Could a guy like this become President?
- 10-15-2004, 11:01 AM
Could a guy like this become President?
In your opinion what do you think that that the chances of a "nornal" person ever being able to become President are?
tak me for example. I will run for some type of local office opne day. Who knows how far that will go though.Here are some reasons why or why not I think that I have a slim chance of being in the Oval office one day.
- I did not graduate from an Ivy Leage school
- I am honest and speak my personal veiws on most things
- I do not have a lot of money
- I am a nuclear submarine officer
- My English skills suck (I thikn I could do as good as the President now with public speaking but you never know till you get there)
- I love and serve this country and believe in for what it stands for.
- 10-15-2004, 11:50 AM
With that laundry list I'd have to say no chance. But this is only based on historical information.
In theory, you may be a great candidate though!
- 10-15-2004, 12:28 PM
no offense at all man but absolutely no chance
mainly because your English skills admittedly suck and public speaking is one of the most important things people base their votes on (subconsciously or not)
10-15-2004, 12:48 PM
I guess on the bright sude of that at least I can practice my public speaking skills whereas I cnat practice being a Yale grad or prctice being rich.Originally Posted by glenihan
10-15-2004, 02:29 PM
LOL I don't think thats required. George Bush sucks at public speaking and he is president now and probably will be elected again. By the way funny monkey you forgot to mention one of the most important thing which is are you charismatic?Originally Posted by glenihan
10-15-2004, 02:48 PM
By deduction I think that I am. I dint really think about getting into politics until a couple of years ago when a few people told me that they thought I woudl be good at it. So that got the gears turning.Originally Posted by Jstrong20
Not to brag in any way actually it kind of sucks sometimes but I am usually appointed head of group projects and usually organize people and tell them what to do. If there is a problem I am the one who goes and talks to the teacher or to managment in the workplace. I am known as the outspoken one. So by deduction I guess I coudl consider myself charismatic and able to lead, but I wouldn't just say that right off the bat.
10-15-2004, 09:14 PM
I honestly think that nowadays you have to have lots of money or be in the pocket of some big business folks in order to even run for pres. much less win. I mean when's the last time a guy became president who was making like 20-40 grand prior to winning? It's sad because how can a millionaire relate to the lives people in the middle class lead?
10-15-2004, 09:36 PM
George Bush does have a likeability about him. He also exudes the sense that he stands by what he says.
Those are qualities that are probably more vital than clearly articulated speech.
By far the best public speaker of the four that have debated has been Dick Cheney. He certainly more than any other was capable of laying out consistent, logical arguments on his feet and cornering his opponents. With that said, he just barely won his debate with John Edwards, namely because he doesn't have Edwards' charisma (thoug he practically took a wrecking ball to Edwards and had him backpeddling pretty bad).
Funny Monkey, the only real shot you'd have at President is if you could move through the ranks and become either a subcommander or a general or something of that nature. You'd have to be highly decorated and serve a major role in combat.
To run for President, you really have to have a resume. I don't think you have to have an Ivy League degree. I don't know where John Edwards went to undergrad, but he only went to UNC for law school. It's a top 30 law school, but it doesn't carry THAT much clout in the legal community and wouldn't have impressed hiring partners at major firms. John Kerry went to BC Law, which isn't ranked all that highly, either (top 25).
Still, they got their experience, got their money, and that made them viable candidates. Not sure if Wes Clark had money.
10-16-2004, 12:49 AM
First thing you gotta do if you plan on seriously being president is get as far away from AAS as possible . They will find out you did it and bring it up and it will scew things up.. well actually, maybe not.. look at Arnold. Then when your in office you can legalize them!
10-16-2004, 01:02 AM
Sorry, I have to say: NO.
*It's become a sin to actually have core convictions and act on them.
*If your not a great public speaker you're considered and idiot, just because people are ignorant.
*If you can't speak english, you better have graduated Ivy League...but you didn't.
All that really matters is that you know big words, want to make people happy, and lie to get votes. That's how you become president these days. Make everyone happy because they're too stupid to know when you're telling them an outright lie.
EDIT: But, if you do ever run, I think you possess qualaties that would be nice in the office! Too bad is seems that those qualities are looked down upon these days
10-16-2004, 08:47 AM
Monkey, you can't get elected until the 2028 election. That gives you over 20 years to work on making money, learning speaking skills, ect. I think having charisma right now would be the best thing, and being able to make friends easily. Kerry and Bush both lost thier first attemps.
And remember that strange things can happen. I'm running for state rep right now, as a libertarian. I was just a place holder, thought it would be cool seeing my name on the ballot. But the democrats didn't run anybody in this race, so I actually have a chance. And four years ago my state elected a dead guy to the senate instead of electing John Ashcroft for another term.
I think you've got a chance. Just make some powerful friends, and learn from them.
10-16-2004, 09:14 AM
Yeah that is a prblem. I have never touched a rec drug. I woudl give the bb communty major hookups out of the public light of course becausemost people think we are dumb scary adn unhealthy. i woudl definetely throw a little veto power on this latest ban and try and get an age restriction on things so that responsible adults can still use these products. I would never forget my roots and if I am big enogh I will just say my opponet is foolish and jeleous for making accusations of the sortOriginally Posted by darius
10-16-2004, 01:05 PM
If you've been to the PI in your career they are bound to find out how many ho's you banged while on shore leave, and the feminazi's will have a field day with that!
10-16-2004, 05:22 PM
Your best shot at becoming president w/out $$$ is by mastering the internet and getting your point accross to millions by using the internet. It's pretty damm tough though because too many Americans are gullible and will believe the mainstream media, that's why ephedra was banned and now andro.
10-23-2004, 05:36 AM
Hey, except for the English (public speaking?) thing, you could be Jimmy Carter.
Carter was born in the town of Plains, Georgia, to James Earl Carter and Bessie Lillian Gordy. He was the first president born in a hospital. He grew up in nearby Archery. He attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946, the same year he married Rosalynn Smith. Carter was a very gifted student and finished 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Vietnam POW and war hero Jeremiah Denton was one of Carter's classmates. He served on submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, and was later selected by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program. Carter loved the Navy and planned to make it his career. His ultimate goal was to be Chief of Naval Operations. Upon the death of his father in 1953, however, he resigned from the Navy and established a peanut farming business in Plains. From a young age, Carter showed a deep commitment to Christianity, serving as a Sunday School teacher throughout his political career.
10-23-2004, 10:19 AM
10-23-2004, 01:46 PM
LOL. That's all good as long as he doesn't actually "become Jimmy Carter" in any aspectOriginally Posted by INFOHAZARD
10-23-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Actually, I consider Carter the best 'Ex-President' in living memory.
He did suck as a president for exactly the opposite reasons that Bush sucks as a president now, but they both suffer/ed from the lack of balance with respect to the use of power.
10-23-2004, 08:04 PM
The best, huh? That guy's ridiculous. I love the latest quote from him about how we could have avoided the Revolutionary War if only the British were more sensitve to needs. Talk about out of touch?!?! LOL.Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
Plus, what exactly did Jimmy Carter accomplish that make him so great?
10-23-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Could you find the source of that quote? Never heard that one.
One recent thing he did was to shame the Georgia Education System away from strong-arming Creationist language into Georgia system science books. Basically he's put himself into a position where he can put being a truly 'nice guy' towards doing good things. He was far too 'nice' to be an effective president.
10-24-2004, 11:01 AM
Creationism should be taught as a theory just like everything else. It is just as plausible as Evolution IMO.
10-24-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
Except that scientists should set the science agenda and Christians should set the Christian agenda. Creationism belongs in Sunday School, not science class. The last time religion ran the science aganda, the sun orbited the earth which was the center of the universe (a superficially logical theory which had been in vogue for thousands of years). Galaleo had to recant the heretical theory.
Or, as noted on The Simpsons:
Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion.
10-24-2004, 02:49 PM
whatever man. there is just as much scientific proof in evolution that there is in creationism.
What religion said that the sun orbited the earth? And besides later it was proven to be wrong. Creationism or Evolution will never be scientificaly proven.
Seperation of the church and the state was designed to keep the state out of the church not the other way around.
10-24-2004, 04:28 PM
If you don't know something as basic as that, you really shouldn't be arguing these points- your ignorance is showing. You seem know neither science nor religion.Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
Here, go learn ya sonething:
Neither will Newton's laws of thermodynamics, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost uniformly accepted in the scientific community, save for the occasional crackpot who tries to make a perpetual motion machine, or religious fanatic who insists that God can break the physical laws.Creationism or Evolution will never be scientificaly proven.
Leave the science to the scientists and the religion to the theologists. Creationism is not a scientific theory any more than the teracentric view of the universe is.
That's what the wing-nuts have been saying of late. You certainally have been exposed to their propaganda.Seperation of the church and the state was designed to keep the state out of the church not the other way around.
If it weren't for propaganda, a lot of people would be completely ignorant, I guess, but I recommend getting a real education.
Let me explain to you are incorrect- the seperation is two way, not just one-way. Actually, Thomas Jefferson can do a better job that I can, so I will quote him:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
"Our Constitution ... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes."
Then there this letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, an excerpt of which is chisled into the Jefferson Memorial. Look at it context- he's referring to the church!
"I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth."
"The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live."
There's another source, a bit more official that discusses the Church/State issue, the Treaty of Tripoli (with the "Musselmen"), penned and signed in 1796, during Washington's administration. It states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."
It was ratified by the Senate in 1797. There wasn't the slightest debate over this passage.
So basically the people telling you the First Amendment was not intended to keep religion out of government are lying to you. I recommend you vote these liars out of office and stop going to their churches.
10-24-2004, 07:41 PM
^^^ Ok not going to lie I didnt know catholics taught that. That doesnt show any ignorance on my part. I am not a Catholic. I never claimed to know anythign about Catholicism.
The law of Thermodynamics doesnt even come close to a comparison to evolution. How is it that law of thermo not provable. I know through a lot of my electrical studies that the law of thermo is indeed true. Because I can observe that. Did any one observe evolution? No Same as creation. Can anyone reproduce the results that came from either? No. Regardless someone has to accept one belief or the other but neither have one ounce of scientific proof. If one side said that there was scientific proof I consider it to be biased. Now if you want to talk about a certian theory of evolution there are laws of physics that can disprove some them. Whether or not you think those laws applied back then is up to you. Can you disprove creation? I can prove that there is a God just as much as you can prove there is not one. You are more educated than me hands down but there is no way anyone will ever prove any theory. If we can prove Einsein's theory of relativity I think that we could prove the law of thermo.
As far as the church and the state thing. Yeah I see it your way and no I don't. Why did people come over on the Mayflower? If you dont know the correct answer to that then it seems you have been the one that has lended an ear to propoganda.
10-24-2004, 07:53 PM
Evolution has as much part of a religion as does creationism..Athiesm. Let me give you some popular reading for you about evolutions lack of factual evidence to back it up (and mind you these books were written by people who are not creationists) Darwins black box by behe, and Evolution: Theory in crisis. Yes creationism should be taught in school so children arent force fed whatever BS their teachers spit in their direction!Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
10-26-2004, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
You don't identify with Catholisism? Well your religion didn't even exist when Galaleo was facing the Inquisition. Your religion spawned from Mother Catholicism, initially with Martin Luther a few years after Galaleo, and from there the incredible diversity of beliefs that came from that, as the Inquisition was beat down.
Think about it- there was a recent time your religion did not exist. Given that, how universal could it possibly be?
Evolution in our times? Sure. Prokayotes evolve incredibly quickly. Antibiotic resistance occurs in just a couple of years.
Eukaryotes are a bit more complex, but there are some obvious examples:
People whose ancestors come from towns in Europe ravaged by the bubonic plague are much more likely to be long-term survivors of HIV, or even to be immune to it. The allele that let specific individual survive the plague do the same for HIV. Go Figure.
Over a somewhat longer timeframe, the mechanism of skin color (amount of melanin) as seen stratified with latitude has been made clear. Too little sunlight penitrating the skin and there is inadequate vitamin D. Too much sunlight penetrating the skin and there is inadequate folate. Both problems cause severe birth defects. 100,000 yars ago, all our ancestors were black. when the diaspora left the horn of Africa into Yemen(as deduced from mitchondrial DNA analysis) and spread worldwide from there, it took about 20- 30,000 years for the skin color to adjust to a given climate.
Heck, we even know what African tribe all us "non-Africans" came from. They're still there on the shores of Ethiopia. Our mitochondrial DNA matches, accounting for for the expected mutation rate, an analysis of which gives the 90,000 year mark for the diaspora.
There is a tribe with unambiguous negroid features in Zimbabwe. They claim two things, that they are the builders of the fantastic ruins to be found there and that they are Israelites. They do have traditions that are clearly related to the Jewish traditions. They have something else- genetic alleles found only among the "Cohen" line of Jewish ancestory. They are, indeed one of the lost tribes. It can be calculated the time that has passed since this branch split from the main Jewish population by the number of mutations that are different. It jibes with what is known of that era in judeaic history. Why Negroid features? You tell me.
Then there are the models developed based on modern evolutionary theory. The computer programs that now solve some of the most complex problems there are, are called "genetic algorithms." They are based on modern evolutionary theory and they are incredibly powerful..
Then there is the most obvious example of evolution in action- not genetics, but memetics. Memetics is the study of belief and culture as having the same structue as a gene in the passing information . A meme is simply a belief as it tries to survive in the world of other beliefs that are competing with it.
Look at how christianity has changed in the last 30 years as it engages in competition with the meme of the scientific method in the battle for the wetware turf. There's almost nothing in the universe of Christianity that wasn't there 30 years ago, but look at which sects (belief systems) have dominated the political landscape in comparison with 30 years ago. Very different.
Islam has done similar in response to Standard Oil, Pepsi Cola and Brittany Spears. The first suicide bomber couldn't have been more than 30 years ago. Now it's on the forefront of the war because it has worked so far to advance the cause.
Evolution in action.
Isn't it a gas to realize that your mind is the turf that ideas (as organisms) duke it out with each other over.
When the Church tells you to support God, it is really telling you to support the meme of the Church, which is nothing at all like the real God. The Valentinian Gnostics were right. Your god is not God, it's just the Demiurge that demands your worship to feed it.
You're just a ****ing TOOL for an IDEA that only came into existence what, 300 years ago?.
And I have no doubt that you will fight to the death to protect your demiurge.
10-26-2004, 02:43 AM
The Mayflower was over 150 years before the Constituion. Do not conflate the two.Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
I have, in fact been swayed by Jefferson's propaganda and the bias exemplified in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Damn proud of it, too.
10-26-2004, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by dickwootton
If they are not creationsits and thy are not evolutionists, would you care to enlighten us on just what their position actually is?
10-26-2004, 01:25 PM
Ok I am going to start off saying that ifi you havent read the Bible cover to cover than you really can't claim to know what I believe in. My religion does not tell me what to believe. Nobodies should and anybodies that does they shoudl leave that church.Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
I take offense to you calling me a tool why don't you attack what I am proposing rather than me personally.
I do not disagree with your "evidence for evolution" I think that people and animals our very complex things and are wonderfully adaptive organisms. However coudl you please give me your theories on a few questions so that I can see how evolution is a completely plausible scientific theory without the need for supernatural intervention.
Where did space for the universe come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from? (gravity, thermodynamics, physics, etc.)
How did life come form non-living matter?
With what did the first living cell capable of reproduction reproduce with? and why woudl it reproduce wouldn't that just make more mouths to feed and therefore lessen it chance of survival?
Where did matter come form and the energy to organize that matter?
While you are answering these questions please show how each of your answers are scientifically plausible. If you can then yes evolution is a scientific theory and worthy of being taught to our children as the only scientific theory.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Purge in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 05-29-2010, 09:58 PM
- By spatch in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 11-02-2005, 04:47 PM
- By sifu in forum AnabolicsReplies: 30Last Post: 11-24-2003, 04:28 PM
- By bullfx in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 05-23-2003, 04:03 PM
- By spike1205 in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 03-27-2003, 02:09 AM