Why? because I don't toe the party line?

Sorry, but I like to think for myself. You're clearly not burdened by such a choice.

I don't believe that the proof of someone's ideology lies in who he agrees with. It lies in what he, personally, believes. Unlike you, I don't try to hide the fact that conservatives are every bit as flawed as liberals. Trying to hide that only makes a person look ignorant and inept.

Finding hypocrisy on the right is a simple exercise. For starters, let's take the cases of John Lennon and Natalie Maines. John Lennon stated that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. Conservatives in this country lost their minds. When Natalie Maines was critical of George Bush, the same thing happened. Boycotts, record burnings and cancelled concerts were common.

But let some clown from Duck Dynasty profess a belief in Jesus Christ and, well, that's freedom of speech, and any negative reaction to that is completely uncalled for.

Two words: "Jimmy Swaggart".

Following President Clinton's admission that he'd committed adultery, Senator John Ensign called on Clinton to resign, saying that Clinton "has no credibility left".

In 2004, Ensign spoke on the sanctity of the institution of marriage:

Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.

Senator Ensign resigned his Senate seat after an investigation revealed an extra-marital affair.

Two more words: "Jim Bakker".

Newt Gingrich resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky.

Bob Barr (R-GA) had an affair while married. Barr had been the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton's resignation due to the Lewinsky affair.

In 1995 speaking of the then recent affairs of Republican Robert Packwood and the unfolding affair of Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican Indiana Congressman Dan Burton made this statement:

"No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties..."

In 1998 the magazine Vanity Fair was slated to print an article detailing an affair which Burton himself had in 1983 which produced a child. Before publication Burton admitted to fathering a son with a former state employee

Seriously, I could do this all day. To suggest that it's difficult to find hypocrisy from those on the right is to demonstrate a woefully poor knowledge of relatively recent events. It further demonstrates the willingness of those on the right to lie and obfuscate while being critical of those on the left for doing the same.

So, yeah, you can go. I'm done with you for now...

And that's something the politically myopic are incapable of understanding.

If Fox News were to report that Democrats were in the process of impregnating alien space moneys, there are conservatives who would absolutely believe that.

If CNN were to report that Republicans were in the process of in the process of impregnating alien space monkeys, there are liberals who would believe that, too.

In each case, the shared ideology is an overwhelming force which easily results in logic and reason being completely dismissed.

It's entirely possible to be a conservative without being a Republican, however the right-wing brain trust here seems to believe that only Republicans can be conservatives and that, if you're not a Republican you must be a Democrat.

And, yes, the same theory works for those on the left, as well...

Why doesn't O'Malley simply find a place to house these illegal aliens in a liberal enclave in Maryland. There are many to choose from. Typical hypocrisy!


It’s not that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley doesn’t want the child migrants in Maryland — he was just trying to protect them from his racist constituents.

O’Malley, who’s been a vocal critic of the Obama administration for its efforts to return the migrant children to their home countries, came under fire this week when a conversation was leaked in which he asked a top White House adviser not to send any of the migrants to his state.

“Please don’t send these kids to western Maryland,” he told White House domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz on Friday.

In a Wednesday interview, he clarified that he simply “suggested to them that the location still under consideration in Westminster might not be the most inviting environment for the kids,” after explaining that the proposed shelter in Westminster is deeply conservative and even voted to make English the county’s official language. (RELATED: Gallup Poll Says Obama’s Border Meltdown Is Nation’s Top Problem)

O’Malley, who is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2016, said his fears were confirmed when graffiti reading “No illeagles here. No undocumented Democrats” was found on the potential site.

“I think every governor and every mayor in America, and every American citizen, has some responsibility and role to play here,” he said Wednesday. “It’s who we are as a people.”


http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/16/omalley-i-was-just-trying-to-protect-the-migrants-from-my-racist-constituents/#ixzz381CoF2Al

"It's not that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley doesn't want the child migrants in Maryland - he was just trying to protect them from his racist constituents."

Makes sense to me. Where is the hypocrisy? He didn't say he didn't want them in the state, he said that a racist district might not be the best location. I agree. Don't you?

Now, Republicans wanting to keep suspects in indefinite detention - many of who are now known to be innocent - but not wanting them housed in their home states? That is hypocrisy.

Mike

I am not a Democrat nor a supporter of the Obama administration. Nor do I think much of the politician being discussed.

One thing of which I am quite certain, and that is that none of my posts here are "dumb." You may not agree with what I write, but the posts are not "dumb." If you have a coherent counter-argument, then make it. Calling someone else's post "dumb" is not an intelligent response, let alone a coherent rebuttal, and just because you don't agree with or don't like what someone else writes, that does not make what they wrote "spin."

Mike

Although overall I consider myself a progressive, I am quite conservative on some issues like national defense and fiscal responsibility. I also oppose Obamacare, although for reasons that are probably entirely different than yours.

A thinking person cannot be all one thing or another. Life is far too complex for that kind of myopia.

"Liberals" do not hate liberty any more than "Conservatives" do. These are just labels that are substitutes for actually thinking.