Hollywood for example........

Yes there is, you're giving a very small fraction of wealthy people who earned their money by rare talents/looks. Actors, athletes, musicians (entertainers in general) don't have to be intelligent, they just have to have special talent. Pretty much everyone else that's rich (and are self made) are intelligent.

No, pretty much everyone else who's rich has inherited this money from their families.

I may waver towards agreeing with you, if you limit the selection to first generation wealth... other than that - they're simply average... on average.

 

[Stunt]

Where are you getting 'most are inheriting their wealth' from?
Do you have any information to back that up?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Where are you getting 'most are inheriting their wealth' from?
Do you have any information to back that up?

You're going to tell me that you think the majority of the wealthy started out in the middle/lower class? That's logically preposterous. Just think about it - if you're wealthy, your childrens are going to be wealthy. The rate of people becoming newly wealthy cannot possibly be higher than the rate of inheritances.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE
A homeless person? That is a pretty big jump....

It's about as big of a jump as your earlier statement.

Though.. someone with intimiate knowlegde of the political arena, with a knack for dealing with people, who is also extremly intelligent and centered, who only makes 200k/year at a university cannot afford to run either. In a country of almost 350 million people, you are saying only the upper echelon, elite of the elite financially should be able to run?

Anyone can run for the presidency, but only the elite of the elite in terms of success will hopefully win. Why can't someone making $200k/year afford to run? How much does a governor make? What about a congressman? Senator?

Your "argument" is a steaming pile of cow dung. It seems that your only definition of "success" is making money... while money is the only thing that is guaranteed to pass from generation to generation.

In your view, someone who won the Nobel Prize in medicine is dumber than the shmuck who inherited $500M from his uncle, and is now rapidly spending it on drugs and whores.

You must have been reading a different argument. Please try to respond correctly next time.

Anyways, a person who wins the Nobel Prize in medicine is likely to be successful in terms of finances as well.

LOL...

Not even close.

LOL - you couldn't even counter the argument.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Stunt
Where are you getting 'most are inheriting their wealth' from?
Do you have any information to back that up?

You're going to tell me that you think the majority of the wealthy started out in the middle/lower class? That's logically preposterous. Just think about it - if you're wealthy, your childrens are going to be wealthy. The rate of people becoming newly wealthy cannot possibly be higher than the rate of inheritances.

Interesting assumption...too bad you cannot back it up with something other than your opinion.

I do have data showing IQ rates and average take home incomes for the various states. For the most part the wealthy are the most intelligent.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I guess that this means that the homeless bum with mental disorders that urinates in public that RichardE supports can become president!

That homeless bum would probably do more to save you from those European Arisocrates then anyone on that list

Please explain. BTW, it's more than just European aristocrats... do not forget the Canadian one who enforces the law that dictates that the head of state must only be of a royal blood (and rich!).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Actually the rich tend to be the most intelligent in a nation.

I trust someone with experience leading and managing large amounts of projects and issues than your regular old joe shmoe.

Bush stutters, cannot speak

Cheney shoots his friends

Most intelligent eh? :roll:

Based on your example you must be dumb as a rock or are you rich???

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE
A homeless person? That is a pretty big jump....

It's about as big of a jump as your earlier statement.

Though.. someone with intimiate knowlegde of the political arena, with a knack for dealing with people, who is also extremly intelligent and centered, who only makes 200k/year at a university cannot afford to run either. In a country of almost 350 million people, you are saying only the upper echelon, elite of the elite financially should be able to run?

Anyone can run for the presidency, but only the elite of the elite in terms of success will hopefully win. Why can't someone making $200k/year afford to run? How much does a governor make? What about a congressman? Senator?

Your "argument" is a steaming pile of cow dung. It seems that your only definition of "success" is making money... while money is the only thing that is guaranteed to pass from generation to generation.

In your view, someone who won the Nobel Prize in medicine is dumber than the shmuck who inherited $500M from his uncle, and is now rapidly spending it on drugs and whores.

You must have been reading a different argument. Please try to respond correctly next time.

Anyways, a person who wins the Nobel Prize in medicine is likely to be successful in terms of finances as well.

LOL...

Not even close.

LOL - you couldn't even counter the argument.

What, you want me to produce the nobel prize winners' tax returns? I've met a few, and they are all well-off, but none of the ones I met can be considered wealthy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Actually the rich tend to be the most intelligent in a nation.

I trust someone with experience leading and managing large amounts of projects and issues than your regular old joe shmoe.

Bush stutters, cannot speak

Cheney shoots his friends

Most intelligent eh? :roll:

Based on your example you must be dumb as a rock or are you rich???

None of those actions seem to determine intelligence. The first is a speech impediment independent of intelligence, the other is an accident.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Meuge
What, you want me to produce the nobel prize winners' tax returns? I've met a few, and they are all well-off, but none of the ones I met can be considered wealthy.

Don't nobel prize winners get $1,000,000??

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RichardE
A homeless person? That is a pretty big jump....

It's about as big of a jump as your earlier statement.

Though.. someone with intimiate knowlegde of the political arena, with a knack for dealing with people, who is also extremly intelligent and centered, who only makes 200k/year at a university cannot afford to run either. In a country of almost 350 million people, you are saying only the upper echelon, elite of the elite financially should be able to run?

Anyone can run for the presidency, but only the elite of the elite in terms of success will hopefully win. Why can't someone making $200k/year afford to run? How much does a governor make? What about a congressman? Senator?

Your "argument" is a steaming pile of cow dung. It seems that your only definition of "success" is making money... while money is the only thing that is guaranteed to pass from generation to generation.

In your view, someone who won the Nobel Prize in medicine is dumber than the shmuck who inherited $500M from his uncle, and is now rapidly spending it on drugs and whores.

You must have been reading a different argument. Please try to respond correctly next time.

Anyways, a person who wins the Nobel Prize in medicine is likely to be successful in terms of finances as well.

LOL...

Not even close.

LOL - you couldn't even counter the argument.

What, you want me to produce the nobel prize winners' tax returns? I've met a few, and they are all well-off, but none of the ones I met can be considered wealthy.

Yes, I'd like this magical thing called 'proof'.

Anyways, you don't need to be wealthy or born wealthy to 'lead us' in any form. So go on ahead and keep voting in your homeless bums.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Please explain. BTW, it's more than just European aristocrats... do not forget the Canadian one who enforces the law that dictates that the head of state must only be of a royal blood (and rich!).

Someone who knows what it's like to be down and out is far more then likely to extend a hand then someone who has never had to suffer.

I've seen a post from you that your a 82 year old man. I'm not going to sit and try to explain things to someone who should know better. If you believe that Europe and Canada is out to genocide you there is nothing I can do or say to convince you otherwise. You feel safe where you are and to me that's all that matters.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Please explain. BTW, it's more than just European aristocrats... do not forget the Canadian one who enforces the law that dictates that the head of state must only be of a royal blood (and rich!).

Someone who knows what it's like to be down and out is far more then likely to extend a hand then someone who has never had to suffer.

It's possible, but not a certainty. Millions of people live their lives dominated by inbred people who come from a particular blood line and are made millionaires by the government. You can be poor, middle class, rich, whatever. I think that the people who got the vote out in Australia in an attempt abolish the monarchy weren't homeless.

I've seen a post from you that your a 82 year old man. I'm not going to sit and try to explain things to someone who should know better. If you believe that Europe and Canada is out to genocide you there is nothing I can do or say to convince you otherwise. You feel safe where you are and to me that's all that matters.

lol... thanks for the laugh.

 

[Stunt]

Do we really want our politicans extending a hand? In a recent election our left wing party's leader burst into tears when talking about homeless people. These people should not be in charge of the country's finances as they will completely bankrupt us.

 

[lyssword]

I will vote 4 the best sim city player or a player of some strategy game 😛 hahah j/K 😛

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

lol... thanks for the laugh.

I was beening sincere

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: lyssword
I will vote 4 the best sim city player or a player of some strategy game 😛 hahah j/K 😛

But...but...what about the people who can't afford a computer!!!

Not fair! Must allow ALL people to become president!! 😛

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

lol... thanks for the laugh.

I was beening sincere

Same here. I am not 82 years old, lol.