NationStates Jolt Archive

I've come to the conclusion that the US is currently a Kakistocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy).
Kakistocracy, rule by the least-able or least-principled of citizens, is a form of government in which the people least qualified to control the government are the people who control the government.

The origin of this word is Greek, derived from the superlative of the Greek adjective kakos (bad), the superlative form being kakistos (worst).

Sound familiar?

*Looks forward to Myrmi spinning this in favour of disenfranchising democrats*

I've come to the conclusion that the US is currently a Kakistocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy).

Sound familiar?

Not really. The USA is governed by people with principles. They are just not the principles the USA is supposed to be governed by.

Not really. The USA is governed by people with principles. They are just not the principles the USA is supposed to be governed by.

I was focusing on the "least able" side more than the "least principled" side, but I think it's fair to say that if we're talking about principled in the sense of ethical, they're the least principled as well.

The best way to move through open-entry politics is by being the most ruthless little bastard you can and take everything from others to give to your friends, so that your friends can continue to support you. This leads to a natural inclination towards kakistocracy.

i like the work 'cack' being in there

Well, I wouldn't go so far as "least able". But, I would say that they are not very able.

The best way to move through open-entry politics is by being the most ruthless little bastard you can and take everything from others to give to your friends, so that your friends can continue to support you. This leads to a natural inclination towards kakistocracy.

I think it'd be more like a new term.

"Asshatocracy", it'd be called: Where the biggest asshats rule by being the best at asshattery.

I still like the idea of gathering a group of not so qualified people for presidency, throwing darts with your eyes blind-folded at a wall with the names of potential candidates and then blindly following the crowd that votes for that name. I think that's how we elected our current president.

Honestly, America has lost what it stood for once. The democracy that once governed this nation has definately fallen into corruption. The people who speak for the general population do not speak for the best interests of the people or on behalf of what the people want. A nation founded out of poverty, sweat, and no fun is now run by the rich who do litte work and spend their money on multimillion dollar yachts. It just seems that we lost what we stood for and as a result, we just blindly go on choosing people that a few select people really want in office.

Don't know about the rest of you, but other countries are looking more sane then we are at this point.

i like the work 'cack' being in there
I thought about that, but thought it might be an overtly British thing.

I thought about that, but thought it might be an overtly British thing.

yeah, i was kinda expecting replies going "huh?:confused:" but i did it anyway :)

I still like the idea of gathering a group of not so qualified people for presidency, throwing darts with your eyes blind-folded at a wall with the names of potential candidates and then blindly following the crowd that votes for that name. I think that's how we elected our current president.

Honestly, America has lost what it stood for once. The democracy that once governed this nation has definately fallen into corruption. The people who speak for the general population do not speak for the best interests of the people or on behalf of what the people want. A nation founded out of poverty, sweat, and no fun is now run by the rich who do litte work and spend their money on multimillion dollar yachts. It just seems that we lost what we stood for and as a result, we just blindly go on choosing people that a few select people really want in office.

Don't know about the rest of you, but other countries are looking more sane then we are at this point.

Yeah... :(

yeah, i was kinda expecting replies going "huh?:confused:" but i did it anyway :)

I learned the word by watching "Rome" on HBO--done in cooperation with the BBC. *nods*

The best way to move through open-entry politics is by being the most ruthless little bastard you can and take everything from others to give to your friends, so that your friends can continue to support you. This leads to a natural inclination towards kakistocracy.

assuming the system underlying open entry is setup in such a way that doing so works. there are other possibilities, of course.

I've come to the conclusion that the US is currently a Kakistocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy).


Sound familiar?

Well, fair enough, but where does it state the democracy and/or a republic and a Kakistocracy are mutually exclusive terms? I might be wrong, but I thought the former two are all about what kind of people (as far as their position/status/.. go) rule through what kind of power mechanisms, and don't really cover just how able or principle-less they are.. so you can very well have a kakistocratic democracy/republic (and that's not me saying the USA are either; this is just technical nit-picking on my part..)

I read 'cack' as a sort of New Jersey pronunciation. Show me your cack!

actually, in modern greek, it goes "kakos" (bad), "hiroteros" (worse) and "hiristos" (the worst). when you say "kakistos", it is not entiirely correct at least on a formal level. it is just one of those words that everybody says without knowing they are kinda wrong.
but the ancient greeks used to use it in this form, so there you go.

it's funny, because when we greeks hear your politicians trying to speak in a fancy way, we get many of their words. "plethora", means "a lot" in greek too. but there is also stuff like CD (compact disk- in greek "simpaktos diskos", its the same, "simpaktos" means packed in many layers and in a small space, and "diskos", or diskus, is disk- ever heard of the disus thrower? it a statue), or O.K., "ola kala", which means all right, that became popular in the states nad the rest of the world because of greek sailors.

i know i sound like the guy in "my big fat greek wedding", but its true.

anyways, we over here don't care about who you are bombing, xecpt it's us, as long as tourists came to our beaches and we have money to buy "frappe" - our own wierd type of coffee, that is. let monkeys run the states, we don't care too much about it.

cheers!

I just got this email and thought it might fit in here somehow:

New Element Discovered -- Super Dense -- Self Replicating
A major research institution recently announced discovery of the heaviest element ever observed. This new element has been tentatively named "Administratium."

Administratium contains one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 111 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312, as a result of unpredictable quantum fluctuations, in a dimension in which the usual rules of mathematics and logic do not apply.

Those 312 particles are held together by a weak force known as morons, surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Administratium has no electrons and is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes most reactions with which it comes in contact. A minute amount of Administratium causes many reactions to take more than four days to transpire, which in otherwise normal, unimpeded conditions would typically take less than one second.

Administratium has a half-life of three years, and does not decay, but instead undergoes reorganization, in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons and assistant deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Administratium's mass will actually increase over time, because each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons forming isodopes.

That characteristic of moron-promotion leads scientists to speculate that Administratium is formed whenever morons reach a specific quantity in concentration. That hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass."

You'll know it when you see it.
=================================================================
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors decided to have a canoe
race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before
the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing
defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend
appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while
the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them
a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were
steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the
rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering
superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new
performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It
was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the
rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days
for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a
new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved
was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to
India .

Sadly, the End.

Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving
all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

Toyota has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last
quarter's results: Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

Ford folks are still scratching their heads.

IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY!
=================================================================

Aye, absolutely.

The US government has evolved into an entity that is not designed around attracting the best and the brightest.

In the bureaucracy salary caps make it nearly impossible to attract the best in many fields, because in the private sector they can make as much as two or three times as much.

Meanwhile, in elected positions our media has turned high level politics into such a mess, such a degrading realm of chaos, that our ablest administrators and cleverest academics are totally unwilling to subject themselves to it. Instead we wind up with people who are in it for the attention, whose ideal job would be to be a movie actor: But because they can't get those jobs, they go for high office.

Our finest business leaders and intellectuals refuse to touch the public spotlight with a ten foot stick, because they'll be tarred and feathered, their reputations ruined.

And don't forget the American anti-government attitude. We've created a myth that it's unworthy of the best to work for the government, that public service is not an honor and a duty for Americans, rather that it is the position of the leech and the criminal. This attitude is reinforced by the previous two statements I have made.

I've pontificated on the matter: I think Nazz's point has some (actually more than some, an awful lot of) merit.

Which begs the question: Is this development to be expected in any sort of large Republic with an extremely active newsmedia? Can it be overcome by other means? I would find these to also be interesting areas to study.

Oh, and Nazz, you deserve a brownie and a half for bringing that word into the NSG lexicon. A brownie and a half.

Which cynical curmudgeon was it that said the American people get the government they deserve?

A Republic/Democracy and a Kakistocracy are not mutually inclusive. Infact, the larger the country the more likely they are to go hand in hand.

A Republic/Democracy and a Kakistocracy are not mutually inclusive. Infact, the larger the country the more likely they are to go hand in hand.

Also agreed.

If Iraq is the only thing that this new 'term' is based on, then I'm more apt to say the originators of such are at best 'least-able' and more likely entirely inept and antagonistic towards a government that acts in a way they don't agree with.

The government didn't sign Kyoto so it's run by aliens bent on terraforming the earth into an ecology that best supports their race.

Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?

If Iraq is the only thing that this new 'term' is based on, then I'm more apt to say the originators of such are at best 'least-able' and more likely entirely inept and antagonistic towards a government that acts in a way they don't agree with.

The government didn't sign Kyoto so it's run by aliens bent on terraforming the earth into an ecology that best supports their race.

Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?

Far as I can tell, you're the first person to bring Iraq into the discussion. Feeling a little defensive or something?

Far as I can tell, you're the first person to bring Iraq into the discussion. Feeling a little defensive or something?

Iraq is the biggest issue of contention within the United States. It has been the issue since all feeling of a quick and easy victory in the region dissipated. Historically speaking, it is an issue such as this that draws the most criticism from a government; be it France, England, or Russia. Unless the coiners of this term have another agenda, Iraq would be the most likely impetus behind their creation of it.

And calling me defensive doesn't make my position illegitimate. Nice try.

Iraq is the biggest issue of contention within the United States. It has been the issue since all feeling of a quick and easy victory in the region dissipated. Historically speaking, it is an issue such as this that draws the most criticism from a government; be it France, England, or Russia. Unless the coiners of this term have another agenda, Iraq would be the most likely impetus behind their creation of it.

And calling me defensive doesn't make my position illegitimate. Nice try.

What makes your position illegitimate is the utter lack of sense it makes. The word was not coined in response to the current US situation--it dates back to 1829 according to the Oxford English dictionary, and another form of the word goes back to 1641. Never fuck with a guy who deals with words for a living.

Iraq is the biggest issue of contention within the United States. It has been the issue since all feeling of a quick and easy victory in the region dissipated. Historically speaking, it is an issue such as this that draws the most criticism from a government; be it France, England, or Russia. Unless the coiners of this term have another agenda, Iraq would be the most likely impetus behind their creation of it.

And calling me defensive doesn't make my position illegitimate. Nice try.

I'm not sure if you noticed but long before Iraq, even before Bush was elected there was a very popular saying "Anybody but Bush". I hope you can see where I am going with this.

What makes your position illegitimate is the utter lack of sense it makes. The word was not coined in response to the current US situation--it dates back to 1829 according to the Oxford English dictionary, and another form of the word goes back to 1641. Never fuck with a guy who deals with words for a living.

No, you disagree with Iraq, so the point of calling me defensive is your way of attacking my character over the substance of the argument. Denied.

Sorry if I didn't research in minute detail the origin of a word that seems recent given you never indicated otherwise.

Never fuck with a guy who deals with argumentation. Not that my forte has anything to do with what's being discussed here, just as yours doesn't.

I'm not sure if you noticed but long before Iraq, even before Bush was elected there was a very popular saying "Anybody but Bush". I hope you can see where I am going with this.

Yes, you're trying to say that "Anybody but Bush" is a new political phenomena. Plenty said 'anybody but Clinton', or 'anybody but Lincoln', but that didn't determine their leadership qualities either way. It only meant some people were unhappy with their politics.

No, you disagree with Iraq, so the point of calling me defensive is your way of attacking my character over the substance of the argument. Denied.

Sorry if I didn't research in minute detail the origin of a word that seems recent given you never indicated otherwise.

Never fuck with a guy who deals with argumentation. Not that my forte has anything to do with what's being discussed here, just as yours doesn't.

I didn't bring Iraq into the conversation. I could have just as easily pointed to the Katrina response, the increasing divide between the wealthy and the poor, the Walter Reed scandal, the US Attorneys scandal, or dozens of others and my point would have been just as valid.

And I think it's clear at this point in the discussion that I have not yet, in this conversation, fucked with a guy who deals with argumentation.

Yes, you're trying to say that "Anybody but Bush" is a new political phenomena. Plenty said 'anybody but Clinton', or 'anybody but Lincoln', but that didn't determine their leadership qualities either way. It only meant some people were unhappy with their politics.

So then your yes answer should be changed to no.

"Anybody but Clinton" was never a popular term (although it may be with the new Clinton presidential race). It was easy to see what a crappy leader Bush would be just by looking at his history of failures.

I didn't bring Iraq into the conversation. I could have just as easily pointed to the Katrina response, the increasing divide between the wealthy and the poor, the Walter Reed scandal, the US Attorneys scandal, or dozens of others and my point would have been just as valid.

Your point? "Feeling a little defensive..." is a way to attack someone's character and not their actual argument. Putting "I" in italics is also another way to ignore the argument and attack the person behind it; you didn't bring it up so its not important? How arrogant we are.

And I think it's clear at this point in the discussion that I have not yet, in this conversation, fucked with a guy who deals with argumentation.

Concession accepted; either deal with the point made or don't bother trying to side-step. Your implied authority in the area of words is an appeal to authority at best, just as my mentioning of argumentation is.

Though I have to wonder how using a dictionary makes you an authority with words myself...

So then your yes answer should be changed to no.

"Anybody but Clinton" was never a popular term (although it may be with the new Clinton presidential race). It was easy to see what a crappy leader Bush would be just by looking at his history of failures.

I failed a math test. This on its own is not a determinant of my qualities as a mathematician. Bush failing in an oil venture is also not indicative of his leadership qualities because Michael Moore said so.

Which begs the question: Is this development to be expected in any sort of large Republic with an extremely active newsmedia? Can it be overcome by other means? I would find these to also be interesting areas to study.

Oh, and Nazz, you deserve a brownie and a half for bringing that word into the NSG lexicon. A brownie and a half.
There are things I think you can do, although it is extremely limited. First and foremost would be ending gerrymandering and changing the electoral system (IRV), hopefully encouraging more people - especially non partisan candidates, to run for election, and third parties, to run for election. Tacking lobbyists, pork and cronyism would be next on the agenda, but that's too vague and sweeping to come up with a specific agenda, but it's necessary to help restore trust in politics and elected office.

But that won't take away the anti-government attitude that seems ingrained in American DNA. Perhaps America is just too big?

*Looks forward to Myrmi spinning this in favour of disenfranchising democrats*
Nice to be thought of from time to time...

Aye, absolutely.

The US government has evolved into an entity that is not designed around attracting the best and the brightest.

In the bureaucracy salary caps make it nearly impossible to attract the best in many fields, because in the private sector they can make as much as two or three times as much.

Meanwhile, in elected positions our media has turned high level politics into such a mess, such a degrading realm of chaos, that our ablest administrators and cleverest academics are totally unwilling to subject themselves to it. Instead we wind up with people who are in it for the attention, whose ideal job would be to be a movie actor: But because they can't get those jobs, they go for high office.

Our finest business leaders and intellectuals refuse to touch the public spotlight with a ten foot stick, because they'll be tarred and feathered, their reputations ruined.

And don't forget the American anti-government attitude. We've created a myth that it's unworthy of the best to work for the government, that public service is not an honor and a duty for Americans, rather that it is the position of the leech and the criminal. This attitude is reinforced by the previous two statements I have made.

I've pontificated on the matter: I think Nazz's point has some (actually more than some, an awful lot of) merit.
And if we were to reduce the size of our federal government, meaning a reduction in the money and manpower it has to use in its imperial quest for more power, we would be that much better off.

Me? I'm moving to Vermont (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/06/03/in_vermont_nascent_secession_movement_gains_traction/?page=1)! Maybe the yankees can make succession work.

"The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens," said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.

I failed a math test. This on its own is not a determinant of my qualities as a mathematician. Bush failing in an oil venture is also not indicative of his leadership qualities because Michael Moore said so.

You really haven't been paying attention have you?

And wow, who said anything about Micheal Moore? Are you trying to attack my character? Who was it recently in this thread that was admonishing another for that?

Also, yes failure at leadership (oil, baseball, military - all failures before the many that came out of Bush's presidency), as well as dirty dealings with other corrupt individuals (Enron, DeLay, Rove) is plenty to show that a person would not be a good leader.

Please tell me you are playing devils advocate and you don't actually believe Bush has done a good job as President.

And I think it's clear at this point in the discussion that I have not yet, in this conversation, fucked with a guy who deals with argumentation.
I swear, Nazz, I'm sending you my medical bills. My nostrils are getting completely eaten away by all the soda I snort out my nose reading your posts.

Well done.

There are things I think you can do, although it is extremely limited. First and foremost would be ending gerrymandering and changing the electoral system (IRV), hopefully encouraging more people - especially non partisan candidates, to run for election, and third parties, to run for election. Tacking lobbyists, pork and cronyism would be next on the agenda, but that's too vague and sweeping to come up with a specific agenda, but it's necessary to help restore trust in politics and elected office.

But that won't take away the anti-government attitude that seems ingrained in American DNA. Perhaps America is just too big?
I don't think we want to have every redistricting decision second guessed by federal courts, do we? I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Congress. Acting as a legislator should never be a profession. Without the entrenchment that comes with 30 years or more in a "safe" seat, we would certainly have a different dynamic in DC.

I don't think we want a bunch of government-dependent folks, either. I would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient citizens that didn't look to the government for every solution. It can't deliver. No matter who's in charge, the government isn't the right place to look for the answers to society's problems.

Your point? "Feeling a little defensive..." is a way to attack someone's character and not their actual argument. Putting "I" in italics is also another way to ignore the argument and attack the person behind it; you didn't bring it up so its not important? How arrogant we are.



Concession accepted; either deal with the point made or don't bother trying to side-step. Your implied authority in the area of words is an appeal to authority at best, just as my mentioning of argumentation is.

Though I have to wonder how using a dictionary makes you an authority with words myself...

You didn't have an argument, sweetie. You made an unwarranted assumption, and got it tossed in your face. Deal with it.

And my authority in the area of words is well documented. I am a teacher of rhetoric, composition, literature and writing, and I have been for quite some time.

I don't think we want to have every redistricting decision second guessed by federal courts, do we? I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Congress. Acting as a legislator should never be a profession. Without the entrenchment that comes with 30 years or more in a "safe" seat, we would certainly have a different dynamic in DC.

I don't think we want a bunch of government-dependent folks, either. I would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient citizens that didn't look to the government for every solution. It can't deliver. No matter who's in charge, the government isn't the right place to look for the answers to society's problems.

Then who/what is? Can you count on individual citizens?

You really haven't been paying attention have you?

And wow, who said anything about Micheal Moore? Are you trying to attack my character? Who was it recently in this thread that was admonishing another for that?

Sorry for trying to put a face upon someone who mislikes Bush, instead of calling upon the opinion of an unnamed entity that somehow validates the things I say.

Also, yes failure at leadership (oil, baseball, military - all failures before the many that came out of Bush's presidency), as well as dirty dealings with other corrupt individuals (Enron, DeLay, Rove) is plenty to show that a person would not be a good leader.

Were all prior 'failures' absolute indicators of his ability to lead?

Rove you have a point, maybe, but being an able political strategist does not make you corrupt. Just as having your power provided by Enron doesn't make one implicit in the scandal.

Please tell me you are playing devils advocate and you don't actually believe Bush has done a good job as President.

Bush has failed in Iraq. That one failure does not make him a failure entirely.

If that was so are you a criminal for life because you cheated on a test?

Sorry for trying to put a face upon someone who mislikes Bush, instead of calling upon the opinion of an unnamed entity that somehow validates the things I say.



Were all prior 'failures' absolute indicators of his ability to lead?

Rove you have a point, maybe, but being an able political strategist does not make you corrupt. Just as having your power provided by Enron doesn't make one implicit in the scandal.



Bush has failed in Iraq. That one failure does not make him a failure entirely.

If that was so are you a criminal for life because you cheated on a test?

Please name the good things you see having come from the Bush presidency. Seriously, this has got to be good.

Nice to be thought of from time to time...
Well, you and Nazz do seem attracted to each other's threads. We'd miss you if you didn't turn up, you know...

You didn't have an argument, sweetie. You made an unwarranted assumption, and got it tossed in your face. Deal with it.

Argument: bad times does not make the government inherently inept. Example illustrating my point: Iraq is not the end-all to be-all indicating poor administrative performance.

What about your argument.

Nazz: Word. Example: Gee-wilikers batman there isn't one.

What is your argument again?

And my authority in the area of words is well documented. I am a teacher of rhetoric, composition, literature and writing, and I have been for quite some time.

Sure, let us assume this is true for five minutes: what does this authority int he area of words have to do with the government being inept?

Still waiting.

Please name the good things you see having come from the Bush presidency.
The aqueduct?


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I don't think we want to have every redistricting decision second guessed by federal courts, do we? I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for Congress. Acting as a legislator should never be a profession. Without the entrenchment that comes with 30 years or more in a "safe" seat, we would certainly have a different dynamic in DC.
Well, most countries don't allow gerrymandering, so I don't think that it would automatically lead to court squabbles, but in any case, electors should choose their representatives, not the other way round. Nevertheless, term limits would also be useful too.

I don't think we want a bunch of government-dependent folks, either. I would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient citizens that didn't look to the government for every solution. It can't deliver. No matter who's in charge, the government isn't the right place to look for the answers to society's problems.
I don't think you have to be 'anti-government' if you aren't 'government dependant'. (In any case, I wasn't talking in a big/small government context.) If, however, being in government, whether it be elected position or the civil service, doesn't attract some of the best and brightest - who will be needed, regardless of size - then there's a problem, and the attitude that it's wrong to work for the government if you are the best needs to be tackled, should that be the source of the problem.

You didn't have an argument, sweetie. You made an unwarranted assumption, and got it tossed in your face. Deal with it.

Yeah, he's already made a pattern of that. In the "salvation of the mentally handicapped" thread he's already assumed I was making an argument when I was asking a question.

Touchy, this one is.

Please name the good things you see having come from the Bush presidency. Seriously, this has got to be good.

Sorry, I missed this post for a moment.

Aiding int he incorporation of China and India into already existing geopolitical institutions is but one example; invading Afghanistan (the policies that followed were not as successful, obviously); refusing to sign Kyoto; The Patriot Act; NCLB (could be better, but we all start somewhere), and uh, well I think that's good for now.

Argument: bad times does not make the government inherently inept. Example illustrating my point: Iraq is not the end-all to be-all indicating poor administrative performance.

Are you even reading the thread? other failures have been named, and for the sake of completion I will name them again. [deep breath] Katrina, Medicare, Failing to catch Osama, Iraq, Letting N. Korea make a nuke, Openly violating federal law with his wiretapping program, and achieving what may be the lowest presidential approval rating of any president ever. These are all monumental failures, and to pretend that you are unaware of their existence is pure and utter foolishness.

The US is a dicktatorship...

The government is run by complete dicks.

Sorry, I missed this post for a moment.

Aiding int he incorporation of China and India into already existing geopolitical institutions is but one example; invading Afghanistan (the policies that followed were not as successful, obviously); refusing to sign Kyoto; The Patriot Act; NCLB (could be better, but we all start somewhere), and uh, well I think that's good for now.

Most of us here would see every single one of those (besides the invasion of Afghan, which anyone with a brain would have done successfuly) as another failure. NCLB is widely regarded as a failure, and the Patriot Act is one of the greatest breaches of American civil liberties in our age.

And might I mention that Afghan now seems to be slipping back into Taliban control? Can you say failure?

The US is a dicktaorship...

The government is run by complete dicks.

I suspect it may in fact be a zombarchy, a government of zombies.


Listen to Bush talk some time, just try and tell me that brain isn't rotting. :p

Are you even reading the thread? other failures have been named, and for the sake of completion I will name them again. [deep breath] Katrina, Medicare, Failing to catch Osama, Iraq, Letting N. Korea make a nuke, Openly violating federal law with his wiretapping program, and achieving what may be the lowest presidential approval rating of any president ever. These are all monumental failures, and to pretend that you are unaware of their existence is pure and utter foolishness.

Indeed. Others are mentioned now; however, I took the most glaringly obvious failure (I don't agree all of those are failures, sorry) and used to as an example.

Also low approval ratings show that he is a failure to his constituency, not that he is objectively unable or unprincipled (His principles are likely why we have some of the messed we do, actually).

I suspect it may in fact be a zombarchy, a government of zombies.


Listen to Bush talk some time, just try and tell me that brain isn't rotting. :p
Yeah, and whatever got crapped onto his jacket probably is too.

I suspect it may in fact be a zombarchy, a government of zombies.


Listen to Bush talk some time, just try and tell me that brain isn't rotting. :p

My fellow Americans... BRAINS.... uuuuhhhhgg....

Indeed. Others are mentioned now; however, I took the most glaringly obvious failure (I don't agree all of those are failures, sorry) and used to as an example.

Also low approval ratings show that he is a failure to his constituency, not that he is objectively unable or unprincipled (His principles are likely why we have some of the messed we do, actually).

So what would he have to do to make him "objectively unable"? Surrender the country to Osama? Sell the white house for a set of brightly colored beads? How monumental does a failure have to be before it's big enough to be judged?

So what would he have to do to make him "objectively unable"? Surrender the country to Osama? Sell the white house for a set of brightly colored beads? How monumental does a failure have to be before it's big enough to be judged?

Er, yes? That would be an example of a failure. Only in the realm of politics (insofar as you want to remain popular) does making the constituency unhappy count as being a failure. However, paying taxes makes me unhappy, but does using that tax money to keep my country safe from foreign invasion make the government a failure?

Oh, the people who run the country are quite qualified. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Who is doing the qualifying?"

It would seem that we are :)

Oh, the people who run the country are quite qualified. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Who is doing the qualifying?"

It would seem that we are :)

NSG is secretly ruling the world.

Er, yes? That would be an example of a failure. Only in the realm of politics (insofar as you want to remain popular) does making the constituency unhappy count as being a failure.
And the presidency isn't at all a political position, is it? However, paying taxes makes me unhappy, but does using that tax money to keep my country safe from foreign invasion make the government a failure?
So you have a net gain in happiness. However, if you paid your taxes for someone to defend you, and that someone thought it necessary to shoot a child in a face who wanted to ask you for candy, you would be rather unhappy about the whole situation, wouldn't you?

Oh, the people who run the country are quite qualified. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Who is doing the qualifying?"

I wish I had a shilling for every sensless killing
I'd by the government
America is for sale and you can get a good deal on it
And make a hefty profit

Or maybe
Tear it apart

I'd Start with assumption
That a million people are smart
Smarter than one

-NOFX, The Decline.

Pretty good way to sum up what LUnitic is kinda saying.

NSG is secretly ruling the world.

Shhhh! Don't let everyone know!

Shhhh! Don't let everyone know!
We don't want people to know that Bush would be doing a good job if we weren't tying his hands behind his back!

Shhhh! Don't let everyone know!

They're powerless to stop us anyway.

And the presidency isn't at all a political position, is it?

Never said it wasn't. But that's a red-herring (I clarified for the sake of simplicity) insofar as we're not arguing about his leadership being a failure in a purely political sense, hence why people debate issues such as Katrina instead of tacking the number of popularity points Bush lost as reasoning enough that he is a failure.

So you have a net gain in happiness. However, if you paid your taxes for someone to defend you, and that someone thought it necessary to shoot a child in a face who wanted to ask you for candy, you would be rather unhappy about the whole situation, wouldn't you?

Who says I have a net-gain in anything? I'm unhappy because I'm paying taxes, therefore I don't vote in favor of the current administration, therefore in my eyes the government was a failure hence my rebuke of it. Does that mean it was a failure?

Also non-sequitur; how does it follow that Bush shot a child in the face because I paid taxes?

Never said it wasn't. But that's a red-herring (I clarified for the sake of simplicity) insofar as we're not arguing about his leadership being a failure in a purely political sense, hence why people debate issues such as Katrina instead of tacking the number of popularity points Bush lost as reasoning enough that he is a failure.

That's why it was included in a list of other failures.

Who says I have a net-gain in anything? I'm unhappy because I'm paying taxes, therefore I don't vote in favor of the current administration, therefore in my eyes the government was a failure hence my rebuke of it. Does that mean it was a failure?

Also non-sequitur; how does it follow that Bush shot a child in the face because I paid taxes?
did you see the Iraqi kid who got his limbs blown off? That's one of many, many examples.

And the government doesn't just work for you. If the entire country felt the same way, then you might have an argument, but most of the country want to pay men with guns to defend them, and men with shovels to build roads for them to drive on, and men with funny cars with no doors to deliver their mail. Most people, while they quibble over the details, are more or less happy with this situation.

That's why it was included in a list of other failures.

And is listed as illegitimate; unless all Presidents who failed to win a 100% voter majority are failures.

did you see the Iraqi kid who got his limbs blown off? That's one of many, many examples.

That's an example of war.

Are you paying the police to kill children because a squad car might slam into one playing in the street in the pursuit of a criminal?

And the government doesn't just work for you. If the entire country felt the same way, then you might have an argument, but most of the country want to pay men with guns to defend them, and men with shovels to build roads for them to drive on, and men with funny cars with no doors to deliver their mail. Most people, while they quibble over the details, are more or less happy with this situation.

My argument isn't based on the supposition that the government works for it; it's based around your logic that happiness necessitates success.

In that case Stalin was a good leader.

(Insert Hitler example here).

And is listed as illegitimate; unless all Presidents who failed to win a 100% voter majority are failures.

I never said 100% was needed. And one failure does not make someone a failure. A number of failures, with no notable successes, makes a person a failure. that is why Bush is a failure.

That's an example of war.

Are you paying the police to kill children because a squad car might slam into one playing in the street in the pursuit of a criminal?

If they did it all the time, and it turned out that the person they were chasing down hadn't committed the crime afterall, and then the neighborhood riots, I would say that those cops failed.

My argument isn't based on the supposition that the government works for it; it's based around your logic that happiness necessitates success.

In that case Stalin was a good leader.

(Insert Hitler example here).
I never said happiness necessitates success. I never, ever said that. If anything, I said that a certain level of unhappiness necessitates a lack of success, or a failure. Happiness of the populace is a necessary, but not sufficient, for success as a president. The president has many jobs. One of those jobs is keeping the populace happy with him. He has failed at that job.

Also: Stalin was an egomaniac, and a bad person, but very few historians would call him a failure.

Well, you and Nazz do seem attracted to each other's threads. We'd miss you if you didn't turn up, you know...
I do feel a little slighted that no one wanted to stick it to me over my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528710)about how being anti-administration-policy-on-immigration was unpatriotic, but then, I have other things to do, too...

Sure, let us assume this is true for five minutes: what does this authority int he area of words have to do with the government being inept?

Still waiting.
Nothing. I never claimed it did. But you'd know that if you actually read what I typed and responded to it.

Well, most countries don't allow gerrymandering, so I don't think that it would automatically lead to court squabbles, but in any case, electors should choose their representatives, not the other way round. Nevertheless, term limits would also be useful too.

I'm going to plead ignorance. How do other countries establish districts for electing representatives? Do they have growth patterns that are similar to what we see in the U.S.? How do they handle population shifts?

These are all good-faith questions that I'm curious to see the answers to...

I never said 100% was needed. And one failure does not make someone a failure. A number of failures, with no notable successes, makes a person a failure. that is why Bush is a failure.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say a lack of approval is indicative of failure while also leaning on actual examples of failure at the same time. That's going in circles.

If they did it all the time, and it turned out that the person they were chasing down hadn't committed the crime afterall, and then the neighborhood riots, I would say that those cops failed.

And that's side-stepping the argument while at the same time not. How does the cop know? He hasn't apprehended the suspect yet. The fact remains that in the execution of the law a child was killed. You pay for the law, you pay for the cop: did you pay to kill a kid?

I never said happiness necessitates success. I never, ever said that. If anything, I said that a certain level of unhappiness necessitates a lack of success, or a failure. Happiness of the populace is a necessary, but not sufficient, for success as a president. The president has many jobs. One of those jobs is keeping the populace happy with him. He has failed at that job.

Either happiness necessitates success or it doesn't. You wouldn't bother bringing up approval ratings if happiness didn't objectively matter in your paradigm.

Also, the president's job doesn't say anything about making anyone happy. That's just a bonus to the job.

Also: Stalin was an egomaniac, and a bad person, but very few historians would call him a failure.

He was a failure. All of his policies set Russia down an economically suicidal course and also depopulated the nation. But people were happy with him; that doesn't make him successful.

Then who/what is? Can you count on individual citizens?
There's a lot of good that comes out of church. Even for those that don't belong to the congregation, a number of ministries are out there doing good for all. Or go to your local government. I don't like big government and that's almost always federal by definition. City and county governments can fill a lot of needs.

Nothing. I never claimed it did. But you'd know that if you actually read what I typed and responded to it.

You mentioned your authority in the realm of words. What does that have to do with anything other than implying you are in some way more correct than I?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say a lack of approval is indicative of failure while also leaning on actual examples of failure at the same time. That's going in circles.

And that's side-stepping the argument while at the same time not. How does the cop know? He hasn't apprehended the suspect yet. The fact remains that in the execution of the law a child was killed. You pay for the law, you pay for the cop: did you pay to kill a kid?

Either happiness necessitates success or it doesn't. You wouldn't bother bringing up approval ratings if happiness didn't objectively matter in your paradigm.

Happiness objectively matters, but happiness is not the be all and end all of success. I never said it was. You are unfairly extrapolating things from my statements. Does the phrase "necessary but not sufficient" mean anything to you? Perhaps you should attend a class in critical thinking. Now let me state it again, slowly.
The president has a very low approval rating.
The president has failed to hold the approval of the majority of the country's populace.
This is a failure.
the president has failed in many other areas as well (don't make me list them all again.)
The president has had no notable successes.
Therefore, the president, on the whole has failed as a president.
The president is a failure as a president
or, in short, Bush is teh FAIL!

Also, the president's job doesn't say anything about making anyone happy. That's just a bonus to the job.
I disagree. The president is a figurehead. One of the jobs of a figurehead is to keep people happy with the way the government is being run. Otherwise the news would not be keeping a close eye on the president's approval rating.[QUOTE]

Happiness objectively matters, but happiness is not the be all and end all of success. I never said it was. You are unfairly extrapolating things from my statements. Does the phrase "necessary but not sufficient" mean anything to you? Perhaps you should attend a class in critical thinking. Now let me state it again, slowly.

No, it doesn't. Not in the context of this discussion. Happiness sonly matters if we're talking about his approval ratings and his approval ratings only. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not he has been an able leader.

Do you think Lincoln was popular for starting the civil war despite the fact that it saved America?

The president has a very low approval rating.
The president has failed to hold the approval of the majority of the country's populace.
This is a failure.

Not the kind of failure that is being discussed here. That sort of failure is best left to those who think that better video cards have higher numbers in their names.

the president has failed in many other areas as well (don't make me list them all again.)
The president has had no notable successes.
Therefore, the president, on the whole has failed as a president.
The president is a failure as a president

I already dealt with successes, and your ideas of failures.

You view him as a failure based on an approval rating, not because you've evaluated objectively any of his policies.

I disagree. The president is a figurehead. One of the jobs of a figurehead is to keep people happy with the way the government is being run. Otherwise the news would not be keeping a close eye on the president's approval rating.

I still haven't found happiness in the constitution.

Or in the magna carta.

Or the French Constitution.

Guess what: You're making things up.

.. I think it's fair to say that if we're talking about principled in the sense of ethical, they're the least principled as well.

Karl Rove Chokehold on America

Ba ba da da
Ba ba da da
Ba ba da da
Ba ba da da
Ba ba da da

take a look at my president
he's the only one i got [ba ba da da]
not much of a president
he never seems to get things done [ba ba da da, ba ba da da]

take a look at my president
he's the only one i got [ba ba da da]
not much of a president
he never seems to get things done [ba ba da da, ba ba da da]

And I know it sounds so old
But Rove got me in a chokehold (chokehold)
And I'm afraid I might give in
Towels on the mat my white flag is waving (ba ba da da)

take a look at my president
he's the only one i got [ba ba da da]
not much of a president
he never seems to get things done [ba ba da da, ba ba da da]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk1JfnqcE80

You can be a kakistrocratic republic...

No, it doesn't. Not in the context of this discussion. Happiness sonly matters if we're talking about his approval ratings and his approval ratings only. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not he has been an able leader.

Do you think Lincoln was popular for starting the civil war despite the fact that it saved America?

Lincoln had other successes, which outweighed his failure to get the populace entirely behind his war effort.

Not the kind of failure that is being discussed here. That sort of failure is best left to those who think that better video cards have higher numbers in their names.

Thinly veiled insults aside, who died and made you Mod? We discuss what we like here, and If I want to discuss how the president's approval rating are an example of his failure to get the populace behind his leadership, then that is what I'll do.

I already dealt with successes, and your ideas of failures.

You view him as a failure based on an approval rating, not because you've evaluated objectively any of his policies.

You are ignoring everything else I have said. I'll put it in big text this time, so you won't miss it. I will not say this again. Bush's lack of popularity is one failure. Alone, it is not enough to make him a failure as a president. He has failed in many other ways as well. He has had no notable successes. All of this, put together, makes him a failure.

I still haven't found happiness in the constitution.

Or in the magna carta.

Or the French Constitution.

Guess what: You're making things up.

Guess what: I never said it was in the constitution. please discontinue your policy of putting words in my mouth.

Lincoln had other successes, which outweighed his failure to get the populace entirely behind his war effort.

So he was still a failure. Duly noted.

Thinly veiled insults aside, who died and made you Mod? We discuss what we like here, and If I want to discuss how the president's approval rating are an example of his failure to get the populace behind his leadership, then that is what I'll do.

Then you concede that you're wrong within the original context of this debate (the one I agreed to take part in) and you can start another thread about the viability of using numbers as the end-all to be-all of success or failure. I'm sure Soviet economists would love you.

You are ignoring everything else I have said. I'll put it in big text this time, so you won't miss it. I will not say this again. Bush's lack of popularity is one failure. Alone, it is not enough to make him a failure as a president. He has failed in many other ways as well. He has had no notable successes. All of this, put together, makes him a failure.

I haven't ignored it. I've disagreed with it and pointed out why it's fallacious at best and flat out inane at best. Approval ratings are not indicative of successful leadership, they're indicative of political success, but that's not what we've been talking about.

Guess what: I never said it was in the constitution. please discontinue your policy of putting words in my mouth.

You said it was the President's job, his job description is written in the Constitution. If you weren't referencing the Constitution, that means you were just making things up doesn't it?

I still like the idea of gathering a group of not so qualified people for presidency, throwing darts with your eyes blind-folded at a wall with the names of potential candidates and then blindly following the crowd that votes for that name. I think that's how we elected our current president.

Honestly, America has lost what it stood for once. The democracy that once governed this nation has definately fallen into corruption. The people who speak for the general population do not speak for the best interests of the people or on behalf of what the people want. A nation founded out of poverty, sweat, and no fun is now run by the rich who do litte work and spend their money on multimillion dollar yachts. It just seems that we lost what we stood for and as a result, we just blindly go on choosing people that a few select people really want in office.

Don't know about the rest of you, but other countries are looking more sane then we are at this point.

Agreed. :(

Also...

FUHRER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

The OP wins at life.

Applying the above to a British paradigm, all democracy in the UK now consists of is one demagogue in a red tie, and one in a blue, trying to be more popular than their counterpart so as to have the honour of being "prime minister". Not one of them cares for principle, rectitude and what is actually right above that which is popular.

So he was still a failure. Duly noted.

No, Lincoln failed at one thing. That does not make him a failure, nor did I ever say it did.

Then you concede that you're wrong within the original context of this debate (the one I agreed to take part in) and you can start another thread about the viability of using numbers as the end-all to be-all of success or failure. I'm sure Soviet economists would love you.

No, I listed a bunch of failures, and you are now arguing with me about the legitimacy of one, all the while constructing all sorts of straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth. things like "end-all to be-all" and "100% approval rating" and "The constitution, the magna carta, and the French constitution." You know, things you argue against that I never actually said.

I haven't ignored it. I've disagreed with it and pointed out why it's fallacious at best and flat out inane at best. No you haven't, you've pointed out why it would be inane if I said he was a failure based solely on approval ratings, but I never, ever, ever said that. Approval ratings are not indicative of successful leadership, they're indicative of political success, but that's not what we've been talking about.
I disagree. I believe approval ratings are at least partially indicative of successful leadership. If no one likes you, it's a good indicator that other things you've done have been unsuccessful.

You said it was the President's job, his job description is written in the Constitution. If you weren't referencing the Constitution, that means you were just making things up doesn't it?
No, it means I was referencing the general populace's idea of what the president's job is. In fact, I referenced the news. You would have to be an idiot to not know how important approval ratings are to the various news stations.

No, Lincoln failed at one thing. That does not make him a failure, nor did I ever say it did.

You keep leaning on approval ratings. Lincolns were undoubtedly in the toilet for starting the bloodiest conflict in American history.

Did that make him a bad leader? No. Nothing about the approval rating made him a failure. That's what I keep trying to point out, but what you keep trying to sidestep.

No, I listed a bunch of failures, and you are now arguing with me about the legitimacy of one, all the while constructing all sorts of straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth. things like "end-all to be-all" and "100% approval rating" and "The constitution, the magna carta, and the French constitution." You know, things you argue against that I never actually said.

It's known as an 'implication' or taking your framework to its logical conclusion. Strawmen are entirely unrelated to what the other person is saying, and are fictitious representations of your arguments. However, reducing your arguments to the absurd is not a strawmen, its a tool to point out fallacy and contradiction.

Issues with the constitution come from me calling you on your bullshit.

No you haven't, you've pointed out why it would be inane if I said he was a failure based solely on approval ratings, but I never, ever, ever said that.

A person is a failure if they fail at something. That is the framework you keep operating under. The only thing that saves you is that you do some sort of made-up mathematical calculation that determines whether someone was a failure or a success as a whole. Well guess what: your position isn't viable in this discussion, and I've already pointed out why.

I disagree. I believe approval ratings are at least partially indicative of successful leadership. If no one likes you, it's a good indicator that other things you've done have been unsuccessful.

No, it's that way because you say so.

I'm a leader.

I raise taxes to pay for education.

I raise more taxes to ensure the cleanliness of the water.

I raise more taxes to pay for more police.

All in all the community is safer, but no one's happy because of tax increases: did that make me a bad leader?

No, it means I was referencing the general populace's idea of what the president's job is. In fact, I referenced the news. You would have to be an idiot to not know how important approval ratings are to the various news stations.

And the populace/media came across this idea how?

You keep leaning on approval ratings. Lincolns were undoubtedly in the toilet for starting the bloodiest conflict in American history.

Did that make him a bad leader? No. Nothing about the approval rating made him a failure. That's what I keep trying to point out, but what you keep trying to sidestep.

I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER SAID THAT! I never said that it makes him a failure. I did not say that. DID NOT. SAY. THAT. Stop saying I said that, because I didn't say that.

What I said is: Lincoln failed to get the populace behind him. His other successes outweigh this failure. Overall, Lincoln's presidential career was a resounding success. It would have been more successful if the populace had been behind him.

You keep saying that I said things I did not say. Stop. Please.

It's known as an 'implication' or taking your framework to its logical conclusion. Strawmen are entirely unrelated to what the other person is saying, and are fictitious representations of your arguments. However, reducing your arguments to the absurd is not a strawmen, its a tool to point out fallacy and contradiction.

Except you don't understand my framework. The strawman is built when you say things like "Be all end all" when I never said or implied that.

Issues with the constitution come from me calling you on your bullshit.

If it was about the rules of the job of the president, then why did you bring up the Magna Carta, and the French Constitution? Why not the DofI? You brought up things that didn't mention happiness that i did not refer to.

A person is a failure if they fail at something. That is the framework you keep operating under. No it's not. I. Never. Said. That. I defined what makes a person a failure several times. It is when they have a number of failures and few or no notable successes.The only thing that saves you is that you do some sort of made-up mathematical calculation that determines whether someone was a failure or a success as a whole.and how do you determine it? Flip of a coin? Well guess what: your position isn't viable in this discussion, and I've already pointed out why.
You've failed.


No, it's that way because you say so.
As opposed to it not being that way because you say so?
I'm a leader.

I raise taxes to pay for education.

I raise more taxes to ensure the cleanliness of the water.

I raise more taxes to pay for more police.

All in all the community is safer, but no one's happy because of tax increases: did that make me a bad leader?

no, it means you failed to make the populace happy. If a number of your projects also failed, and none notably succeeded, I would say then that you were a bad leader.

And the populace/media came across this idea how?
I'm guessing you're looking for "They made it up." Well, that's true. It's also true of any idea, definition, word, concept, or whatever. The point is, I didn't make it up, as you alleged.

I'm going to plead ignorance. How do other countries establish districts for electing representatives? Do they have growth patterns that are similar to what we see in the U.S.? How do they handle population shifts?

These are all good-faith questions that I'm curious to see the answers to...
I can't say if we have the same population shifts, but in the UK (along with most Commonwealth and European democracies) boundaries are decided by an independent body (in Britain there are boundary commissions for each constituent country), and then by convention, accepted by the legislature without debate. Boundary revisions take place every 8-12 years after the census, so population shifts are taken into account.

Of course, there are significant differences in the USA, mainly that boundaries are drawn by the States, but I am sure, that if politicians were to put their and partisan interests aside, it would be possible to draw up something similar.

A bit of google-ing found something similar (http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html)in an American context.

I'm sure if you guys could land on the moon you can sort out your congressmen, no?:p

I can't say if we have the same population shifts, but in the UK (along with most Commonwealth and European democracies) boundaries are decided by an independent body (in Britain there are boundary commissions for each constituent country), and then by convention, accepted by the legislature without debate. Boundary revisions take place every 8-12 years after the census, so population shifts are taken into account.
Of course, there are significant differences in the USA, mainly that boundaries are drawn by the States, but I am sure, that if politicians were to put their and partisan interests aside, it would be possible to draw up something similar.

A bit of google-ing found something similar (http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html)in an American context.

I'm sure if you guys could land on the moon you can sort out your congressmen, no?:p


Or, rather, the incumbent government changes the demographics of a constituency to suit its own ends....

snip

Apparently you don't get why your system is fallacious.

The thread talks about the government being unable, it talks about actual success, it never mentioned approval ratings because that's within the realm of pure politics and has nothing to do with real success.

That's why I keep telling you bringing up his ratings is dumb.

You keep saying that I said things I did not say. Stop. Please. Except you don't understand my framework. The strawman is built when you say things like "Be all end all" when I never said or implied that.

I do understand it, the problem is I understand the conclusions it brings us better than you do.

If it was about the rules of the job of the president, then why did you bring up the Magna Carta, and the French Constitution? Why not the DofI? You brought up things that didn't mention happiness that i did not refer to.

You said the role of the leader. You were wrong. Pursuit of happiness is also a fallacy of equivocation. Denied.

No it's not. I. Never. Said. That. I defined what makes a person a failure several times. It is when they have a number of failures and few or no notable successes.

Lincoln made up for his failures with other successes. That's what you said. He is still a failure when these things are taken on their own because that's your paradigm.

and how do you determine it? Flip of a coin?

By not thinking numbers are the end-all to be-all.

As opposed to it not being that way because you say so?

I substantiate my claims, and I don't make things up. That has something to do with my statements being more truthful than yours.

no, it means you failed to make the populace happy. If a number of your projects also failed, and none notably succeeded, I would say then that you were a bad leader.

My projects didn't fail. Don't mention such a thing when that thing is impossible. You again side-step and don't, you acknowledge I fail but to try and save face you want to tweak my analogy. Well guess what: no.

I was a good leader despite a failure to make the populace jump for joy. Only in the realm of political science was I perhaps a failure, but that has nothing to do with leadership.

I'm guessing you're looking for "They made it up." Well, that's true. It's also true of any idea, definition, word, concept, or whatever. The point is, I didn't make it up, as you alleged.

Yes, you did; it's not in the United States constitution.

Apparently you don't get why your system is fallacious.

The thread talks about the government being unable, it talks about actual success, it never mentioned approval ratings because that's within the realm of pure politics and has nothing to do with real success.

In a representative democracy, the good opinion of the populace bloody well does have something to do with success. The job of an elected representative is to (go figure!) represent his constituents. If his constituents do not consider themselves to be well represented, then it is rather obvious that he's not fulfilling his job as well as he should be.

Apparently you don't get why your system is fallacious.

The thread talks about the government being unable, it talks about actual success, it never mentioned approval ratings because that's within the realm of pure politics and has nothing to do with real success.

That's why I keep telling you bringing up his ratings is dumb.

It did mention approval ratings. I mentioned them. In the thread. And I disagree that approval ratings have nothing to do with real success. You have yet to actually argue that they don't.

I do understand it, the problem is I understand the conclusions it brings us better than you do.

no, you don't. You understand your stupid straw man arguments quite well, but they aren't what I'm actually saying.

You said the role of the leader. You were wrong. Pursuit of happiness is also a fallacy of equivocation. Denied.

I don't accept your idea that the constitution and only the constitution gets to define the role of the leader in all it's aspects.

Lincoln made up for his failures with other successes. That's what you said. He is still a failure when these things are taken on their own because that's your paradigm.

I never said that things should be taken on their own. The only reason we're arguing approval ratings is because you pulled it out of a list of other failures.


By not thinking numbers are the end-all to be-all.
From now on, whenever you respond to something I never said, I will simply reply "I never said that."
I substantiate my claims, and I don't make things up. That has something to do with my statements being more truthful than yours.

Where did I make things up? how have you substantiated your claim that approval ratings are not important to a leader?

My projects didn't fail. Don't mention such a thing when that thing is impossible. You again side-step and don't, you acknowledge I fail but to try and save face you want to tweak my analogy. Well guess what: no.
Quite full of yourself, aren't you? I tweak your analogy because your analogy is wrong. Did I say that the president would still be a failure if all his projects had been a resounding success, and we just didn't like him because of his manner of speaking? A clue: No.

I was a good leader despite a failure to make the populace jump for joy. Only in the realm of political science was I perhaps a failure, but that has nothing to do with leadership.

Supposing that your projects succeeded, then yes, you were a good leader despite the disapproval of the populace. You would have been a better leader with it.

Yes, you did; it's not in the United States constitution.
I never said that.

I can't say if we have the same population shifts, but in the UK (along with most Commonwealth and European democracies) boundaries are decided by an independent body (in Britain there are boundary commissions for each constituent country), and then by convention, accepted by the legislature without debate. Boundary revisions take place every 8-12 years after the census, so population shifts are taken into account.

Of course, there are significant differences in the USA, mainly that boundaries are drawn by the States, but I am sure, that if politicians were to put their and partisan interests aside, it would be possible to draw up something similar.

A bit of google-ing found something similar (http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html)in an American context.

I'm sure if you guys could land on the moon you can sort out your congressmen, no?:p
I could buy into that Iowa thing. I'd say we should have redistricting tied to Census results, but trying to get the pols to put aside their partisan interests is a tough nut to crack. Even in Iowa, the legislature has the final say, but it has commendably decided this issue should be enacted in an up or down vote.

Thanks. Now I have some new material for our next town hall meeting. My district is small enough, this usually happens at the barber shop on Saturday morning.

I could buy into that Iowa thing. I'd say we should have redistricting tied to Census results, but trying to get the pols to put aside their partisan interests is a tough nut to crack. Even in Iowa, the legislature has the final say, but it has commendably decided this issue should be enacted in an up or down vote.

Thanks. Now I have some new material for our next town hall meeting. My district is small enough, this usually happens at the barber shop on Saturday morning.I like Iowa's way of doing it too, largely because it results in mostly competitive seats. I seem to remember a story pointing out that Iowa's House seats turn over more than almost any other state. The only other ones in the running are the states with public financing of elections, something else I could get behind.

I've come to the conclusion that the US is currently a Kakistocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy).
A cool word I came across recently is:
Abecedarian
which is from a 16th Century German sect that disdained all Human Knowledge, believing that it interfered with the enlightments God was giving them. They claimed that even knowing the letters of the alphabet was enough to prevent enlightment - i.e they were A-B-C-D-arians.

Ironically, it also came to mean someone who was learning to read and write - learning their A-B-C-D's.


Another great word that when I first came across it, immediately thought of a few people on this forum (not you Nazz:)) is:
Ultracrepidate
"To criticize beyond sphere of one's knowledge"
"To give a critical opinion of something completely beyond your grasp and over your head."
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1053015

My word, but there's a lot of Ultracrepidatians on this forum - there's a classic example within this thread *cough*ElectronX*cough.

It did mention approval ratings. I mentioned them. In the thread. And I disagree that approval ratings have nothing to do with real success. You have yet to actually argue that they don't.

They don't have anything to do with whether or not a leader was successful. Stalin had high approval ratings, but that didn't make him successful. Lincoln had low approval ratings, but that didn't make him a failure.

If we were talking about their success as a politician insofar as they are able to get reelected, then approval ratings would matter, but that's not what we're talking about here.

no, you don't. You understand your stupid straw man arguments quite

Approval ratings measure a different type of success than the ones discussed here. I understand that, you don't. Therefore under your system popular leaders were successful and unpopular leaders were failures. That's silly, which is why I don't and why most historians don't incorporate approval ratings in their analysis.

well, but they aren't what I'm actually saying.I don't accept your idea that the constitution and only the constitution gets to define the role of the leader in all it's aspects.

The Constitution is the only source that prescribes what the President may or may not do. Since you're not referencing the constitution, you're making things up. I can do the same thing to: The President's job is first and foremost to send gaggles of sexy women to my house till the day I die.

I never said that things should be taken on their own. The only reason we're arguing approval ratings is because you pulled it out of a list of other failures.

No, we're debating it because you think political success is identical to real success. It's not.

From now on, whenever you respond to something I never said, I will simply reply "I never said that."


If that's your only response, then concessions accepted.

Where did I make things up? how have you substantiated your claim that approval ratings are not important to a leader?

Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Nero; there exists in history a countless number of tyrannical dictators that ushered in new eras of darkness for anyone who they had any contact with. Many of them were popular. Did that make them good leaders? No, it made them mayhaps good politicians, but a good politician and a good leader are not the same thing. I think I've explained this before.

Quite full of yourself, aren't you? I tweak your analogy because your analogy is wrong. Did I say that the president would still be a failure if all his projects had been a resounding success, and we just didn't like him because of his manner of speaking? A clue: No.

Indeed, who would of thought a hypothetical illustrating the absurdity of your position made me arrogant, or that my analogy (one built upon your logic yet reversed) was wrong because it inconvenienced your position?

Supposing that your projects succeeded, then yes, you were a good leader despite the disapproval of the populace. You would have been a better leader with it.

And Clinton would be a better leader if he had the powers of Jesus, God, and Chuck Norris; the lack of which did not change his status as a leader.

I never said that.

You said it was the President's job to have the people be happy. It's not in the Constitution. Ergo, you pulled it from your ass. "I never said that" won't provide you with an escape from that fact.

In a representative democracy, the good opinion of the populace bloody well does have something to do with success. The job of an elected representative is to (go figure!) represent his constituents. If his constituents do not consider themselves to be well represented, then it is rather obvious that he's not fulfilling his job as well as he should be.

Then he was a bad politician. That doesn't mean he was a bad leader.

yeah, i was kinda expecting replies going "huh?:confused:" but i did it anyway :)

hehehe, 'Cack'.

I wonder who would be best for bollockocracy?

Not really. The USA is governed by people with principles. They are just not the principles the USA is supposed to be governed by.

if you call putting little green pieces of paper ahead of even survival itself a prinicipal. seems like a rather totally gratuitious and ultimately self destructive one to me.

granted it has survived itself for a couple of hundred years, but i rather suspect that is only do to the silver spoon of resource abundance it was born with, having ripped off from people already living there, and which, like all things finite when consumed, over time signifigantly diminishes, the time when this diminishment begins to have signifigant implact may very well be alread upon us.

now as for democracy, i'm not so sure it is even possible for any modern nation to be actually governed that way. i'm not sure i can quite invision how that would be possible. democracy, as i understand the term in the context of day to day governance, would involve the replacement of the whole concept of representative hierarchy, with a kind of universeal plebacite.

it would certainly be fun, if the government could GIVE everyone access to the internet and with it the ability to vote directly on every issue that came up and to introduce them themselves.

though probably a lot of people would still be more interested in gardening and running trains, which might be ok too.

what america, or any place else, is at the moment, is not something cast eternally in stone. if it were, america would still have a nearly universal 'middle class' made possible by the combination of mom and pop retailing, unionized infrastructure, and fdr's 'socialism' that it had when i was growing up here, which it most certainly at the present moment does not, and which its long standing policy of demonizing everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper is never going to bring back, demonstrably even having contributed to the loss of.

no form of government is any sort of panacea, so the question is in a sense irrelivant. tyrannys can arrise under any idiology, given enough power concentrated into narrow enough interests, as has happend with those economicly dominant.

this is why governments need to be kept bussy providing welfare and infrastructure, no matter that what isn't produced can't be redistributed, but rather the point is to keep them out of the mischief of starting wars and becomming repressive. because alowing them to weasil out of any legitimate justification for their continued existence, has not, cannot, and does not, cause them to whither up and blow away.

=^^=
.../\...

What makes your position illegitimate is the utter lack of sense it makes. The word was not coined in response to the current US situation--it dates back to 1829 according to the Oxford English dictionary, and another form of the word goes back to 1641. Never fuck with a guy who deals with words for a living.

Word dealer? That sounds illegal...

Do you ever post anything but Malthusian-esque prophecies of doom? Malthus was wrong, so were the people who followed him.

Concession accepted; either deal with the point made or don't bother trying to side-step. Your implied authority in the area of words is an appeal to authority at best, just as my mentioning of argumentation is.

Though I have to wonder how using a dictionary makes you an authority with words myself...

Actually his use authority was justified in this instance as you said:

Unless the coiners of this term have another agenda, Iraq would be the most likely impetus behind their creation of it.
.

His response showing you that the word itself is not a reactionary creation was acceptable.

I suspect it may in fact be a zombarchy, a government of zombies.


Listen to Bush talk some time, just try and tell me that brain isn't rotting. :p

Nope, thats just the brain rotting bullet left there by Cheney.

Cheney wants to be the 'friend' of all anti-Bush people!

I was focusing on the "least able" side more than the "least principled" side, but I think it's fair to say that if we're talking about principled in the sense of ethical, they're the least principled as well.

So are you trying to say a recovered crack addict who got through college and grad school is the least able of all the people in the US, including current coke addicts who dropped out of 5th grade?

His response showing you that the word itself is not a reactionary creation was acceptable.

No, his response shows that it wasn't created in reaction to current events, not that it wasn't created in reaction to something or that its use here isn't the result of trying to antagonize anyone with any support for the current administration.

Indeed, the lack of any context other than "lol I think we're led by idiots and this is the word I will use to describe it" led me to assume that the word was a recent occurrence, for my error I apologize, but that's the only thing I need apologize for.

To Cameroi:
You mean like in Schweiz? They even vote to allow, or not allow, people to move there. Places a picture of the family in the local newspaper and votes on the issue.

He was a failure. All of his policies set Russia down an economically suicidal course and also depopulated the nation. But people were happy with him; that doesn't make him successful.

His policies, whilst killing vast amounts of people rapidly industrialised the nation, increased the power of the military much more than it was previously. He also managed to gain most of eastern Europe after the war.

His main failure was the repression of the people, massive, avoidable killings and the depopulation of the military officers. It was due to these that he was 'renounced' by Khrushchev.

The state managed to obtain a vast amount of scientists after WW2 and for the most part managed to keep the inside the Soviet Union.

In regards of his ability to lead and administrate a nation he was a success.

In terms of keeping the populace happy and looking out for their interests he was a failure (the only actual benefit to the populace was stopping NZ Germany from taking it over and even then that could have been achieved at far less cost).

His policies, whilst killing vast amounts of people rapidly industrialised the nation, increased the power of the military much more than it was previously. He also managed to gain most of eastern Europe after the war.

No, it didn't. Stalin took already established industry and worked it to death. He also created an economic system that debilitated Russia for years to come, and any other country that adopted his policies.

The state managed to obtain a vast amount of scientists after WW2 and for the most part managed to keep the inside the Soviet Union.


While also having plenty leave the USSR when able.

In regards of his ability to lead and administrate a nation he was a success.

Politically, maybe. Really successful? No. His policies economically crippled Russia's ability to experience real growth, killed off so many people that that Hitler is more of a footnote in the history of mass-murder, and generally sucked at everything he did. Only because he had a great grasp of the internal workings of the party did he remain in power (to say nothing of the purges). None of that is indicative of success, it's indicative of insanity.

In terms of keeping the populace happy and looking out for their interests he was a failure (the only actual benefit to the populace was stopping NZ Germany from taking it over and even then that could have been achieved at far less cost).

They were happy enough. Winning the Great Patriotic War, having a propaganda machine that made Hitler go ":O" and silencing any and all dissent has a habit of making people happy because they don't know how happy they are.

Did this happiness make Stalin a successful leader? No. That's the point behind ignoring approval ratings; they're not based on objective merit but by the subjective reality of those being polled.