"Anonymous" <cri
...@ecn.org> wrote in message
...
> On 23/11/09 23:48, in article 7n0hq1F3kdvi
...@mid.individual.net, "Sordo"
> <nos
...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Most recent media attention has focused on the 60% who say she's
>> unqualified to become president. Her unfavorable rating is 52%, down
>> from 53%, which still doesn't ignite a lot of optimism for Palin-lovers.
> Cut and paster Sordo does not read his own stuff.
> Who among the pundits say she is qualified Even knee jerk Krauthammer
> has remained silent a year after hs slammed her in
> 2008.
> In American history none of the populists have been qualified
> to be President. The biggest one, a Democrat, William Jennings
> Bryan tried three times and failed. Fortunately, he was
> much too radical.
How do you determine beforehand, with absolute certainty, that someone is
not qualified to be President? What criteria do we use to make that
determination? Just because we may not think a person is qualified, does
that mean that they are really not qualified does it? When we say that
someone is "too" radical, what does that mean? A far out liberal would not
think that a far out liberal is radical would they? Nor would a far out
conseervative think that a far out conservative is radical would they? Who
makes that decision?
|
