I apologize for the curtness of that last post, I think we are generally on the same side, and this is merely an argument over semantics.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM

You don’t know what integrity means. It is that simple. You don’t agree with him. That is not the same thing as a lack of integrity. You are free to hate every single democrat with a passion hotter than 1,000 suns, but that doesn’t mean he lacks integrity. That word has a specific meaning. It is not interchangeable with good, or virtuous, or anything else. It was not a straw man, you clearly equate the word integrity with meaning “in agreement with”.

According to your posts about Caddell, I can claim you have no integrity because I disagree with you (or you might be saying I have no integrity). That is the point I’m trying to make. Agreement and being right ARE NOT components of having integrity. My saying Caddell has integrity is not the same as saying he is right or that I agree with him.

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Straw man, much? I said that Caddell lacks integrity because he still belongs to the party that brought Obama to power, and will still belong to that party after Obama leaves the Presidency. Republicans SHOULD be saying what Caddell is saying, but none are. That is why the Republican Party is in its death throes.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

According to your posts about Caddell, I can claim you have no integrity because I disagree with you (or you might be saying I have no integrity). That is the point I’m trying to make. Agreement and being right ARE NOT components of having integrity. My saying Caddell has integrity is not the same as saying he is right or that I agree with him.

And in the end it doesn’t matter who said it if the idea takes hold and we get rid of some of these bums.

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

It matters to me. I guess we’ll just settle on that as a difference of opinion.

How can you have integrity and stay with the modern Democratic party? Caddell is a Democrat.
gryphon202 on March 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Integrity means sticking to your principles. The fact that he IS a democrat means he wants to REMAIN a democrat and fix their problems (as he sees them) is, by definition integrity. Once again, his integrity is not drawn into question simply because his conclusions are wrong. Of course it bothers people that it’s a democrat that is standing up and saying it, but I know I’m happy SOMEONE is saying it because there are not many in the GOP who would. And in the end it doesn’t matter who said it if the idea takes hold and we get rid of some of these bums.

Saying someone has integrity and is sincere is not the same as elevating him to Popedom or anything.

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

How can you have integrity and stay with the modern Democratic party? Caddell is a Democrat. He belongs to the party that aided and abetted Barack Obama’s rise to power. I’d feel very different about hearing Caddell’s speech from a rock-ribbed movement conservative, but it had to come from a Democrat! Does that not bother anyone else here at all?!

gryphon202 on March 15, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I don’t know what you’re arguing about. I never said anything about his goodness (although I do think he probably is a good person). The claim that you originally dismissed was that he has integrity and is sincere. He DOES have integrity. He sticks to his principles that he sincerely believes too be good and right. Just because you or I disagree with his views and think he’s wrong doesn’t negate his integrity nor his sincerity. He is the kind of man that “rational minds may differ”. As for him going back to the democrats after obozo, I would think that is because he wants his old democrat party back, and he thinks it necessary to work from within it. The same approach many conservatives have tried, unsuccessfully, with the GOP. If the democrat party were more like Caddell we could have rational discussions with them. Saying someone has integrity and is sincere is not the same as elevating him to Popedom or anything.

My understanding is he described exactly why Sharron Angle lost.

CW20 on March 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM

He didn’t say anything about Sharron Angle, did he? He talked about what a disaster the Romney campaign was. He talked about what a bunch of mercenary shills the Republicans are. I guess if you want to read something about Sharron Angle into that, more power to ya, but I didn’t hear it. Sounded like plain English to me.