We don't need women, Blacks, gays..

[fli]

Women, Blacks, Queer, Asian, etc--
We just don't need them as a president.

I have found what we REALLY need.
We need a president who has been poor, and I mean... dirt poor.

Not the poor where your parents say that you're poor but you have 3 TVS, and a PS3. Poverty in the sense that it's created a whole lot of humility and built up character-- the type where your food is either beans or rice, and you get to wear plastic made-in-China Nike shoes so you could fit in a crowd that didn't want you.

sorry-- I've lapsed into old memories. I return to the point.

It seems to me that, after so many years of wanting an ethnic or other gender president, it comes down to this: how will that president serve everyone.

To me, it comes down to compassion, and I've learnt that compassion is something that not all people have, especially when they're from afluent families like the Kennedy's or Kerry's. That does NOT mean that a rich guy can be good--

But how does someone who doesn't know what it's like to make ends meet can make the right decision for the person who's losing their home right now?

When you get presidents who propose stuff such as "trickle-down-economics" and stuff like this, I cannot but sense a lack of compassion for the people who needs the most help.

Black President?
Female President?
Pfft--

Poor president would be best.

[PikeHead]

Hmm that does bring up a good point, but a poor president is like finding a ganster without a gun, or something to that affect. It would just be a hell of a lot harder to find a good "Poor" President too. I mean, picture this; If the guy is poor, he will go to drugs, then to guns and so on, or vice versa. And that is not presidential worthy.

It's simply not possible, to find a good, poverty stricken kid, who cares enough about the issues to make a solid difference as president. A rich president is a bit much, but a middle class one will do fine because he will know what it is to be poorer and richer than others.

On that note, Obama looks to be a fine candidate for president.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Yeah it would be great if our government weren't so corrupt that they bar poor people and silence anyone good enough and with the right ideas instead of money grubbing and bending the rules for the corporate media.

I say that hope has bid goodbye to us a long time ago, the only possible way for that to happen would be the overthrowing and reconstruction of the government, reconstructing the corporate sect since they would likely leave the country to ruin without a government to help them, and most of all the will to do so.

But that may not happen for a looooong time lol.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/14/08 07:53 PM, fli wrote:

Poor president would be best.

You want a president who thinks with his heart and not his head, and who would probably be very gullible. And gullibility can lead a person to do something that might cause more problems for the poor rather than fix them.

Maybe a ONCE poor, worked to the top president, but a president who IS poor creates some problems.

Before i am accused of being evil on the grounds of associating poverty to intelligence; i am not. But in order to avoid the things that i described above, one needs experience. Experience typically comes out of education [which requires money] or gaining experience through work. Most people knowledge wise that are qualified to lead the country require education or business experience that would either IMPLY they had money or GAINED money over the course of their working... at which point [take for example, the fact that congressional delegates make alot of money that they continue to earn at 100% after retirement] they will become rich anyway. [and still capable of commiting 'treasons against the proletariat'

[homor]

At 6/14/08 08:17 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Yeah it would be great if our government weren't so corrupt

here we go again.

[fli]

At 6/14/08 09:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You want a president who thinks with his heart and not his head, and who would probably be very gullible. And gullibility can lead a person to do something that might cause more problems for the poor rather than fix them.

I think that's the lesser evil than what we've experienced: rich guy thinking with his wallet.
And I think gullibility is a VERY individual characteristic because... well... look at Bush. Forbes lists him with as one of the wealthiest presidents along side the Kerry's and Kennedy's...

Yet, we know he's prone to emotion bursts and loses his head. We have, after all, seen him debate in 2004.

[poxpower]

Poverty breeds stupidity.

Although if a poor guy somehow made it aaaaaaaall the way to president today, that would be pretty impressive.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/14/08 09:29 PM, fli wrote:

At 6/14/08 09:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You want a president who thinks with his heart and not his head, and who would probably be very gullible. And gullibility can lead a person to do something that might cause more problems for the poor rather than fix them.

I think that's the lesser evil than what we've experienced: rich guy thinking with his wallet.
And I think gullibility is a VERY individual characteristic because... well... look at Bush. Forbes lists him with as one of the wealthiest presidents along side the Kerry's and Kennedy's...

Yet, we know he's prone to emotion bursts and loses his head. We have, after all, seen him debate in 2004.

You can't tell if it's a lesser of two evils unless you've experienced both, this is a first. And my interpretation of bushes descision to go into iraq was not one of gullibility, I don't think the war was fought specifically for oil, but due to the impending deals that Saddam was making with the EU.

If Gullibility is an individualistic characteristic, isn't the benevolence of a leader determined by the content of their individuality rather than their social class. When i say 'thinking with their heart' i am talking about the inaction of fiscal policy; most politicians aren't TRULY stupid; they know what the limits are. The ones that don't are the ones that create problems.

Problem is, in a world where so many people CAN become rich by making smart descisions; giving the countries leadership of fiscal policy into somone that hasn't proven that he or she can do such a thing, makes me skeptical of the good they could do for the country even IF they had benevolent intentions.

IMO you sound like the kind of person who is interested in a Enlightened despot, somone who rules for the good of all people; the problem is, such a person requires both intelligence and humanity, and there are many things that get in the way of each of those when a person is trying to rise to a political position.

So i stand on my position, somone who was ONCE poor and got rich is great, somone who remains poor and just enters the race to be elected isn't going to have a clue of what to do, other people will simply take advantage of that, and lobby their own interests out of that individuals power, i DO think it's possible to have somone who is rich and benevolent, they just rarely find their way into the game of politics because what election requires is a series of underhanded emotionalistic appeals and slogans that probably don't appeal to people of ethics; most of those you will find in appointed positions; Take the comptroller general for instance.

[gunner-564]

good point but,that makes you sexist,and raceist.#### you

[MrHero17]

NO we need a president who had a black mother an Asian father is gay, fat and a tranny and grew up very poor.

[RaharuHaruha]

Before I say anything, remember that the president is determined by how much money they have.

@fli: A poor person is likely not going to be president because poor people have few accomplishments. If a poor person were to become president they would have had to work their way up first. From my experiences being poor doesn't make you a smart person, most poor people are stupid. It is an accomplishment to work your way out of poverty, but being poor says nothing. And poor people voting for poor people is merely class warfare, much like racism.

@Pikehead: You're an idiot. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they're going to do drugs or belong to a gang.

@MrHero17: You forgot blind.

[psycho-squirrel]

Lincoln used to be poor.

We need a president who is a business man

[fli]

At 6/15/08 12:34 AM, gunner-564 wrote: good point but,that makes you sexist,and raceist.#### you

... ex-poor gay latino???

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

I've been extremely poor, and I can tell you, right now, how to help those in poverty;

Cut welfare extremely thin
Give tax cuts to large businesses

The end.

Seriously.

[Imperator]

Democrats tax the FUCK out of people and spend every dime on God knows what.....

Republicans give tax breaks, but are equally if not more spendthrift as Democrats. Might even make it worse with that "You pay lata!" mentality with which the tax breaks are supposed to comfort us.

Poor president might actually get our spending under control.

Ebenezer Scrooge 2012.

[CommanderX1125]

At 6/15/08 04:27 AM, Imperator wrote: Democrats tax the FUCK out of people and spend every dime on God knows what.....

Republicans give tax breaks, but are equally if not more spendthrift as Democrats. Might even make it worse with that "You pay lata!" mentality with which the tax breaks are supposed to comfort us.

Poor president might actually get our spending under control.

Ebenezer Scrooge 2012.

I nominate me for Dictator... erm... President then. I'm now a soul sucking business student, and strangly enough will have graduated by 2012 with time to spare. My qualifications? I hate both parties equally. If that isn't enough in this day and age, nothing is.

[bcdemon]

At 6/14/08 07:53 PM, fli wrote: Poor president would be best.

Is it possible to run a presidential campaign on Food Stamps?

[mindlessdestruction2]

At 6/14/08 09:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Although if a poor guy somehow made it aaaaaaaall the way to president today, that would be pretty impressive.

pox, for once, i actually agree with you

[fli]

At 6/15/08 04:27 AM, Imperator wrote: Democrats tax the FUCK out of people and spend every dime on God knows what.....

What are you talking about?
Republicans had taxed a lot during Bush's terms, not to mention Republican lead states. This whole Republican tax thing is just unreal.

Need I conjure a few words to jolt down some memories?
"Read my lips. No new taxes."

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/15/08 04:37 PM, fli wrote:

Need I conjure a few words to jolt down some memories?
"Read my lips. No new taxes."

Did you only read the first line? because you aren't refuting him. at all.

[Skizzzle]

Pshhh... Ignorant.

[Tomsan]

At 6/14/08 07:53 PM, fli wrote: Women, Blacks, Queer, Asian, etc--
We just don't need them as a president.

I have found what we REALLY need.
We need a president who has been poor, and I mean... dirt poor.

I pretty much agree ith the statement. when asked political figures would choose kofi annan (relatively rich, but still lived in what we would call poverty) or nelson mandela as world presidents

[JT1]

At 6/14/08 08:06 PM, PikeHead wrote: Hmm that does bring up a good point, but a poor president is like finding a ganster without a gun, or something to that affect. It would just be a hell of a lot harder to find a good "Poor" President too. I mean, picture this; If the guy is poor, he will go to drugs, then to guns and so on, or vice versa. And that is not presidential worthy.

It's simply not possible, to find a good, poverty stricken kid, who cares enough about the issues to make a solid difference as president. A rich president is a bit much, but a middle class one will do fine because he will know what it is to be poorer and richer than others.

On that note, Obama looks to be a fine candidate for president.

Actually, the wealthy consume more drugs than the poor. The reason is that drugs are expensive. Think about it. Studies suggest that there is more drug use in suburban schools than urban school.

[n64kid]

At 6/14/08 07:53 PM, fli wrote: Poor president would be best.

Hey works in the movies....
Billy Valentine, a poor black man, with the help of Louis Winthorpe the third cornered the Dukes in the market. So yeah, poor people who can't manage their own finances should assume the following duties:

Head of State
Chief Executive
Chief Legislator
Economic Planner
Party Leader
Chief Diplomat
Commander in Chief

Nelson Mandela would have made a far better president than George Bush, I mean who are we kidding?

[Der-Lowe]

Having a government pro-poor people may still be prejudicial for society as a whole, and in the long run for poor people as well.
The best example of this is populist governments.
Furthermore, former poor presidents might use power for revenge, and attack the richer people, hurting businessmen which leads to less business initiative, and stagnation.

What we learn in Management is that there is not proper "type" of leader or a proper "style" of leadership; a different leader is needed in each situation: that's the contingency theory.

[alchemylord]

At 6/15/08 04:17 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I've been extremely poor, and I can tell you, right now, how to help those in poverty;

Cut welfare extremely thin
Give tax cuts to large businesses

The end.

Seriously.

If you being poor is actually true. Then your probably the first and only poor person that thinks that way. Although strangely I agree with you on the welfare issue.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/17/08 02:03 AM, alchemylord wrote:

If you being poor is actually true. Then your probably the first and only poor person that thinks that way. Although strangely I agree with you on the welfare issue.

I used to be poor. Thanks to the fact that I'm now middle-class, and have access to political books and essays to put things together I would not have realized myself, I can see that the reason we managed to make it out of the "ghetto" was hard work, not government handouts. I mean, government hand outs kept us alive and let my mother go to college, but the fact that she then got a job, rented a house, and stopped being a welfare mom is why we are where we are. Anyone else could do the same as us, if only they choose to stop relying on government aid their whole lives.

And as long as the government is still WILLING to aid them their whole lives, they won't stop depending on it.

[uhnoesanoob]

But Fli, remember the clintons? They were rich and they looted the white house, imagine what a poor person would do!

[fli]

At 6/17/08 10:29 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: But Fli, remember the clintons? They were rich and they looted the white house, imagine what a poor person would do!

I'm not really sure what you're talking about the Clinton looting the White House. What did they loot?

[SmilezRoyale]

Let's not forget Lenin and war communism.

peace land and bread!