Does it strike you as funny...

Does it strike you as funny... [+ favourites]

... that under this forum's description it says be "Un-biased, logical, and open-minded," when all politics really is IS the exact opposite? You MUST be biased to be a good politician... You MUST be illogical at times, because that is what 99% of the good ole USA relates to... And you MUST be close-minded to many opinions to re-enforce your own.

Name one successful politician who is none of these things.

Just food for thought.

"In the beginning, night was memory was water, and in the cool aquamarine depths dreams swam freely."

True, but unless we are logican and unbiased ourselves, how are we to spot inconsistencies in their behaviour?

Illogical people believe that Bush is a good man because they themselves do not scrutinize their own behaviour in a logical manner. You will find a large correlation between people who lead "sheepish" lives that are somehow conformed versions of someone else and bush supporters.

Similarly, you will a correlation between people who think Bush is a vile lying bastard and the ability to be a leader.

People who support Bush will tend to be illogical in not just the war, but racial debates, sexist debate, and topics on religion and sexual orientation. Quite the opposite would be more likely with people who oppose Bush.

So although politicians lie and are biased, it is our job to, in an unbiased manner, figure out who is statistically the most likely to have the "people's" interests in mind.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

You seem to carry a point, but with those people who you define as logical and unbiased undoubtably come those who have jumped on the anti-bush bandwagon with their own illogical and ulterior motivations. Those motivations that tend to get in the way of serious conversations on the rights and wrongs, if you can call them that, of politics. I would not judge a politician statistically, because I do not trust the people who's opinions are included in those statistics. The "people" jump into politics like a high school football game.

Every president has made mistakes, which I have had to realize considering the fact that I am only 18 and part of a generation that is politcally loud, but doesn't use enough fact to back opinions. The thing of it is, I do not know every politician, and if I could interview each and every one to ever set foot on this blue earth I would, but I can't. From what I know FIRST HAND of people in general, though, is that the ones who seek leadership positions ALL exhibit some form of the flaws listed in my above post.

The "people's issues" have taken a back seat in the world of politics. We are living breathing Orwell characters, on a much more general scale.

"In the beginning, night was memory was water, and in the cool aquamarine depths dreams swam freely."

Just because someone votes for bush doesn't make them illogical. Personally i hate bush but to say that your just assuming. Maybe some people like his father. Maybe they actually beileave terrorism is the most important issue because they lost a loved one in the 911 attacks. I have talked to people from iraq and they say that 90% of the people are happy to see sadaam leave and are even more glad to see his sons not take over the reign there. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made to make things better for the future. The people there are quite excited about the fact they are under democracy. If you don't beileave me just look at the voting turnout. The percentage of people that voted is higher than Canada and the United States. Personally i think this is just like a long term investment. Eventually the fighting will end and the rights and freedoms of the people there will be restored. I think that to every action there is a positive and negative consequence. And although some actions have more negative than positive consequences i think it's good to focus more on the positive than the negative. I like to look at the positive, negative, past and future before i jump to conclusions.

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

1. This is not a debate about the Iraq war.
2. My statements clearly indicated that I was speaking from a "statistical" point of view and so arguing that "Just because someone votes for bush doesn't make them illogical" is a moot point, as I already stated that.

However, it is clear that those that trust our current administrative leader are people who believe the following:

1. That politicians are allowed to lie to the people
2. That politians who lie are not actually wrong, but miss-informed
3. That politicians that are miss-informed and kill people because of that miss-information should be forgiven
4. That politicians who exhibit these traits should be re-voted into office.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, that these assumptions "could" be correct. From a statistical point of view, using the past as an example (which is the exact same method of stock analysis or money analysis or any analysis of anything scientific, economic, or psychological), it is unlikely that Bush didn't know about 9/11 before it happened, that Bush didn't purposely lie about the reasons going to war, and that Bush isn't interested in Oil more than the freedom of the iraqi people.

Hence, anyone who does not adopt this belief, is scientifically certainly more illiogical than someone who does, because aside from past as a guide, no one really has insight into the truths questioned above.

It is only with this logical method of analysis, using statistics and unbiased logic that we may judge illogical and counterfeit leaders correctly.

Your biases may permit you to think I am biased, but these assumptions prevent you from viewing the situation from an open mind. I know I am not biased, because I would love nothing more than to believe that everything that has happened has happened for the good, but it would be illogical (and hence ignorant and irresponsible) for me to believe something that isn't statistically probable.

Hence the description of this forum... to pursue truth in an unbiased and logical fashion.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I'm not saying what he did was wrong or right. All i'm saying is that some positive has come out of it. We could talk about these things forever nothing would actually change it's out of our hands. So i'm saying why not just look at the positive. Bush shouldn't have gotten re-elected period. I'm not sure how that's being biased looking at the brighter side of things i can't control.

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

Looking at the "brighter side of things" is biased because you are attempting to pursue a conclusion based on desire rather than logical analysis.

For example, your necessity for optimism prevents you from logically taking into account the incredible losses we as a society have suffered (monetarily, socially, politically, morally) for this apparent "democracy" in Iraq. If you were to be unbiased in your analysis, you would realize that statistically, the wrong things that have come from this "War on Terrorism" far outweigh the good.

Further, by focussing on solely the good we are giving opportunity to forget those that have suffered unjustly, solely so that we feel good about our own lives. To me that is far more harmful to us as a society than taking into account all the bad and good and giving politicians their fair judgements.

Being optomistic in a statistically and factually biased way is in fact no better than supporting the war because you think Bush is a righteous crusader for human rights: Both employ the same method of rejecting facts that displease you and accepting facts that do.

The strength comes from prioritzing unbiased logical analysis even when it pains your heart to know that it is highly statistically likely that you live in, and have indirectly supported a regime that has massacred a people for monetary gain... like pirates.

Accepting this guilt (or whatever you may call it... social responsibility) is a requirement to be a responsible human being.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I am not quite sure how my thread turned into yet another Bush debate, and that seems rather irrelevant. The point is that Bush is an example of a typical politician, not an abnormal one.

Behind every sparkling smile on our news channels are the motivations of each person. We were made individual for a reason. There isn't a specific mold for the highest positions of our executive branch, but it is like a secret code each is hardwired with. They all know the truth, and so do we. It is just impossible to have EVERYONE on your side. So, why try to be a floater between opinions? These leaders MUST be strong-willed with what they choose to believe. Even if they aren't 100 percent about everything they say they can not just withdraw opinions, or back down. They have to appear strong and all-knowing, almost god-like in front of the public. Maybe once long ago this wasn't so, but for now it is the only way people have figured out how to gain popularity. But then again, an unbiased world is simply impossible, and will always be impossible. It is human nature.

"In the beginning, night was memory was water, and in the cool aquamarine depths dreams swam freely."

This isn't a debate about Bush.

I am pointing out that it is necessary for a person to be logical and unbiased to judge seemingly clean and god-like politicians whos actions are completely hypocritical.

And a bias in any direction (rebellious or conforming) will taint that analysis.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."