A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote: Gay marriage is growing more accepted, drug policy is being rejected, womens reproductive rights are pretty much adamantly upheld. These issues have been major points that have clogged the path to really serious economic and foreign policy debates for years.

I was gonna say...you're shit'n me...actually, you're shit'n yerself, if you believe what you said. You're kidding, right? Maybe? You're still giddy....I hope so

not 'shitting' you or anybody. Look at the details of the election results. The culture wars are over and the liberals won. Completely.

What do drugs, pussy and corn holing have to do with foreign and economic policy?
Is it the price of them? Availability? Import/Export? Control?

Is this what was "holding back" America, the "stimulus" that wasn't "diss-cussed"?

These were/are the "major points"?

Pudfark wrote:What do drugs, pussy and corn holing have to do with foreign and economic policy?

lots, actually. Look at how many domestic health care debates got hung up on stupid crap over contraceptive and abortion policy. Several foreign aid
bills got waylaid by goofy stuff over the same. Congress has, over the past two decades spent time it should have been spending focusing on economic
or longterm planning issues debating stuff like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Hell, they spent nearly half a year cooking up the Defense of Marriage Act.
Our national marijuana policy costs us a fortune, and makes us easy marks for Mexican and other drug suppliers, for what?


The bottom line is that every candidate that tried to focus on social issues, even in 'Red' states, got their ass kicked. I think you might actually have taken a step, albeit a small step, toward focusing legislators onto real, important issues, with less distraction.

Respectfully Slick, the "minor issues", some would argue are not the governments business, held up the "major issues" of foreign and economic policy?

If, that's so and the point you are making? All of the Congress and Senate need to be
fired. I've always held that opinion. When "personal agenda" takes priority over "national agenda"? It seems that's what we just elected. Is that closer to your point?

Part of me has the suspicion....that you just put so much butter on the pancake?
The syrup won't stick.

Pudfark wrote:Respectfully Slick, the "minor issues", some would argue are not the governments business, held up the "major issues" of foreign and economic policy?

yes, and if you don't wish to believe me, ask anyone who deals in legislative policy making.

If, that's so and the point you are making? All of the Congress and Senate need to be
fired.

well, sure, but that is easier said than done. Far easier.

Fair enough....I do enjoy the civility of our discourse.

We're moving Forward!

Speaking of the "forward"....http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willi ... ot-elected ?

interesting point of view. Some of it, I agree with, but I don't think that is why Obama won. Romney lost, and it was because a host of folks who see the gap between the haves and have-nots getting bigger, faster, didn't want to trust a rich white investor with the task of changing that course.