Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy)

1). A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

About sums it up, doesn't it?

disclaimer: I don't, in any way, lay claim to inventing this word. It was thought up by someone much smarter than me. But remember, he didn't do it himself. Someone did it for him.

Should I have put it in capital red letters so RICKAMAVEN could read and understand it?

surfish1961 wrote:

Bush ran an ineptocracy. As was further proven by the Mitwits . . .

Brewha wrote:

So what you are saying is that Bush was elected twice by the same knuckleheads that put the "Texas post turtle" in office for two terms? I find that hard to believe.

And I don't think Mitt was elected, was he? So your point on Mitt is moot.

Maybe I should have put it in red capital letters so you could understand it.

surfish1961 wrote:

Or you could have tried making a cogent point . . . . .

Brewha wrote:

It appeals to one's reason that the point I made was referring to the current administration.

But the current administration has the tendency to blame its' problems on past administrations just as was your reasoning.

surfish1961 wrote:

Yes, well your appeal is denied by reason of a lack of demonstrated fact.
It did read like you were Bush bashing. Sorry to misunderstand your disillusionment.



Perhaps you would feel better if you assailed the First Lady on the grounds of her hip dimensions . . . . .

Brewha wrote:

The fact is that the ineptness of the current administration is demonstrated by the failed policies, false and broken promises, and total disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America.

surfish1961 wrote:

Surfish, posts like the OP will get you "Enemy of the State" status,
under the new libtard rules.

Chemyst 😎

chemyst wrote:

Unfortunately in the eyes of over half of the voting public, this is far outweighed by giving away lots of 'free' stuff and by delivering slick speeches from a teleprompter that somebody else wrote.

DadZilla3 wrote:

Using bold red letters strikes the fear of














GOD












in them...they cower in fear...they form their circle jerk and mutter about the menacing red letters.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Yes, well your appeal is denied by reason of a lack of demonstrated fact.

Brewha wrote:

Only a godless, communist, Islamo-fascist, militant homosexual, man-hating feminazi would suggest otherwise.

tegulator wrote:

This is the problem, Brew. You can't have a discussion with people who refuse to deny that there are valid viewpoints other than their own. Only a godless, communist, Islamo-fascist, militant homosexual, man-hating feminazi would suggest otherwise.

tegulator wrote:

There are a lot of people on the boards that are glad that you are finally coming out of the closet and acknowledging yourself for what you are. I'm just happy that I didn't resort to the name-calling as that would put myself below your level.

surfish1961 wrote:

You forgot the slave whipping, bidnezz ownin' and highly educated whiteys!

DrMaddVibe wrote: