How is Richardson...

Darla... since you spouted off on the other thread... you get the assignment of reading this article. It is rather long, so I will allow you to read it by tomorrow... we wouldn't want to fry any of those brain cells by forcing you to read more than a page and a half a day. I fully understand it is harder to read and formulate thoughts than it is to get the latest talking point from moveon.org or commondreams.shit.

:)
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... since you spouted off on the other thread... you get the assignment of reading this article. It is rather long, so I will allow you to read it by tomorrow... we wouldn't want to fry any of those brain cells by forcing you to read more than a page and a half a day. I fully understand it is harder to read and formulate thoughts than it is to get the latest talking point from moveon.org or commondreams.shit.

:)
Click to expand...

Here, I've got something for you to read SF:

:321:
 
Forget it SF, I'm not reading 3 pages about the boring foreign policy of the most boring candidate the dems have running.

I'm not saying he isn't smart, he is. But he does not present himself well in the debates, and he's not going to win.

But if he did win, I'd line up right behind him, because I am going to support whoever the Dem nominee is, because that's what Moveon told me to do, and it has nothing to do with the lunacy and carnage I have seen over the past 7 years.
 
I love Richardson and would feel great if he made it.

The answer is hes not pretty enough.

Sad but true.
 
Desh said:
I love Richardson and would feel great if he made it.

The answer is hes not pretty enough.

Sad but true.
Click to expand...

Desh he's not the best speaker either. I think he has come off as extremely unimpressive in the debates, and the guy actually is impressive. So there is a communication problem there.
 
Superfreak said:
Not a frontrunner....

http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1630/

While I do not agree with him on everything, he is by far a better candidate than Clowntoon2, Obambi or the fraud.
Click to expand...

Because americans, in part, support and elect leaders with charisma - somebody who seems like they have a vision, and who can set themselves apart from everyone else. That's just a fact.

Richardson doesn't excude the charisma of the others. He doesn't present himself as a person of vision, and leadership, or the gravitas of the others.

If we simply elected smart people with good policies, we'd be having Harvard and Stanford PhDs leading the country.
 
Desh said:
I love Richardson and would feel great if he made it.

The answer is hes not pretty enough.

Sad but true.
Click to expand...
No, the answer is people won't vote for who they believe is the best candidate, instead they fall for the 'vote for the Prettiest as judged by the media' line.
 
Darla said:
"Forget it SF, I'm not reading 3 pages about the boring foreign policy of the most boring candidate the dems have running."
Click to expand...

As I said, I understand 3 pages is a LOT of reading for a liberal used to being spoon fed their opinions. I won't hold it against you. ;)

"I'm not saying he isn't smart, he is. But he does not present himself well in the debates, and he's not going to win."
Click to expand...
We really have to stop judging candidates on appearance or oratory skills. He has by far the best plans with regards to foreign policy of any of the dems.... and he is not a protectionist. He is the best candidate the dems have... Why do you hate brown people darla? Why?


:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darla said:
What do you agree with him on?
Click to expand...

The biggest thing I remember is his tax policy and what he did to make New Mexico more competitive in the market. At one point they started taking a lot filming business from L.A. for example.
 
SF, I read more non-fiction books in a month then you do in a year, so you can knock that crap off please.

As for Richardson, he doesn't have it. It's a way of modern America, since the first televised Presidential debate, that a candidate is going to have to have some charisma. Don't scold me about it, I am not the one who voted in 2000 based on who seemed to be the cooler guy to have a beer with.

And look what happened. That's just the way it is.
 
Cypress said:
Because americans, in part, support and elect leaders with charisma - somebody who seems like they have a vision, and who can set themselves apart from everyone else. That's just a fact.

Richardson doesn't excude the charisma of the others. He doesn't present himself as a person of vision, and leadership, or the gravitas of the others.

If we simply elected smart people with good policies, we'd be having Harvard and Stanford PhDs leading the country.
Click to expand...

Funny, considering you just slammed a Stanford PhD another right wingnut author on the other thread.
 
Damocles said:
No, the answer is people won't vote for who they believe is the best candidate, instead they fall for the 'vote for the Prettiest as judged by the media' line.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's the best candidate. To me, it's Edwards, and yes, he happens to be the prettiest. But if Gore enters, then I would believe him to be the best candidate, and would vote for him, even though Edwards would still be the prettiest.
 
Darla said:
I don't think he's the best candidate. To me, it's Edwards, and yes, he happens to be the prettiest. But if Gore enters, then I would believe him to be the best candidate, and would vote for him, even though Edwards would still be the prettiest.
Click to expand...
However, this other person said (paraphrasing here), "I really love Richardson and wish he'd be the guy, but I won't vote for him because he isn't pretty!"
 
"SF, I read more non-fiction books in a month then you do in a year, so you can knock that crap off please."

yes mam, :o

"As for Richardson, he doesn't have it. It's a way of modern America, since the first televised Presidential debate, that a candidate is going to have to have some charisma. Don't scold me about it, I am not the one who voted in 2000 based on who seemed to be the cooler guy to have a beer with.

And look what happened. That's just the way it is."

So just accept that it is a beauty and hype contest and forget about promoting the best candidate to lead the country? Sorry, that I cannot do. I understand it is the way things have been, but as you said... look where that has gotten us. Clowtoon1 and Bush.
 
Darla said:
I don't think he's the best candidate. To me, it's Edwards, and yes, he happens to be the prettiest. But if Gore enters, then I would believe him to be the best candidate, and would vote for him, even though Edwards would still be the prettiest.
Click to expand...

Richardson is far better on foreign policy than Boar and without question teh fraud. Domestic policy would be closer, but Richardson is still better than Boar. The fraud is pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top