Russell Brand vs. Paxman!

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Are you serious? Only because I call one goverment flawed this does not mean that I know of a governement with no flaws?

Either you are saying that flawless governments or you aren't. This quote I cited implies that you think there are flawless governments:

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed.

If you think this is the case, give an example. If you don't think this is true, why the fuck did you make the comment in the first place?

Who exactly is dancing arround with a fucking strawman here?

It's still you. I have quoted you on every comment I claimed you made. You have conjured opinions and statements out of your arse and attributed them to me.

And what qualifies one for ebing the best in an erea like finance and economics?

Those working within a particular field are typically aware of the leading people within it.

Dont misinterpret what I write!!!!!!!!!!

A governemt need elites, but those elites must be elected! If you didnt get that message out of my original post than annoy someone else!

I inserted that particular quote largely for my own amusement. However, I do feel it illustrates your stated opinions quite well.

I'm not suggesting that every member of government should be determined on a meritocratic basis. I see no reason why an elected house(s) couldn't operate with the minister/bundesminister/secretary/whatever for the various departments being assigned on a meritocratic basis.

I think a pure meritocracy would be no more desirable than a direct democracy. As I said, it could be implemented in different ways, each having different implications and effects.

I do think that the minister (or secretary/bundesminister/whatever) for defence should have some sort of military experience, for example.

Are you serious? I think you might be exaggerating things somewhat.

No I am not. Writen, changeable laws iare one of the many things that seperate the civilised world from savages.

Um, ok. What hell does that have to do with it?

[Something completely different]

Either you are saying that flawless governments or you aren't. This quote I cited implies that you think there are flawless governments:

There is alot of diference between what you believe my words mean and what I say them to mean! My words mean what I want them to mean, or do you believe in some warped concept of language in which you determine what someone thinks and says!

If you think this is the case, give an example. If you don't think this is true, why the fuck did you make the comment in the first place?

You are kidding right?! I stated that one goverment was more flawed than another and you then interpred it as me claiming there to be a flawless government in existance! And then acuse me of making useless statements!

What the fuck is wrong with you!!! Either you read an argument and give a counter! Or quit whining arround about how I write my stuff!!!!!

I have quoted you on every comment I claimed you made. You have conjured opinions and statements out of your arse and attributed them to me.

More than that! You attributed a meaning to them that they didnt have!

How low down must one be to do that???

Those working within a particular field are typically aware of the leading people within it.

And now you are dancing arround the same point again by ignoring that there is a diverse number of opinion in each field that are in opposition against each other.

I inserted that particular quote largely for my own amusement. However, I do feel it illustrates your stated opinions quite well.

The only thing it shows is that you are a petty little boy who is incapable of just formulating an argument but instead tries to force a completly different meaning to an argument given against you.

Despite me givin a clarification twice!

You obviously seem to have no interest in debate, but more interest in annoying people by repeating and interprtating their opinions for them as if you were somehow in the authority to do so.

I'm not suggesting that every member of government should be determined on a meritocratic basis. I see no reason why an elected house(s) couldn't operate with the minister/bundesminister/secretary/whatever for the various departments being assigned on a meritocratic basis.

Expirience is part of the democratic system, yet one has to accept that the unexpirienced might get a chance to lead aswell.

I think a pure meritocracy would be no more desirable than a direct democracy. As I said, it could be implemented in different ways, each having different implications and effects.

Dont fantasise and write cryptic phrases. Show the blie pritns and structures that hold your utopia together.

I do think that the minister (or secretary/bundesminister/whatever) for defence should have some sort of military experience, for example.

And he mostly is.

Um, ok. What hell does that have to do with it?

First you state that writen laws dont matter, notw you write as if you never claimed that?

What use is it replying to you, if you are clearly just a jackass who cant memorise his own shit but thinks he has the authority to tell other people what they actualy think!?

[Napoléon]

Fuck me this thread went down the shitter.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I stated that one goverment was more flawed than another and you then interpred it as me claiming there to be a flawless government in existance! And then acuse me of making useless statements!

You said that just because one government is flawed, doesn't mean they all are. How else should I interpret it?

What the fuck is wrong with you!!! Either you read an argument and give a counter! Or quit whining arround about how I write my stuff!!!!!

Seriously? Coming from you? Damn near half of your counters have been to things I didn't even say!

I have quoted you on every comment I claimed you made. You have conjured opinions and statements out of your arse and attributed them to me.

More than that! You attributed a meaning to them that they didnt have!

What? I attribute meaning that isn't there, to a statement I didn't make?? Are you even paying attention to the rubbish you're typing or are you just writing random responses in the hope that they'll be applicable? The effect is much the same, either way.

And now you are dancing arround the same point again by ignoring that there is a diverse number of opinion in each field that are in opposition against each other.

Yes. That is exactly what I've been doing. Oh no, hang on:

Strangely, I am actually familiar with this concept. Do you not think that maybe an expert would have a greater understanding of the complexities involved in a particular issue than a layman? At no point have I suggested that political issues simplified to a single, infallible resolution. It precisely because such complexities exist that I think those decisions should be made by those best qualified to do so.

Despite me givin a clarification twice!

Yes, a clarification that I dispute. I completely disagree that a meritocratic form of government would necessitate an authoritarian regime. And I fail to see why a decision being made by someone who actually knows what they're talking about infringes the rights of the ignorant. Unless of course, you feel that the uninformed should have an equal say in such things. If the latter is true, I see no reason for your derogatory remarks in regards to the Swiss governmental process.

You obviously seem to have no interest in debate, but more interest in annoying people by repeating and interprtating their opinions for them as if you were somehow in the authority to do so.

Even if that were true, at least it would be their actual opinions I was (mis)interpreting, rather than just making them up as I go

Dont fantasise and write cryptic phrases. Show the blie pritns and structures that hold your utopia together.

Cryptic? How so?

Jesus, I don't have a full political structure for such a government mapped out. All I said was I kinda like the idea of it. I'm not insisting on an overthrow of the current political paradigm. I kinda like the idea. That's it. No more, no less. I also like the idea of other systems too, but know full well they wouldn't work in the real world.

When you first responded to my remark about meritocracy, I actually thought you would some genuine input. I thought that since you were so opposed to the idea, you could give me some greater insight into why it wouldn't work. More the fool I.

The single most profound piece of insight you've managed to impart so far is that different people have different opinions. Other than that, all you've done is spew invective and argue against things I didn't say.

First you state that writen laws dont matter, notw you write as if you never claimed that?

What? Are we still talking about the monarchy? I only ask because your arguments jump around like a hypermaniac on a pogo stick.

I haven't said that written laws don't matter. I said that the british monarchy has very limited practical power and the fact that the queen is head of state and head of the anglican church has very little impact. It's more nominal than anything. Well, I said that the queen being head of state on paper means fuck all. The first part of this paragraph is just expanding on that statement.