4/18/2013 11:38:25 AM (updated 4/18/2013 11:48:04 AM)
please point out where I lied about you (or anyone else for that matter). The body of my post was directed at the right wing nut crowd in general and not at any specific individual. The last sentence was directed at you not because you had been willing to answer my post a few weeks ago regarding Sanford. You did not defend Sanford, but you did say if you were in his district you likely would vote for him if the opponent was politically unacceptable. I'm I incorrect in my assumption that you still stand by that statement? If you do still stand by it, please explain to me how and why Sanford is more acceptable than his opponent. Please explain how you weigh political policy against moral shortcomings in deciding your vote. Would you ever consider a candidate so morally unacceptable in spite of political philosophy, that you might either not vote, write-in a candidate or even vote for the politically less acceptable but morally superior opponent?