Lindsey Graham’s collaboration with Democrats points to tea-party primary challenge in ’14

Daily Caller ^ | October 13, 2012 | W. James Antle III

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sanford married her. Whatever your opinion of his unfortunate choices in his personal life, he was an excellent Conservative Governor and Congressman. I wouldn’t hesistate to support him on his public record.

[servo1969]

“Sanford married her. Whatever your opinion of his unfortunate choices in his personal life, he was an excellent Conservative Governor and Congressman. I wouldn’t hesistate to support him on his public record.”

I disagree. He used funds he had no business using to help with his dalliances. He made his personnel lie to his constituents to cover his backside. What this showed was that he was willing to do all of this to have what he wanted. Then after being ‘caught’ he was petulant and unashamed. To hell with his wife and children. All that mattered was his happiness.

The whole thing displayed a serious lack of control along with an uncomfortably large ego. Am I any better? No, I am not. I have made mistakes in my life as well. BUT I’m also never going to try and be a Governor or US Senator. And neither should he ever again hold a position of such power over other people’s lives. When is the next time he might really, really want something? What might he do to get it? No. He made his choice and he should move on with his life and leave governing to others.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, it’s more likely one of the excellent 5 (or 6, after January) Congressmembers will take a run to replace Graham in 2014, and Sanford probably won’t be one of them.

[Happy Rain]

OK, say you are trapped in a pit in Hell and two demons are looking down on you—one wants to pee on you and one wants to defecate on you.
You have but one rock that you can toss to stop one of them.

Often “reductio ad absurdium” is Latin for I don't have the smarts to convincingly contradict reality so I will affect intellectual superiority over the dirt beneath my feet and the clouds above my head.

[Happy Rain]

Except for Pansey, the GOP Capital Hill caucus from South Carolina is solid TEA party and for good reason, against his liberal worser judgment, Graham has been voting with the rest of them.

Pansey may run his RINO mouth on TV but he knows who butters his bread come election time and is hoping us dum ass kakalaki rednecks will forget his dum ass Yankee liberal ass showing...

...ain't gonna happen.

[plsjr]

"Often “reductio ad absurdium” is Latin for I don't have the smarts to convincingly contradict reality so I will affect intellectual superiority over the dirt beneath my feet and the clouds above my head."

Are you saying my identification of your logical fallacy is incorrect?

(Actually, I'm trying to brush up on logic and thought I might research and apply in my conversations.)

Your inference that "I don't have the smarts to convincingly contradict reality so I will affect intellectual superiority over the dirt beneath my feet and the clouds above my head." is a combination ad-hominem and appeal to authority in an attempt to divert me and other readers from the real issue.

My real issue being "For what reasons should one support and vote for a particular representative?".

You do realize that your phrase "convincingly contradict reality" indicates you've closed your mind (besides being self-contradicting)?

(Maybe you're OK with that. If so, nothing I say matters so please disregard my response.)
...
...
...
...
...
Still reading?
...
...
...
... OK.

You say "OK, say you are trapped in a pit in Hell and two demons are looking down on you—one wants to pee on you and one wants to defecate on you.
You have but one rock that you can toss to stop one of them."

I think I'm less likely to find myself in the hypothetical situation you describe if I avoid supporting those that preselected a 'representative' who voted for Supreme Court nominees that promote abortion and homosexuality as pansey did.

I'm not saying that party affiliation is inherently bad, just that it should be secondary.

The S.C. Citizenry in their laziness and complacency allowed the party to avoid discussing the truth about graham and leave us with unacceptable "representation".

I have reason to hold suspect those who describe our only choice as having to support the r’s.
An enemy who would have us compromise our principles would use this method to attempt to hide behind the veil of ‘reasonability’ or as a scare tactic.

The r’s have done this time and again and I will no longer buy into that ‘my team’ mentality.

I'm saying that not focusing on the individuals we support, ensuring they have the honesty, honor and integrity to stand against known wrong or bad acts allows those who would further destructive agendas to raise up true believers or useful idiots in the name of party affiliation.

It is sad that, even on a Christian Conservative site like FR, there are those who would have us deny what our 'lying eyes' tell us, and expect us to join the team.

We shouldn't be ‘sheeple’ for _anyone_ and should encourage those who will listen to seriously consider the reasons for how they vote. Otherwise, we're likely to have another pansey, mclame, boner, or specter foisted upon us once again.

[Happy Rain]

Fine rhetoric and top notch rationalizing.

You win FRiend, I cannot compete with such gifted paralogisms...

...guess I need remedial classes in sophistry.

In short, we agree to disagree because you are apparently invulnerable to the contemporary applications of pragmatic reason...not that there is anything wrong with that, if anything it's kind of amusing--you are both wrong AND droll:)

[plsjr]

You're still avoiding the issue, which is "For what reasons should one support and vote for a particular representative?"

You appear to be promoting the idea that one should support whoever 'the party' selects over considering the honesty, reliability and integrity of those individuals.

That's something a rino/rat proponent would do...

... are you a rat or rino?