Thread: dream ticket?
View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:24 PM
Rebellion's Avatar
Rebellion Rebellion is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 12,496
Rebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud ofRebellion has much to be proud of
Credits: 79,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack View Post
I don't understand this "highjacked by the left-wing" thing.
Richardson's a liberal. He just doesn't believe in gun control and has some alternate economic ideas- neither of which is inherently illiberal. His foreign policy stances are among the most liberal of all the candidates.
Policy-wise he was certainly my favorite, having time to look over everything.
But he has the problem of being a very lousy speaker... Seems weird considering he's a diplomat.
Not sure how that would affect his ability as commander in chief but it certainly hurt him in the campaign.
For gods' sake, Hillary brought "experience" into the game and Richardson was the only candidate with experience in both foreign policy and executive office.
Obama brought up "change" but Richardson's agenda is actually more deviant from the status quo, more liberal in some ways I'd dare say.
I don't agree with many of his foreign policy issue (Kyoto waste of time for example). But he's fiscally conservative, supports a balanced budget amendment, voted for DOMA, wants to end oil subsidies, tough on criminals (especially sex offenders), supports death penalty, hard liner on drugs, supports nuclear power...I'm strongly against his illegal immigration policies. But of all the D's he's by far the most palatable IMO.
__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:
there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.


The result:
Quote:
By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.
Reply With Quote