I see hypocrisy as rampant on the right and nearly as much so on the left.

You are correct. Extremist polemicism stinks right across the board. There is ugliness and hypocrisy from many of the leftwing idealogues endorsing Obama Barrack that could very easily rival what has comes from the right the past 15 years.

The single most important teaching of the Christ when it came to how you relate to your fellow (wo)man was the Golden Rule.

Again wikipedia would serve you well.

It is actually agreed by most Christian scholars that His most important teaching was the Sermon on the Mount (which amounts to instructing us to be humble peacekeepers).

He was once asked what the most important commandments where and He explicitly said the most important was to love God above all else (person and material) and that the second most important commandment was to love ones neighbor as well as themselves. This is found in both the Gospel of Mark (12:28-34) and the Gospel of Matthew 22:34-40).

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

. And yet, America, the most vociferously Christian nation on the planet....

Actually approximately 76-78% Christian (including Mormons which some Christians might object to) and not all of them are among the religious rightwing by a long shot, which presumably is where your objection (and hyperbole) lay.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_rel-religion-religions

I have spent a great deal of time in self reflection to forge my own political and moral philosophy, but since it doesn't fit any single ideology very well, if at all, it is extremely difficult to explain to others in any reasonable length of time.

No it isn't. It can be explained in a sentence. You are saying you prefer to be pragmatic instead of ideological.

This makes sense and you are in good company. William Jefferson Clinton as example was another pragmatist. While he was undeniably left-leaning, unlike his predecessors (Reagan and Pop Bush) he was willing to reach into many pots for solutions in tackling problems and policies - without limiting himself to a narrow ideological spectrum. This ultimately created the peace and prosperity we all enjoyed, however long ago it now seems.

After the Clinton Administration, with the reinstatement of the rightwing idealogues, the nation was redirected, to it's detriment, back to the same narrow spectrum of rightwing ideology. To the best of my knowledge neither Bush, the Republican Congress nor any of his Appointments ever reached beyond it. And the Bush Administration failed. Miserably.

IMO, Ash, if you could just spare us those lengthy anecdotes, which you so erroneously convince yourself are determinent of anything, you'd be a good contributor.

Lay off the personal attacks and ad hominens already. They don't serve you.

I specifically denied that was what I was doing..

Yes, you denied it. You then went on to extrapolate on how there was nothing else to do with them and how it was impossible to educate them and how intellect was a limited resource.

Or something.

But then, on the internet no one knows you are a dog, eh?

Considering you're the one who has persistently argued for the need to purchase commercially acquired romance, I'll leave you and others to your own conclusions about who the "dog" is.

She wins "downscale", which, if this were a parallel construction, means she does better the less education a voter has.

Elitist arrogance at its finest. This is why the left can't get a vote 80 miles outside of a major city in all of America.

Both Mrs. Clinton and Obama have a minority of highly educated voters supporting them. Obama does tend to get the affluent white liberals with the advanced degrees, certainly. For all the good it's ever done a Gen Election Dem.

But I'm surely hoping none of you will have the intellectual dishonesty to paint southern rural and urban blacks as more educated than the blue-collar whites and hispanics trending Hillary that you are continuously trashing (and then will sit there with your mouth open in disbelief as John McCain cleans up 47 states).

Fortunately or not in selecting politicians the amount of education of the voters have isn't necessarily a determinent of making good choices. In sheer numbers, Republicans have more college grads then do Dems and I think we can ALL agree they are exceptionally lousy at picking fair-minded, competent politicians.

While in Latin countries (save for Mexico) OTOH, people who are not particularly educated have done a much better job on the whole in selecting leaders that represent the interests of the common. Granted in those countries there is not the religious and ethnic diversity that allows politicians to divide people that works so well here to this very moment.

Last, please stop arguing that delegates assigned by caucuses composing well under 10% of a primary are somehow fair and democratic. Or excluding 5.2 million Democrats from participating is.

If you're ok with those "rules", well, the superdels having more weight are also the rules. Arguing otherwise is silly.

Oh, and if you do reply, try to spare us all yer trademark classy stuff about sheep and lubricant and keep "Manos" locked in the zoo. There are kids on these boards, y'know.

You are still playing grammar school games with my handle, sweetie.

I am doing no such thing nor do I need to. I was using a harmless shortcut because I'm either too lazy to type your full handle, or too lazy to bother to try to spell it right. Or both.

Also your ongoing persistence in calling me "sweetie" and references to my dogginess would indicate you think I'm a woman and are using some nasty bigotry as a thinly veiled mask for flawed arguments.

Pretty ugly stuff really.