Your words:
.............Hillary does of course have much more experience with the issues that effect this country, having sat in the White house for 8 years and having served in a federal legislature for another 7 years. That gives here a much broader understanding of the concerns of the world than a guy who was nothing more than mayor of a single city.
But experience isn’t everything, and for Land, who certainly is voting morals, the only morals Hillary has over Rudy is that Hillary never got divorced, even when her husband cheated on her. For whatever reason, she did keep her vow to stay married.
I know what I said. IT’s right in my comment, and you have accurately quoted it.
And nothing in what I said suggested that Hillary wasn’t more liberal than Rudy, or that Hillary wasn’t a socialist.
I accurately note that Hillary has more national experience than Rudy, that she has more experience with national issues.
I never said she had the correct POSITIONS based on that experience, in fact she has all the WRONG positions, like supporting abortion rights and wanting to take guns away and being for gay civil unions and for illegal immigrants.
Experience isn’t everything. If it were, Hillary has more of it than Rudy, but experience is useless without wisdom, and someone who supports gun control, abortion, illegal immigrants, and government-encouraged gay unions lacks the wisdom that should come with experience.
I clearly stated that experience isn’t everything, and even in part of my comment you quoted I noted that Land, as a social conservative, shouldn’t support hillary, because the only place where hillary comes out morally ahead of Rudy is that she at least publicly upheld her wedding vows by staying with her husband even though he cheated on her.
So, what is there in the quotes you cited which suggests I don’t know Hillary is a socialist, that I think Hillary is better than Rudy, or that I am ignorant?
What did I say that isn’t absolutely true?