List of top 20 things destroying America

[RKMBrown]

It was longer that his predecessor's, but no his resume didn't. The elections did that.

>> Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. << -- the myth of presidential "experience"

Besides that, the factor always left out of that myth: who he was running against and how much they represented the status quo, and the fact that the economy had just collapsed. In that environment you could have run a turtle and won the election.

Obama's voting record in Illinois was weak....voting "present". His two years in Congress was more campaigning than anything. I suggest that Lincoln's credentials were better than Obama's.

I can remember during his first campaign being called articulate and clean. I can remember them saying that it's time to have a Black man lead this nation.
The top two choices were a Black man and a woman, neither were the best qualified to run this nation, but they both were politically correct.

Yes, a turtle could have beaten any republican in 2008. But, the dems could have brought a better candidate to the election.

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

The voting system is broken. It's broken in both the primaries and the general election. The primary voting system rewards the guy who is most different than the others. 10 conservatives and one progressive? The progressive wins by default based on the 10 conservatives splitting up their vote. Further, the progressives in the opposing party are allowed to cross lines to ensure the progressive wins in the primary. Our voting system is a farce. All modern election systems include run offs until someone gets > 50% and / or the ability for voters to select their candidates in a desired order of preference. Our voting system is worse that a joke, it is designed to ensure we do not elect the candidates we want. It is designed to maintain the party of two evils.

 

[boedicca]

Talk radio/Fox news sheep
Trickle down economics
corporatism
de-regulation of the financial sector

Wow, are you a freakin' moonbat or what?

 

[noose4]

Talk radio/Fox news sheep
Trickle down economics
corporatism
de-regulation of the financial sector

Wow, are you a freakin' moonbat or what?

I am not one of your people.

 

[Meister]

It was longer that his predecessor's, but no his resume didn't. The elections did that.

>> Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. << -- the myth of presidential "experience"

Besides that, the factor always left out of that myth: who he was running against and how much they represented the status quo, and the fact that the economy had just collapsed. In that environment you could have run a turtle and won the election.

Obama's voting record in Illinois was weak....voting "present". His two years in Congress was more campaigning than anything. I suggest that Lincoln's credentials were better than Obama's.

I can remember during his first campaign being called articulate and clean. I can remember them saying that it's time to have a Black man lead this nation.
The top two choices were a Black man and a woman, neither were the best qualified to run this nation, but they both were politically correct.

Yes, a turtle could have beaten any republican in 2008. But, the dems could have brought a better candidate to the election.

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

Which bring me to my premise that the democrats will vote for somebody just to be politically correct, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

 

[Pogo]

Obama's voting record in Illinois was weak....voting "present". His two years in Congress was more campaigning than anything. I suggest that Lincoln's credentials were better than Obama's.

I can remember during his first campaign being called articulate and clean. I can remember them saying that it's time to have a Black man lead this nation.
The top two choices were a Black man and a woman, neither were the best qualified to run this nation, but they both were politically correct.

Yes, a turtle could have beaten any republican in 2008. But, the dems could have brought a better candidate to the election.

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

The voting system is broken. It's broken in both the primaries and the general election. The primary voting system rewards the guy who is most different than the others. 10 conservatives and one progressive? The progressive wins by default based on the 10 conservatives splitting up their vote. Further, the progressives in the opposing party are allowed to cross lines to ensure the progressive wins in the primary. Our voting system is a farce. All modern election systems include run offs until someone gets > 50% and / or the ability for voters to select their candidates in a desired order of preference. Our voting system is worse that a joke, it is designed to ensure we do not elect the candidates we want. It is designed to maintain the party of two evils.

Readily agreed. In the last round (for instance) I supported Jon Huntsman... for the two minutes the system gave me the window to do that. But nooooo... rational and reasoned doesn't sell, the wackadoodles like Bachmann and Gingrich and dog-eared Santorum push that element out, only to settle on the most milquetoast who will pander to the religious right and its social engineering and come up with nothing more intelligent than "corporations are people my friend".

Yeah, great choice system. My head swims.

 

[Pogo]

Obama's voting record in Illinois was weak....voting "present". His two years in Congress was more campaigning than anything. I suggest that Lincoln's credentials were better than Obama's.

I can remember during his first campaign being called articulate and clean. I can remember them saying that it's time to have a Black man lead this nation.
The top two choices were a Black man and a woman, neither were the best qualified to run this nation, but they both were politically correct.

Yes, a turtle could have beaten any republican in 2008. But, the dems could have brought a better candidate to the election.

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

Which bring me to my premise that the democrats will vote for somebody just to be politically correct, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Right, so they snubbed theiir other candidate -- a woman. Oops.

Meanwhile the Repubs will vote for somebody just to be approved by the God machine, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Republicrats, Demoblicans. Know the difference.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

The voting system is broken. It's broken in both the primaries and the general election. The primary voting system rewards the guy who is most different than the others. 10 conservatives and one progressive? The progressive wins by default based on the 10 conservatives splitting up their vote. Further, the progressives in the opposing party are allowed to cross lines to ensure the progressive wins in the primary. Our voting system is a farce. All modern election systems include run offs until someone gets > 50% and / or the ability for voters to select their candidates in a desired order of preference. Our voting system is worse that a joke, it is designed to ensure we do not elect the candidates we want. It is designed to maintain the party of two evils.

Readily agreed. In the last round (for instance) I supported Jon Huntsman... for the two minutes the system gave me the window to do that. But nooooo... rational and reasoned doesn't sell, the wackadoodles like Bachmann and Gingrich and dog-eared Santorum push that element out, only to settle on the most milquetoast who will pander to the religious right and its social engineering and come up with nothing more intelligent than "corporations are people my friend".

Yeah, great choice system. My head swims.

Eggzactly. We should be able to say I want Jon, and if he does not get 51% I want my vote to go to Ron, and if he does not get 51% I want my vote to go to... down the line till you get to your last place pick. This way we get the guy we want not the guy the media tells us is most likely to win if we boot all the others out. Under this system we have to endure the constant drone of your vote will go to waste if you don't pick the socialist who has more votes than the conservatives that are running.

 

[Meister]

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

Which bring me to my premise that the democrats will vote for somebody just to be politically correct, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Right, so they snubbed the other candidate -- a woman. Oops.

Meanwhile the Repubs will vote for somebody just to be approved by the God machine, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Republicrats, Demoblicans. Know the difference.

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious


God machine???? You mean they won't nominate an athiest? Probably not, but hardly has to be...(how did you put it?) oh yeah, God machine.

 

[Pogo]

Which bring me to my premise that the democrats will vote for somebody just to be politically correct, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Right, so they snubbed the other candidate -- a woman. Oops.

Meanwhile the Repubs will vote for somebody just to be approved by the God machine, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Republicrats, Demoblicans. Know the difference.

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious


God machine???? You mean they won't nominate an athiest? Probably not, but hardly has to be...(how did you put it?) oh yeah, God machine.

Australia did. She's the PM right now. Another category we're behind in. Or two.

Back up top:

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious

Number one, you missed my point of snubbing the woman contradicting your premise, and number two, what are you saying-- that a woman should not be eligible for president?

Btw, "early favorite" is a factually useless term.

 

[Meister]

Right, so they snubbed the other candidate -- a woman. Oops.

Meanwhile the Repubs will vote for somebody just to be approved by the God machine, not necessarily the best person to lead this nation.

Republicrats, Demoblicans. Know the difference.

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious


God machine???? You mean they won't nominate an athiest? Probably not, but hardly has to be...(how did you put it?) oh yeah, God machine.

Australia did. She's the PM right now. Another category we're behind in. Or two.

Back up top:

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious

Number one, you missed my point of snubbing the woman contradicting your premise, and number two, what are you saying-- that a woman should not be eligible for president?

Btw, "early favorite" is a factually useless term.

The woman was snubbed for a black man....no, my premise is in tact...it was going to be one or the other right? It couldn't be both, right?
I'm not saying that the right woman shouldn't be president, nor am I saying that a black man shouldn't be president. Are you an idiot????
I'm saying those two were where they were because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not that they were so qualified. Try and stay on topic.

I just love it when a leftie tries to move the conversation from where it was.

 

[Mac1958]

Social Rot.

That encompasses everything that is killing America.

Yep, a culture in decay infects pretty much everything else.

.

 

[EPark]

The internet

 

[EPark]

and google!

 

[Pogo]

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious


God machine???? You mean they won't nominate an athiest? Probably not, but hardly has to be...(how did you put it?) oh yeah, God machine.

Australia did. She's the PM right now. Another category we're behind in. Or two.

Back up top:

Who's the early favorite for the 2016 democrat candidate? Oops...a woman (politically correct) You just can't ignore the obvious

Number one, you missed my point of snubbing the woman contradicting your premise, and number two, what are you saying-- that a woman should not be eligible for president?

Btw, "early favorite" is a factually useless term.

The woman was snubbed for a black man....no, my premise is in tact...it was going to be one or the other right? It couldn't be both, right?
I'm not saying that the right woman shouldn't be president, nor am I saying that a black man shouldn't be president. Are you an idiot????
I'm saying those two were where they were because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not that they were so qualified. Try and stay on topic.

I just love it when a leftie tries to move the conversation from where it was.

Oh poster please. This is your tangent, now that I'm forcing you to confront it you wanna cry because it's getting uncomfortable?

I'll type this slower this time...

So what you're saying in effect is that nobody can ever nominate a woman, a black, a Hispanic, etc etc, without you deeming it to be "political correctness". In other words you'll only be happy with a WASP male. What you want is the same old thing, for fear of appearing "PC".

Kind of a PC correctness dogma, innit?

 

[Meister]

Australia did. She's the PM right now. Another category we're behind in. Or two.

Back up top:

Number one, you missed my point of snubbing the woman contradicting your premise, and number two, what are you saying-- that a woman should not be eligible for president?

Btw, "early favorite" is a factually useless term.

The woman was snubbed for a black man....no, my premise is in tact...it was going to be one or the other right? It couldn't be both, right?
I'm not saying that the right woman shouldn't be president, nor am I saying that a black man shouldn't be president. Are you an idiot????
I'm saying those two were where they were because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not that they were so qualified. Try and stay on topic.

I just love it when a leftie tries to move the conversation from where it was.

Oh poster please. This is your tangent, now that I'm forcing you to confront it you wanna cry because it's getting uncomfortable?

I'll type this slower this time...

So what you're saying in effect is that nobody can ever nominate a woman, a black, a Hispanic, etc etc, without you deeming it to be "political correctness". In other words you'll only be happy with a WASP male. What you want is the same old thing, for fear of appearing "PC".

Kind of a PC correctness dogma, innit?

I was being as clear as I could with you. You trying to project was I said is a complete failure on your part. I didn't say, nor did I infer what you posted. This is so typical coming from the left fringe. You can't stay on topic and you can't win a discussion, too bad for you. We were talking about being politically correct....live with it and embrace it, you have no choice.

 

[Obamanation]

The church of secularism!!! If it is a social issue that relates to things people want for themselves - it's destroying America. Legal pot, homosexuality, abortion, etc.

If it is about selfish interests it is secular in nature and part of the reason we are heading in the wrong direction.

 

[Pogo]

The woman was snubbed for a black man....no, my premise is in tact...it was going to be one or the other right? It couldn't be both, right?
I'm not saying that the right woman shouldn't be president, nor am I saying that a black man shouldn't be president. Are you an idiot????
I'm saying those two were where they were because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not that they were so qualified. Try and stay on topic.

I just love it when a leftie tries to move the conversation from where it was.

Oh poster please. This is your tangent, now that I'm forcing you to confront it you wanna cry because it's getting uncomfortable?

I'll type this slower this time...

So what you're saying in effect is that nobody can ever nominate a woman, a black, a Hispanic, etc etc, without you deeming it to be "political correctness". In other words you'll only be happy with a WASP male. What you want is the same old thing, for fear of appearing "PC".

Kind of a PC correctness dogma, innit?

I was being as clear as I could with you. You trying to project was I said is a complete failure on your part. I didn't say, nor did I infer what you posted. This is so typical coming from the left fringe. You can't stay on topic and you can't win a discussion, too bad for you. We were talking about being politically correct....live with it and embrace it, you have no choice.

It's your tangent, Brainiac. Now you're melting down into ad hominems and generalizations and whining that your own tangent is off topic.
Hey, if you can't handle the challenge then don't start the tangent. I should care.

Btw you don't infer; I infer. You imply. Maybe you need to start with something more basic like a dictionary.

 

[Meister]

Oh poster please. This is your tangent, now that I'm forcing you to confront it you wanna cry because it's getting uncomfortable?

I'll type this slower this time...

So what you're saying in effect is that nobody can ever nominate a woman, a black, a Hispanic, etc etc, without you deeming it to be "political correctness". In other words you'll only be happy with a WASP male. What you want is the same old thing, for fear of appearing "PC".

Kind of a PC correctness dogma, innit?

I was being as clear as I could with you. You trying to project was I said is a complete failure on your part. I didn't say, nor did I infer what you posted. This is so typical coming from the left fringe. You can't stay on topic and you can't win a discussion, too bad for you. We were talking about being politically correct....live with it and embrace it, you have no choice.

It's your tangent, Brainiac. Now you're melting down into ad hominems and generalizations and whining that your own tangent is off topic.
Hey, if you can't handle the challenge then don't start the tangent. I should care.

Btw you don't infer; I infer. You imply. Maybe you need to start with something more basic like a dictionary.

One of the top 20 things that are destroying America is "Political Correctness".
It's what I stated all along before you went off on YOUR tangent on what you thought I was saying. You seem to be the one that's challenged.

 

[Pogo]

I was being as clear as I could with you. You trying to project was I said is a complete failure on your part. I didn't say, nor did I infer what you posted. This is so typical coming from the left fringe. You can't stay on topic and you can't win a discussion, too bad for you. We were talking about being politically correct....live with it and embrace it, you have no choice.

It's your tangent, Brainiac. Now you're melting down into ad hominems and generalizations and whining that your own tangent is off topic.
Hey, if you can't handle the challenge then don't start the tangent. I should care.

Btw you don't infer; I infer. You imply. Maybe you need to start with something more basic like a dictionary.

One of the top 20 things that are destroying America is "Political Correctness".
It's what I stated all along before you went off on YOUR tangent on what you thought I was saying. You seem to be the one that's challenged.

-- which you then took off to the electoral process, only to whine when you get a response.

What ever, dood. Give it a rest already. Dayum.

 

[Meister]

It's your tangent, Brainiac. Now you're melting down into ad hominems and generalizations and whining that your own tangent is off topic.
Hey, if you can't handle the challenge then don't start the tangent. I should care.

Btw you don't infer; I infer. You imply. Maybe you need to start with something more basic like a dictionary.

One of the top 20 things that are destroying America is "Political Correctness".
It's what I stated all along before you went off on YOUR tangent on what you thought I was saying. You seem to be the one that's challenged.

-- which you then took off to the electoral process, only to whine when you get a response.

What ever, dood. Give it a rest already. Dayum.

That's certainly true. But it's been true of both parties for about as long as I can remember.

And again, the electorate votes in the primaries...

Yes, I'm the one that brought up the electorate.
Sheesh....honesty would go a long way in a conversation, but it's asking too much.

Now, I'll give it a rest.