Comments on: Can Clinton Be Stopped?

washingtonpost.com: Hillary Sits Atop The Democratic Field In A Tier By Herself

[pugster]

Let me ask this question. Does Hillary have enough experience to be president?
Hillary keeps talking about how much experience she has.
I fail to see how her position as the First Lady during the Clinton years in the White House translates into the great political experience she would like to get people to believe.
I doubt that she sat in on Cabinet meetings, meetings with the military leaders, international leaders, debriefings by the FBI, the CIA, NSA, DHS, and many other important meetings and issues.
What she may have learned is the correct way to brew tea and to serve it graciously with her little pinkie in the air.
Let''''s not be swayed by what Hillary and her backers would have you believe about her experience.
What it amounted to was a social experience and a brief term as a New York Senator from a relatively unimportant area.
Being Bubba''''s wife does not entitle Hillary to bash Obama or anyone else for the lack of experience.

Posted by tibu987 at 05:44 PM : Sep 25, 2007

I got a question. Did GW Bush have as much experience as Hilliary when those dumb hicks from the south voted him for president? I rest my case.

[coffee_guy1]

Well, experience isn''t exactly a strong democratic argument anyway. The notion that you need experience to be president, or any representative for that matter, is a fallacy.

[feelfree1]

tibu987,

Re: "Let''s not be swayed by what Hillary and her backers would have you believe about her experience."

I don''t know about her experience, but I would definitely call her competence and judgement into question. While millions and millions of people from around the world were able to determine the fallacy of the case for war against Iraq, Hilary was either lacking the good judgement to oppose this horrendous and self-defeating crime, or was tacitly to actively complicit in it.

Since she was a fierce supporter of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, up until just a year ago, I am betting that the latter is true.

Having clearly not learned her lesson, she continues to abstruct the complete withdrawal of our forces from that criminal misadventure, and is now gunning for Iran. She is clearly not a cometant leader, nor does she offer us a substantial alernative, in my opinion.

I would prefer sound judgement over "experience", any day of the week.

[tibu987]

Let me ask this question. Does Hillary have enough experience to be president?
Hillary keeps talking about how much experience she has.
I fail to see how her position as the First Lady during the Clinton years in the White House translates into the great political experience she would like to get people to believe.
I doubt that she sat in on Cabinet meetings, meetings with the military leaders, international leaders, debriefings by the FBI, the CIA, NSA, DHS, and many other important meetings and issues.
What she may have learned is the correct way to brew tea and to serve it graciously with her little pinkie in the air.
Let''s not be swayed by what Hillary and her backers would have you believe about her experience.
What it amounted to was a social experience and a brief term as a New York Senator from a relatively unimportant area.
Being Bubba''s wife does not entitle Hillary to bash Obama or anyone else for the lack of experience.

[feelfree1]

BaghdadsHere,

Re: "Ahmadinejad:" We dont have gayss in Iran."

"Here is the only guy who can stop Hillary, cause there are rumors that shes gay."

I would not have predicted that you were a fan of President Ahmadinejad, or that there were no Republicans eho were up to the task of challenging Hillary.

[feelfree1]

Dan9111,

Re: "Nader and Ron Paul both are favoring violence. Just ask them whether you will be free to disagree with their plans, and I will be the answer will be no."

That is a pretty wild claim. I must give you credit for originality, as I have never heard this claim made before.

Can you offer us anything to support your position? Any examples? Statements?

I would add that any plan which advocates for ignoring our Constitution should be met with a firm "no", and this is among the top reasons why I cannot support the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans.

[dan9111]

Feelfree1, Nader and Ron Paul both are favoring violence. Just ask them whether you will be free to disagree with their plans, and I will be the answer will be no. You will have to comply or there will be some attack or threat to whatever extent to force your compliance. They are merely offering a gentler bank robbery. It is all an illusion meant to keep violence in the "abstract", telling you it is something else. A vote for Nader, supposing he can win, is still one where you wind up with no choices.

[feelfree1]

brianbwb,

Moreover, Mr. Nader also advocates for the use of legislation to curb government abuses, while Mr. Paul seems to prefer eliminating major elements of our government as an approach to reducing government abuses.

Both of them seem to place our Constitution as a central foundation for their ideas.

On this common point, they can both be applauded.

[feelfree1]

BaghdadsHere''s tantrums seem to indicate an increasing level of desperation.

The Bush regime dead-enders appear to be in their final throes.

[prinzowhales]

BaghdadsHere--Its not surprising that you would be wrong on this...you were wrong on the WMDs, wrong on the al Qaeda links, wrong on everything.

[feelfree1]

brianbwb,

Re: "Nader from Paul."

"Prove me wrong, anybody. I dare you."

I do not know enough about Ron Paul to make a very comprehensive comparison, but one major difference that I have noted, is that Ralph Nader advocates in favor of government regulation to counter corporate abuses and securement of human rights, while Ron Paul appears to oppose this approach, and seems to prefer that our "free markets" regulate these issues.

I think that their are other significant differences. Nader has always operated outside of our 2 dominant Party structure, for example, while Paul operates from within this establishment.

[baghdadshere]

It looks like prinzowhales and FeelFree1 are the same mother ********* using two nicknames.

[dan9111]

"If I was then I''''d be a christian or a Jew or a Muslim and I''''d try to change them from within, because they''''re too big to fight from outside. Either be a political atheist or work from within the parties. Staring another party (or religion) however is pretty much an exercise in futility for the near future."


Posted by SgtRDS

Very good... Now one more step to truth. The political parties are not reformable. Even if they were, they are immoral anyway. Imagine you are tricked at a young age into joining the KuKluxKlan, and later discover they are immoral. Do you reform them from within? No, you get the h3ll out man! One more minute assisting them is assisting more murder.

[barbjc1]

I don''t understand, some of these comments seem to come from people who are not thinking clearly. This is a major election coming up. Why rehash the Clinton scenario. At this point the only two candidates even worth considering are Hillary Clinton (Dem) or Ron Paul (GOP). Because of Ron Paul''s Libertarian leanings it might be rough.

[prinzowhales]

FeelFree1--Even better!

[baghdadshere]

Ahmadinejad:" We dont have gayss in Iran."..........
Here is the only guy who can stop Hillary, cause there are rumors that shes gay.

[feelfree1]

Re: "snidegrass and SharnCedar--Bravo!"

Hear, hear!

[baghdadshere]

Guys, watch out for FeelFree1 or FeelSick1 whatever. Hes a member of al-qaeda and defends islam, the religion of brainwashed by the devil.

[feelfree1]

Prinzowhales,

They are interchangable and "virtually" indistinguishable.

[prinzowhales]

snidegrass and SharnCedar--Bravo!