>Well, that's almost it. It's hard to find a true liberal who is also tough on crime, you know, because liberalism has traditionally viewed criminals as victims of society.
Teddy, John, do you see it that way? I don't. I think there are times where that's the case, but hey, it's a case by case thing.
>Here is the bottom line. It's obvious your buddy considered crime and public safety to be his number one issue. Things like gay marriage, universal health care, taxes, etc., mean nothing to him if he can't walk down Times Square and feel safe. Or for that matter the Financial District, home of Ground Zero. To him, being "liberal" meant being soft on crime and perhaps soft on terrorism as well.
But falsely so. In fact, he was pissed off about the Bush stance in the war and did not support the Iraq war. He felt we should've done more in Afghanistan, and I agree with that.
He also holds the stupid conspiracy theory about Bush waiting to parade around Osama before the election. I don't believe that garbage.
-Z |
