| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Kerry going to oust Bush because of blue blood?; John Kerry’s family | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 20 2004, 05:42 PM (179 Views) | |
| Ngagh | Aug 20 2004, 05:42 PM Post #1 |
|
Huh?
|
Article |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 20 2004, 06:00 PM Post #2 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
:lol: :lol: :lol:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 21 2004, 12:13 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
And I thought all USA presidents were members of the blue blood set. It's a given isn't it ? Joe Blow off the street has a snow flake's chance in hell of ever becoming the Prez or anything worthwhile in the USA's executive branch of government as you have to be extremely wealthy to get so much as a look in. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 21 2004, 12:49 AM Post #4 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Yes, a man who was born in a log cabin and relative poverty could never become President.![]() Neither could a man who was raised on a peanut farm that had no electricity or indoor plumbing. ![]() Nope, you have to have a silver spoon in your mouth when you are born if you are to have any hope of becomming President. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 21 2004, 04:31 AM Post #5 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Are they the only two examples of men who weren't bluebloods who became presidents ? Honest Abe - different times - a much more aggregorian American society then, he got the job because of his ability. Carter - might well have been raised on a peanut farm in the South, but was wealthy when he ran for Prez, and was certainly wealthy when he was finished. (The package is pretty lucrative and pays very well - and isn't there a very lucrative pension paid to all ex-Prezs - for the term of their natural lives - great Super these guys have.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 21 2004, 07:03 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I wouldn't call Jimmy Carter a wealthy man by means of his presidential salary. Hell, I made more than he did last year, but then again I don't have speaking engagements. Carter was the governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected, as I remember. That job did not pay very well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 21 2004, 01:07 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
Somerled, I will have to disagree with you. Of the modern presidents (post WWII) Harry Truman, Lindon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all were raised in modest (meaning middle class or lower) circumstances. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dwayne | Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM Post #8 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ That's a fine list, but wasn't Eisenhower of modest means also? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 21 2004, 01:41 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Methinks perhaps somerland doesn't believe that poor or middle class folk can build themselves into individuals who can be educated or influencial enough to come to positions of power. While this is perhaps true when the poor are exposed to the narcotic of a nanny-state, it is not true when a lack of said government forces the poor to take the initiative and improve their lives. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 21 2004, 01:52 PM Post #10 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
We are quickly approaching that point in the U.S., but not yet. And I feel if we were to ever reach that point is when we'd find ourselves in a new revolution. There's still time to turn back from the socialistic Leftist lunacy foisted upon some much of the world, but it will take strength of character and resolute principles to do it. As well, it will also take calling a spade a spade, by realizing that not all allies are really allies. Many have their sights set on the United States, and they're waiting for the right time to pull the trigger. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 21 2004, 05:53 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
You are right (according to my sources). Add him to the list. So really, the only modern "blue blood" Presidents since WWII have been Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 21 2004, 07:33 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
We can't forget FDR... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 21 2004, 08:59 PM Post #13 |
|
Unregistered
|
When I said "since WWII" I was not including WWII. But you are certainly correct that FDR was a blue blood just like JFK and the Presidents Bush. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 22 2004, 08:58 AM Post #14 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I included FDR because both he and Truman were president during WWII, and I also consider Roosevelt a "modern" president (only partly because he died less than 15 years before I was born). Franklin Roosevelt serving three full and one partial term tips the "blue blood" scale a bit. One thing all will notice, by and large, is that presidents from both sides of the aisle usually rise from modest means and make something of themselves. It has only really been of a more recent time that people had the ultimate goal of being president from childhood (either through parents... like JFK, or by their own ambition... like Bill Clinton). Here's a question I'll ask for those evaluating this presidential race: Do you think that either candidate had aspirations from a young age of being president? If so (or not), indicate why. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 22 2004, 09:26 AM Post #15 |
|
Unregistered
|
I arbitarily chose the end of WWII as a starting point. FDR is certainly a modern President. So there's no disagreement there. In response to your question, I really don't have enough information on either candidate's childhood to know, but if I were to speculate I'd say that George W. Bush seems like the least likely of the two to have Presidential aspirations from a young age. I don't really have a problem either way though. I also don't know for sure but it seems like a safe bet that the branch of government with the highest historical percentage of "blue bloods" is the Legislative branch. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




3:23 AM Jul 11