Another political troll from me

[Ski Monkey]

Originally posted by AKPogue
So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

Uh, yes. That's what I believe. Isn't the writing on the wall? He wasn't elected by the people, he was appointed by the supreme court. As for corp in charge, how about Halliburton "winning" a no contest contract to rebuild Iraq, how about Ken Lay writing energy policy...you don't want a smart person in office when he's a puppet.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Okay, okay...I think we may have overestimated the status quo on knowledge of US History.


The Northern United States invading the Southern United States

Vs.

The United States of America/Great Britain invading Iraq.



1. With adherence to the definition of "invasion", how does a country invade itself?

2. What could the civil war possibly have to do with our current situation. Yes, they were both wars. But after that, I'm not sure where you're going. Cola wars of the 80's?

Point 1: If you would have asked the Confederate States they would have told you otherwise?

Point 2: The civil war was a hugely unpopular war with what many considered at that time to have a dumbass hick from Illinois for president. Even after Gettysburg there didn't seem to be an end insight and the aftermath after the surrender looked pretty damn bleak and expensive to completely rebuild the south.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
While I still hate USC....I can't think of a better way to put it.

AK, when this mo'fo blows up in our faces....

How is it going to blow up in our face? This stuff doesn't get fixed overnight. Yeah there will probably be a guerilla war for a long time, but unlike Vietnam there is no nation with an ulimited supply line like the Soviet Union to back them up.

What about George Sr. in Panama?

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue
So say Iraqi's want a democracy, with Hussein in power how are they suppose to go about doing it when Hussein kills anyone who disagrees with them?

Coporate imeperialism? Ya think the same things happened when we rebuilt the South? So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

The revolutionary war and the civil war are completely relevant. They are stepping stones that we have slowly been building up on. If we can help Iraq establish a democracy than we can go one more step in building a world order rather than the chaos we currently have. There is no way to avoid the corporations sticking there greedy fingers to get some of those billions. I have been in the military too long to know about that. It is a fact of life no matter who is in charge. It goes beyond both parties.

Okay....deep breath......Let me address this point by point with MHO:


1. So say Iraqi's want a democracy, with Hussein in power how are they supposed to go about doing it when Hussein kills anyone who disagrees with them?

All dictators have a shelf life – Czar Nicolas, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Baby Doc….the thing is, it’s up to the ppl to rise up for the right reasons not the US to come in for the oil. And if you don’t believe it has to do with oil explain to me why we continue to allow HUGE human rights violations to flourish in the Congo.

This whole premise is based on a nonsensical pie in the sky theory - IF the Iraqi's want a democracy. Haven't heard that they did - but I have heard directly that we're ramming OUR TWISTED form of it down their throats whether they like it or not. So beyond that this speculation is only relative to what we actually know - not what we wish like in a dream.


2. Cooperate imperialism? Ya think the same things happened when we rebuilt the South?

Rebuilding is one thing and in the South it was more individuals than corporations taking advantage of the opportunity to rebuild burned out cities and stimulate the economy. In Iraq the “Corporate Imperialism” was the driving force for the invasion not an after thought.



3. So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

Yes.



4.The revolutionary war and the civil war are completely relevant. They are stepping stones that we have slowly been building up on.

Buh? Not even close.



5. If we can help Iraq establish a democracy than we can go one more step in building a world order rather than the chaos we currently have.

It is not our place to “build a world order.”



6. There is no way to avoid the corporations sticking their greedy fingers to get some of those billions. I have been in the military too long to know about that. It is a fact of life no matter who is in charge. It goes beyond both parties.

Now I understand.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by Ski Monkey
Uh, yes. That's what I believe. Isn't the writing on the wall? He wasn't elected by the people, he was appointed by the supreme court. As for corp in charge, how about Halliburton "winning" a no contest contract to rebuild Iraq, how about Ken Lay writing energy policy...you don't want a smart person in office when he's a puppet.

So would you give a dumb person your money? I haven't ever invested money with a stock broker, but if I did I sure as hell wouldn't ever get my money to puppet to invest. Do you think smart rich people would want to give there hard earned money to an idiot to screw all up for them. How could they trust him to make the right decisions?

Nobody will ever hear me say that George Jr is a genius, but I have been in the Army and I have seen true idiots

Does corruption exsist in our government? Hell Yeah, it has always exsisted and will probably always exsist till the end of time.

I wonder if time can end?

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by KQ
Okay....deep breath......Let me address this point by point with MHO:


1. So say Iraqi's want a democracy, with Hussein in power how are they supposed to go about doing it when Hussein kills anyone who disagrees with them?

All dictators have a shelf life – Czar Nicolas, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Baby Doc….the thing is, it’s up to the ppl to rise up for the right reasons not the US to come in for the oil. And if you don’t believe it has to do with oil explain to me why we continue to allow HUGE human rights violations to flourish in the Congo.

This whole premise is based on a nonsensical pie in the sky theory - IF the Iraqi's want a democracy. Haven't heard that they did - but I have heard directly that we're ramming OUR TWISTED form of it down their throats whether they like it or not. So beyond that this speculation is only relative to what we actually know - not what we wish like in a dream.


2. Cooperate imperialism? Ya think the same things happened when we rebuilt the South?

Rebuilding is one thing and in the South it was more individuals than corporations taking advantage of the opportunity to rebuild burned out cities and stimulate the economy. In Iraq the “Corporate Imperialism” was the driving force for the invasion not an after thought.



3. So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

Yes.



4.The revolutionary war and the civil war are completely relevant. They are stepping stones that we have slowly been building up on.

Buh? Not even close.



5. If we can help Iraq establish a democracy than we can go one more step in building a world order rather than the chaos we currently have.

It is not our place to “build a world order.”



6. There is no way to avoid the corporations sticking their greedy fingers to get some of those billions. I have been in the military too long to know about that. It is a fact of life no matter who is in charge. It goes beyond both parties.

Now I understand.

I guess most of this discussion is really based on isolationism versus the destruction of the rest of the world

Should we just sit in our own country and forget about the rest of the world? I don't want to. I know if I am walking down the street and see someone that is in need of help I would help them.

[milkman]

Originally posted by KQ
Okay....deep breath......Let me address this point by point with MHO:


1. So say Iraqi's want a democracy, with Hussein in power how are they supposed to go about doing it when Hussein kills anyone who disagrees with them?

All dictators have a shelf life – Czar Nicolas, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Baby Doc….the thing is, it’s up to the ppl to rise up for the right reasons not the US to come in for the oil. And if you don’t believe it has to do with oil explain to me why we continue to allow HUGE human rights violations to flourish in the Congo.

This whole premise is based on a nonsensical pie in the sky theory - IF the Iraqi's want a democracy. Haven't heard that they did - but I have heard directly that we're ramming OUR TWISTED form of it down their throats whether they like it or not. So beyond that this speculation is only relative to what we actually know - not what we wish like in a dream.


2. Cooperate imperialism? Ya think the same things happened when we rebuilt the South?

Rebuilding is one thing and in the South it was more individuals than corporations taking advantage of the opportunity to rebuild burned out cities and stimulate the economy. In Iraq the “Corporate Imperialism” was the driving force for the invasion not an after thought.



3. So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

Yes.



4.The revolutionary war and the civil war are completely relevant. They are stepping stones that we have slowly been building up on.

Buh? Not even close.



5. If we can help Iraq establish a democracy than we can go one more step in building a world order rather than the chaos we currently have.

It is not our place to “build a world order.”



6. There is no way to avoid the corporations sticking their greedy fingers to get some of those billions. I have been in the military too long to know about that. It is a fact of life no matter who is in charge. It goes beyond both parties.

Now I understand.

Thanks KQ, you just saved me a lot of typing. You're bang on.

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue
I know if I am walking down the street and see someone that is in need of help I would help them.

It would be nice if it were that simple and who wouldn't be for that? But it's not that simple is it? We cannot force others to accept our help and if they do we must be willing to help in the manner that THEY wish to be helped not our vision of what is right for them. One size does not fit all.

It's hard to see the reality in all of this because in doing so we must face some contradictory and ugly truths. It is for each of us to come to our own conclusions and act according to our consciences but in doing so, it is equally important for us to seek out ALL the facts and explore every angle - QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!!

[Viva]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
While I still hate USC....

Rev...with all of my love:

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/...bush101803.jpg

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by AKPogue
So would you give a dumb person your money?

Evidently, America has given it's all to one.

I haven't ever invested money with a stock broker, but if I did I sure as hell wouldn't ever get my money to puppet to invest. Do you think smart rich people would want to give there hard earned money to an idiot to screw all up for them. How could they trust him to make the right decisions?

He has run our government into bankruptcy, just like he did to very other corporation that he lead.

But, since it's clearly not obvious to you, please note that now the fewest number of people have the greatest percentage of wealth since the roaring 20s. And please note also that Jr. is doing exactly what Haliburton and the outrageously wealthy want him to. Tax cuts for the rich.

Nobody will ever hear me say that George Jr is a genius, but I have been in the Army and I have seen true idiots

Does corruption exsist in our government? Hell Yeah, it has always exsisted and will probably always exsist till the end of time.

I wonder if time can end?

So what's your point?
G.W. has gotten us into a mess in Iraq. We need to work out of it. But it's going to cost money. That's our tax dollars. There's no proof of WMD, no proof of an al Qaeda-Hussein link. Plus we've got John Fucking Ashcroft as Attorney General.

OK, so Iraq needs to be fixed. But what's the plan? Is there one?
But if you're trying to spin some sort of support for G.W. and don't see what's going on, there's no hope for any dialogue.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by AKPogue
I guess most of this discussion is really based on isolationism versus the destruction of the rest of the world

No, it's based on how incredibly stoopid we can appear to be.

Should we just sit in our own country and forget about the rest of the world? I don't want to. I know if I am walking down the street and see someone that is in need of help I would help them.

Duh.
That's not the point.
As a strategist, you know you have to put your resources where they can count, where they will matter the most. Is Iraq that situation? Or the Congo? Or Tibet? Or Afghanistan?

More innocent people have died in the Congo and central Africa in the last ten years (over 4 million) at the hamds of twisted warlords. Might it have been of greater magnanimy to spend our resources there? Or Afghanistan? It's a freaking mess there again with warlords back in power, although at least it's not the Taliban.

I don't think the anti Bush or anti Iraq war remarks can be construed as isolationist. There's lots the U.S. can do to help the world and all that pot smoking liberal rhetoric. It's just that a lot of us question the motivation for the war, the way the reconstruction is being handled and the integration of the rest of the world into a solution.
But you can't defend Bush. He's an idiot and a pawn of Enron, Haliburton, the Rand Corporation, Bectel and the Multinational Corporations that are trying to ruin middle class America.

[Mcwop]

I have been trolled again - darn you Plakespear. Here is some fuel for the fire:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Let's be fair, there seems to be more than one dummy in Washington?

[milkman]

"Let's be fair, there seems to be more than one dummy in Washington?"

No one is disputing that fact. There has been a lot of speculation, BS and lies about iraq's weapons programs, but no proof. The proof of Iraq trying to obtain nuclear weapons was forged. Even Colin Powell called much of his own UN "proof" "bullshit". Iraq was no threat to the US. The US wanted oil. Spin it anyway you want to, but that's the bottom line.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Mcwop
Let's be fair, there seems to be more than one dummy in Washington? [/i]

While that's true, Lieberman is a bozo ex Rebumblican, Daschle is a loser washout who should be kicked out of the Demograbbic partay, etc, etc, etc.

Note that Dean was outspoken against the Iraq war because of the principles involved. There was not, at the time, nor is there now, evidence for these assertions made by a lot of induhviduals.

But the point here is that G.W. is the guy in charge. He has the authority to accept or ignore advice and bears the responsibility for his actions. Iraq is a mess, he started it and it does not matter whose advice was taken or ignored. Afghanistan is a mess. We can't walk away from either of these debacles now.

You can't have tax cuts and necessary extra spending at the same time.

He appointed Ashcroft. He got Poindexter back in office. He signed the Patriot Act.

Wake up, this guy is a radical nightmare.

[Plakespear]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
He appointed Ashcroft. He got Poindexter back in office. He signed the Patriot Act.

Wake up, this guy is a radical nightmare.

Unless you are the radical right. Than he is your wet dream.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
While that's true, Lieberman is a bozo ex Rebumblican, Daschle is a loser washout who should be kicked out of the Demograbbic partay, etc, etc, etc.

Note that Dean was outspoken against the Iraq war because of the principles involved. There was not, at the time, nor is there now, evidence for these assertions made by a lot of induhviduals.

But the point here is that G.W. is the guy in charge. He has the authority to accept or ignore advice and bears the responsibility for his actions. Iraq is a mess, he started it and it does not matter whose advice was taken or ignored. Afghanistan is a mess. We can't walk away from either of these debacles now.

You can't have tax cuts and necessary extra spending at the same time.

He appointed Ashcroft. He got Poindexter back in office. He signed the Patriot Act.

Wake up, this guy is a radical nightmare.

So if you went back in history as president's go who would you want to still be in there?

[joshbu]

Originally posted by AKPogue
So if you went back in history as president's go who would you want to still be in there?

Well, considering that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election...

[laseranimal]

Originally posted by joshbu
Well, considering that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election...

no no no I didn't vote for bush and Gore did not win the election the popular vote DOES NOT count cry about it all you want but thats the rules

As for the recount, here's the Main issue, you had an election where the margin of victory was smaller then the margin of error so there is NO way that we will ever be able to discern WHO won Florida, EVER, end of story.

Gore lost florida because he didn't offer a statewide recount, had he asked for that it would have been very hard for the republicans to argue against it. Instead he asked for a recount of heavily democratic districts thus bringing due process into the decission, basically the court said that republicans can dangle chads as well as democrats can and its unfair not to recount their votes for accuracy.

LEAVING OUT THE BLATENT FACT THAT................
Had Gore won his HOME state of Tennessee, Florida would have been a moot point(might wanna have checked the polls and spent a little bit more time eating home cooking Al)

[laseranimal]

^damn Plakespear I've been TROLLED^

[laseranimal]

just as a Hyjack


Anyone notice that Cheney/Rumsfield are on the outs now? for the last week its been all Rice/Powell with the backing down on N Korea and putting Iraqi Constitiution on the fast track??? Interesting developments i wonder if its just a ploy or the start of something bigger

[laseranimal]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
He signed the Patriot Act.

which i seem to remember passed congress without too much opposition, better get on your congressmen/women for not being very thorough

[Cubano]

First of all, The United States in not a democracy but a Republic.

@Viva- Obviously you don't know what goes down in Cuba. I am sure that we would all love to be equally poor .

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by AKPogue
So if you went back in history as president's go who would you want to still be in there?

Changing the subject is too obvious a ploy. I can't do anything about things that far past. But G.W.'s past Presidential tenure will likely have some influence on my future.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by laseranimal
which i seem to remember passed congress without too much opposition, better get on your congressmen/women for not being very thorough

Quite so, but if you think I didn't write them an email, you're mistaken. Both Cantwell and Murray got one too.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Changing the subject is too obvious a ploy. I can't do anything about things that far past. But G.W.'s past Presidential tenure will likely have some influence on my future.

Not changing the subject I was just interested in who you thought is a good leader.

There is no way that GW is a stooge. He might not be a genius and you might not agree with what he does but you are way off on how humans interact with each other. There is absolutey no way that someone with a lot of money would give his money to a complete idiot. Further, there is no way he would be able to attract good people around him at all.