Freepers want to sue Hillary Clinton in order to stop her from campaigning

[Clintonista2]

Apprently the freepers think they would have a case in suing Hillary, claiming that spouses should be legally barred from being allowed to run.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899902/posts

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fedupfisherman]

1. Good

Then a real progressive will win the WH.

[Clintonista2]

5. Define "progressive"

She has voted with the democratic majority 93% of the time, and she has a more progressive voting record in the senate than Obama or Edwards (www.progressivepunch.com). Please get informed before making a fool of yourself.

[physioex]

9. Ummm....

Someone who isn't funded by Rupert Murdoch for one. Someone who voted against the war would be nice.

[Clintonista2]

11. How did Obama vote on that resolution?

Oh yea, he wasn't a member of the senate. Yet his supporters still claim he voted against it :eyes:.

[fedupfisherman]

16. At least he didn't vote for it

Your candidate got duped by Bush

:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

17. He didn't vote, PERIOD

Obama doesn't like to vote when it comes to controversial bills.

[fedupfisherman]

19. Your candidate still got duped by Bush

Ha!

[Clintonista2]

20. YA!!!, my canidate SUX!!!!!!!

[ima_sinnic]

27. yeah, she definitely does. she loves the war, it is making her rich, too

--but of course she says she was "duped"--so she is either a warmonger, or not very bright. which is it?

[JTFrog]

47. She was duped

by two presidents and went to bat for both of them. :shrug:

[havocmom]

31. Throw straw-man much?

Who here on this thread said he did?

Now, back to HRC... who DID take support from Murdoch and DID vote for the war....

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Actually, they say he opposed it

which I understand he did in a speech in the Illinois senate.

[Clintonista2]

23. Yet he admits he doesn't know how he would have voted

Directly contradicting his supporters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Well, he's been taking triangulation lessons from Hillary.

And I assume you meant to type "how HE would have voted".

He did speak against it, but as a slightly right of center moderate, about an inch and a half left of Hillary, he may well have voted on a political, rather than ideological, basis. Or not.

That's why he's not my choice for the primaries, either.

[ima_sinnic]

26. someone whose first allegiance is NOT Insurance & Big Pharma

[durrrty libby]

13. Maybe you would be happier over there with them

You can spew hate uninterrupted 24/7.

[ProudDad]

14. Geez

talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[durrrty libby]

21. Go ahead and talk about it. Do tell

[Capn Sunshine]

37. the post is pretty explanatory

pot, meet kettle.

[durrrty libby]

40. Indeed it is.Ye ol hackneyed do enjoy triteness

[hurricaneric]

24. Who would that be?

wake up you ass

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. How About Letting The People Decide?

eom

[onehandle]

2. She's not my first choice, but imagine the exploding heads over at that well known hate site...

...the day she is elected.

[slick8790]

60. Likewise.

In fact, she's my second to last choice, ahead of Kucinich. But the thought of the heads blowing up at FR and watching the meltdowns of some of these smug little prick young conservatives I know would be truly epic.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. If Al was in, they 'd have a weight limit.

[FrenchieCat]

4. But, but, but.......

I thought that she was their chosen democratic nominee!

[durrrty libby]

6. lol ..........So mch for that soliloquy

[tabatha]

7. Well then, how about all members of the family...

sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands.......

[durrrty libby]

8. They are a pathetic bunch.

[Auntie Bush]

10. Are they going to sue Elizabeth and Michele too?

I can't believe there are so many stupid Rethugs in this country. I haven't met a smart one yet...and never will.

[rurallib]

12. I bet if a person wanted they could pick up some great comedy material

there everyday. What- uh - odd logic they possess over there.
And to that one poster I say yes, please run Laura Bush. Could be fun.
Now I must go and wash up.

[ElizabethDC]

15. There's someone here who proposed that a while ago

it was very silly.

[Clintonista2]

18. The sad part is, that doesn't surprise me

[ima_sinnic]

29. that "someone" was probably trolling from over there

you know, "running it by the DUmmies," then going over there to brag about his brilliant "infiltration." LOL.

[LanternWaste]

52. I remember that.

I remember that. He was pretty adamant about it too. Talk about getting myself sucked into an absurd discussion-- that one was straight out of the Twilight Zone

[rinsd]

56. see #32

[NYC Liberal]

63. Huh, #32 was posted by "Ignored"

Oh wait.... ;) Probably for good reason I'm guessing.

[NYC Liberal]

62. That thread went on for like 400+ posts if I remember

and they were the only one in that entire thread arguing for it. :rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

28. spouses, no--but sons, yes? sheesh! DUH!! they are truly brilliant over there (nt)

[karynnj]

30. That provision was not in my copy of the constitution

Clinton is not my favorite, but she does qualify under the constitution. Did they think Bush could add that to the Constitution via a signing statement or something.

[jcrew2001]

32. My theory is that Bill shouldn't be allowed to be First Spouse

if the "intent" of the 2-term limit is to prevent a president from returning to power.

But Hillary could be president if she divorced Bill.

This wouldn't be enforced legally, but the obvious intent of the 2-term limit is to prevent the President from gaining a lifelong power over the US govt and having a dictatorship like other pseudo-democracies.

If 2 terms was good enough for George Washington, then the Clintons should really follow that lead.

[Clintonista2]

34. If the people don't want Hillary, they don't have to vote her in

Frankly, I'm not too fond of 2 term limits, either.

[jcrew2001]

35. no, i'm in favor of 2 terms since George Washington agreed to it

anything more than a decade really detracts the legacy, since economic cycles will drop, and there will be more problems to deal with. Some of the luster will be lost. And people get sick of you and want a fresh face and a fresh start. The US is too big to allow one person to rule for 12 or more years. There should be enough qualified individuals for the presidency.

The Clinton/Bush power is only a reflection of how the 2 party system is flawed if families can control the outcomes of the nominations.

[LanternWaste]

53. I think Roosevelt did a pretty bang-up job

I think Roosevelt did a pretty bang-up job.

I've always considered voters to be the best tool to determine term limits-- vote candidate x in again, and we've extended his term limits, vote him out and his term limit expires.

[jcrew2001]

54. But FDR presided over the Depression and the country

was basically falling apart. The US has so many people, that its hard for me to believe that after 8 years, there is no one else qualified to run the country. In addition, the revolutionary war was fought in part due to dislike for monarchy rule and George Washington did not think the country should go in that direction.

In every country, there is a desire for stability that one-person rule can provide, and its only natural for things to evolve that way.

I think that the USA has a proud history of bucking that trend, and limiting a strong federal govt.

But just as the Ceasars ruled Rome, it looks like Americans are just as inclined to concede to one-person/one-family rule than other societies in history.

[LanternWaste]

57. I'm afraid I cannot see any relevant similarities

I'm afraid I cannot see any relevant similarities between a President being voted in for more than two terms and a Monarchy. One is a choice of the people, the other is not.

[onenote]

58. I remembered that someone here took this same absurd position but couldn't remember who

thanks for saving me the trouble of searching for your earlier posts.

And your still completely wrong by the way.

[no_hypocrisy]

Dupe

[no_hypocrisy]

33. But . . . But . . . But I thought Freepers WANTED Hillary to be our candidate

so they could enjoy the smack-down during the general election process and have no challenge on the path to the White House as they've pegged her as the most vulnerable democratic candidate.

I'm confused.

[pa28]

36. Reminds me of Will Pitt's thread on the Republican habit of re-defining reality.

Activist Conservative judges and their political bosses have gotten away with trashing the Constitution for so long I'm not surprised they would seriously discuss something like this and think it was a possibility. After all, they installed a losing candidate as President in 2000 with the willing assistance of the Supreme Court.

[rpannier]

38. Hope they do

As I recall a decade ago the Supreme Court ruled that in a frivilous lawsuit the suer has to pay the person they're suing all their expenses --

I'll bet Hilary has some EXPENSIVE lawyers.

[AlCzervik]

39. Hey dumdasses, if it was as easy as that don't you think we would have found a loop whole

to sue Bush on and remove him from office? Before any of you say "Impeachment" i'm talking about us and not the congress doing the suing.

[Perry Logan]

41. So much for the "Republicans want Hillary to run" meme.

[William769]

42. All I can say is the stupidity shown here by some is astounding.

:wow:

[Maribelle]

43. As if we don't already have too many threads bashing Hillary, we import them from ...

the wingnut asylum that's been condemned for health reasons.

[durrrty libby]

46. Doncha know there can never be enough Hillary hate at the DU

[Maribelle]

48. Of course you are correct

What on earth was I ever thinking? :dunce:

[Dawgs]

44. Freepers are dumb!!

[Vickers]

45. Their unfamiliarity with the Constitution is truly breathtaking.

There is one guy on that thread who asks "if we have a crisis of gigantic proportions, can’t Bush postpone the election or cancel it?"

This didn't happen during the Civil War, WW1 or WW2, and it is warranted now because...?

They really want another 9/11 because, you know, the 1st one wasn't bad enough. :eyes:

[William769]

50. It would seem they are not the only ones unfamiliar with the Constitution.

[onenote]

59. I wish it was limited to them

But posts suggesting that chimpy will cancel the elections and even a thread arguing that Hillary is constitutionally disqualified from being president have appeared here as well.

[wyldwolf]

49. It's all a grand facade. They really WANT her to run.

:rofl:

[jcrew2001]

55. Exactly, the GOP can mitigate voter defections if she is the Dem nominee

Even though moderate voters will be tempted to leave the GOP in 2008, I think a Hillary candidacy would keep more in the fold than losses.

Bush and Cheney will be gone, so GOP voters realize that they are truly starting from scratch.

If this is a change election, can't the GOP offer a change candidate as well, in the form of Rudy? Thats what they are banking on.

[AZBlue]

61. Wow. I bet they just got some donations from certain DU'ers.

Sad.