Teabaggers say Lindsey Graham isn't right wing enough

Ah, Individual , you make good points. LOL. Why the left does this name calling just proves their weak ideaology.

Yes once again DNC drum majors make invalid points without links or substantiation. Typical.

Grahm , McCain et al. are strictly globalists in RINO clothing. Scary.

 

Yet RIPTIDE continues his nonsensical diatribe without backing up any of his claims or properly refuting that separation of church and state is a real and obviously valid concept in America.

 

What has all this to do with the thread topic "Teabaggers say Lindsey Graham isn't right wing enough"?

The initial post, below, does not even mention religion or separation of Church and State.

 

It started with post number forty-four.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=476154&page=5

 

You're referring to the use of "God given Liberties" in that post?

Although I am not a believer in a God, the word 'God' does appear in our 'Declaration of Independence' and the 1st Amendment, in my opinion, had no intent to totally eliminate religious beliefs or practices from our societies, but only to not allow the establishment of a National religion.

But that said, and relative to the thread title, am I to assume that Lindsey Graham has made some unacceptable remark relating to teabagging? If so, what has he said?

 

If I am correct, you are arguing semantics when you know full well that the original poster meant the political definition in reference to teabaggers rather than the obscene sexual reference to which you are referring.

 

The term in the title of this thread should be:

Teapartiers, not Teabaggers, the latter makes no sense unless you make the logical assumption it was a direct insult to that movement.

The Declaration of Independence, is a political document, it is not a legally binding document, and therefore mentioning God in it is not legally binding, but at most is inspiring.

This is different from other types of campaigns and legal pushes, to get certain LEGALLY BINDING laws passed in the name of (fill in the blank religion).

That my friends is the distinction.



Also to appease RIPTIDE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause


I don't know why he couldn't find this himself or know of it off the top of his head. But he insists I cite sources, so I will respectfully do so since I have some time right now.


----

As to the definition of sexually deviant behavior, just consult the DSM-5 or recent sexual criminology books that offer a definition, problem solved.

 

Then I take it you would agree that the primary intent of the thread is/was to denigrate and/or anger those who belong to or are supportive of the TEA party movement?

 

And that would be bad because.....?

 

I fail to see what is good, but if that is what you promote the thread has no useful purpose in my opinion other than to divide persons against one another more strongly.

Carry on, I'll watch.

 

The point of this thread should be discussing the ethics and consequences of the rift within the political Right.

We should be discussing how one gets the label of a RINO, does Lindsey Graham fit that description?

And in a larger context, to not be a RINO, what does that mean? Are those requirements too extreme in their ideology? Is this part of the reason there is gridlock in Congress?

 

Maybe rjh should make an effort to clarify what the thread is supposed to be about?

 

The Establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion. It also forbids religious preference by the government. Nothing regarding the Bible's influence on the Constitution. Thought as much.

 

It's circular, because the Constitution is a legally binding document, the highest law in the land.

 

Hallelujah!

 

Sheesh, thick as a brick. Anyone with half a brain could read the first post and understand that it's about Teabaggers running against Lindsey Graham for his senate seat, because they don't think he's right wing enough. But what the topic is, doesn't matter to cons, because they're only interested in obstructing threads by going off topic anyway.

 

To me the point of the tread seemed to be a warning that there are those who’d like to pull a lot of the US even further to the right than it already is, using the case of Lindsey Graham as an example.

And I’d point of that so far not one of the extreme right wingers on the forum has been able to defend their ideas from criticism.

 

Rippy please answer the questions put to you -

Are you actually suggesting criminal activity as an alternative to having a welfare program?

Selling drugs, like weed, crystal meth, crack etc committing burglary, mugging, car theft, prostitution/pimping, etc

And if so please explain what happens if they get caught seeing that prison is a lot more expensive per individual than giving welfare assistance?

 

Liberals trying to twist the Constitution to their Godless mantra. All BS. Whatever you wish to call the spineless RINO is irrelevant ; barry just started WW3.

 

Ahem Mr. Supreme Mod ; I follow God's laws not man's. Take it from there.

Funny how euros just pick up and blindly follow "rules". Hitler already led them over a cliff.