First up is a comment entitled Lefties are always inconsistent:
I’m sure they see absolutely no conflict between their love of Soros making Billions at the same time they hate Limbaugh for making a paltry few million.
Yes, lefties "love" that Soros made $1.1 billion and "hate" Limbaugh for being given a "paltry" $400 million. Our "love" of Soros has nothing to do with what he does with his money. Nor does our "hate" of Limbaugh have to do with his outright contempt for everything remotely non-conservative. And sure, ThinkProgress's attack on Limbaugh was explicitly because he "mocked the idea that Americans are suffering," and not because he got a big contract. But we all know it's really about the money.
And speaking of inconsistency, since when do conservatives attack people for making billions in the financial markets? Answer: When the billions are made by George Soros.
Next up is a comment entitled inconsistent=pragmatism:
When you have no belief system, anything you do is consistent… that’s pragmatism, right? When their side does it, it’s gritty realism, when our side does it, it’s dishonorable thievery. Just like how the Bush policies now being continued under TheOne (profligate spending, military tribunals, expansion of the welfare state) were evil under GWB are now “pragmatic” and “unplesant (sic), but necessary choices”.
And this is the standard projectionism we see from most conservatives. Because sure, libs attacked cons for high spending, but it was always about what the money was spent on (eg, the Iraq War, no-bid contracts, abstinence-only education). And more importantly, we objected to Bush cutting taxes while still spending like crazy. But we never objected to spending on programs we support and we've been consistent on this for decades.
Similarly, our objection wasn't necessarily to military tribunals (though we didn't like them), but the kangaroo courts that the Bushies only established because they were required to. And one of the first links I found to read more about this came from TalkLeft, which strongly criticized the idea. And here's another top link from a rightie, who cites an article that mentions "human rights groups" and the ACLU as opposing the idea. The rightie suggests that the ACLU's opposition should be enough to kill the idea. How inconsistent of them.
BTW, RedState's Moe Lane already concluded that this was going to happen and attacked liberals for supporting a plan that Obama hasn't even officially talked about; failing to mention that the article Moe cited quoted libs as saying they were firmly against it. But hey, why mention facts when they completely contradict your point?
And since when did liberals attack Bush for "expanding the welfare state"? What in god's name is this bozo talking about? I suppose the Medicaid drug plan might qualify as this, but our attack was that it wasn't done properly, not that he did it. And again, that's entirely consistent in what we've always believed in. We still want a proper drug plan.
And of course, the big irony is that there is one political group who has been entirely inconsistent: Conservatives. When railing against inconsistencies, Gonzo55 was referring to his own team! They're the ones who ignored the high deficits and power-grabs during the Bush years, and now pretend as if these are horrible things under Obama. And while they now pretend as if they weren't diehard Bushies who supported all this, the only people they're fooling are themselves.
And even their rejection of Bush is entirely inconsistent with prior statements. Remember, the Dixie Chicks were banned from stations across the country merely for stating that they were embarrassed to be from the same state as Bush. These days, almost everyone is embarrassed by Bush and many conservatives now pretend he was a liberal who betrayed their cause.
And Gonzo is absolutely correct about the cause of all this: They have no belief system. But it's not pragmatism that's to blame, but rather, a blinding loyalty to the team. And that's why they find it so easy to toss Bush aside: He's a failure, which means he let the team down. But they have nothing to blame for that than their own fealty to Bush and the propaganda that they attacked anyone for denying. So while this person highlighted three issues that liberals have been consistent on, they were only highlighting their own ideological biases.
And finally, we've got Big difference in how the money is made. I'm not going to quote this one, as it's long and rambling, but it's essentially about how Limbaugh made his money the good way and "neither lives nor works near any government or financial center." While Soros, on the other hand, is "a currency and stock manipulator who works in secret or in private offices of monarchs and dictators." Because yes, we've gotten to the point that conservatives attack people who work in financial districts and don't publicize their strategies on the internet.
And on the one hand, it's nice that this commenter understood that RedState's equivalency of Limbaugh and Soros made Limbaugh look bad, and is inconsistent with RedState's general support of Limbaugh and hatred of Soros. But on the other hand, it seems a bit odd for a supposed supporter of the free-market system to denounce a businessman for making his living in the markets, while lionizing a dude who talks for a living.
Equally, it seems a touch inconsistent for someone who doesn't believe in government regulation to criticize a financier for insider trading, an offense many conservatives don't oppose. I mean, to suggest that Soros' money is illegitimate is to suggest that the free-market system doesn't work. And again, this inconsistency stems directly from ideological biases and propaganda-thinking. As I suggested in that last post, people like Soros are only "evil" if they support liberal causes as Soros does. The rest of them are heroes who are to be given a freehand to save our economy and deserve all the money they can grab.
And it should be mentioned that Limbaugh and Soros weren't attacked for how they made their money. They were attacked for bragging about their successes during a recession. And the irony is that the difference this person sees between Limbaugh and Soros isn't how they make their money, but on which team they're on. And for this person to stake their ideological consistency on the belief that talkers are more legitimate than moneymen, only shows how entirely inconsistent they really are. Belief in the free-market is a key platform of their ideology, and they can't even get that right anymore.