Does a liberal bias really exist?

[Edi]

Someone who can recignize the differences in 'All Liberals must be stopped' and 'Bush and his cronies stole an election', apparently.

And what do you think, "How the conservatives stole and warped this nation" really translates to, in the end? That you can stand here and insist I am going to great lengths to baselessly demonize the other side is really a testament to your own idiocy.

You conveniently ignored that Nitram said that "Bush and his cronies", which translates to "some Republicans", not to "all conservatives" as you try to portray. I've also yet to see Nitram, Wong, Iceberg, myself, Vympel, Degan or any of the other liberals who have regularly curb-stomped your bullshit here say that liberals or Democrats can do no wrong or that there aren't some left-wingnuts among them. Your problem, Kast, is that you consider anybody who does not agree with your Republican drone mentality as a left-wingnut.

Trying to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with you is an exercise in futility, because you always distort and strawman everything we say out of context and lie like there's no tomorrow. You're fucking useless.

Edi

Edi

[Axis Kast]

You conveniently ignored that Nitram said that "Bush and his cronies", which translates to "some Republicans", not to "all conservatives" as you try to portray.

Oh, yeah. Because no liberal ever makes blanket denunciations about the “evil” of conservatives. Give me a break. Do you actually believe what you’re saying? You can’t be that blind.

I've also yet to see Nitram, Wong, Iceberg, myself, Vympel, Degan or any of the other liberals who have regularly curb-stomped your bullshit here say that liberals or Democrats can do no wrong or that there aren't some left-wingnuts among them.

Oh please. This website is dedicated in part to mindless and enthusiastic attacks on religion. To claim that you represent some kind of rationally tolerant group is to divorce yourself from reality.

Your problem, Kast, is that you consider anybody who does not agree with your Republican drone mentality as a left-wingnut.

No. I just consider all the people you named above wing-nuts, period.

Trying to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with you is an exercise in futility, because you always distort and strawman everything we say out of context and lie like there's no tomorrow.

Coming from the likes of you, that’s just priceless.

[Executor32]

Oh, yeah. Because no liberal ever makes blanket denunciations about the “evil” of conservatives. Give me a break. Do you actually believe what you’re saying? You can’t be that blind.

He never said that, numbnuts. He was talking about what Nitram said, not excusing all liberals of saying anything wrong.

Oh please. This website is dedicated in part to mindless and enthusiastic attacks on religion. To claim that you represent some kind of rationally tolerant group is to divorce yourself from reality.

Enthusiastic? Sure. Mindless? Hardly. You have to be mindless to swallow all the bullshit that is fundamentalism (and, IMO, religion as a whole), not to argue against it. Or are you using an alternate definition of "mindless," similar to the fundie definition of "fool?"

No. I just consider all the people you named above wing-nuts, period.

Ooh, you can call people names! Care to back it up?

Coming from the likes of you, that’s just priceless.

Really? I wouldn't consider Edi a liar, nor have I seen him distort anything entirely out of context. You, on the other hand, proved that you fit the description with the first part of your post. Dipshit.

[Axis Kast]

One can’t help but laugh at an argument that goes as this one has.

Nitram: “Republicans really scare me, what with their blanket denunciations of democrats as traitors and crazies.”

Axis: “Gee, that’s a balanced statement.”

Nitram: “You’re blind! How can you equivocate when it is clear that the Right has done wrong?”

Axis: “I’m not denying anything; I’m pointing out that your indicting only Republicans for a crimes also committed by Democrats.”

Nitram: “No! I was referring to only Bush! The Left is always more rational in its criticisms. If you disagree with me, you’re a blind follower.”

Axis: “That’s rich.”

Nitram: “Parrot!”

Edi: “I'll conveniently forget that Nitram purposely obfuscated his earlier statements to hide the lie of his blanket accusation. And, by the way, your attempt to defend Republicans here is just evidence of your wanting to defend them for everything everywhere. Parrot!”

Enthusiastic? Sure. Mindless? Hardly. You have to be mindless to swallow all the bullshit that is fundamentalism (and, IMO, religion as a whole), not to argue against it. Or are you using an alternate definition of "mindless," similar to the fundie definition of "fool?"

The difference between a rational advocate for secularism and this website is the difference between a soldier who shoots his enemy dead and a madman who unloads an entire clip of ammo into the same dead target, so lost to insanity that he eventually ends up shooting friend or bystander as well as foe.

[Executor32]

The difference between a rational advocate for secularism and this website is the difference between a soldier who shoots his enemy dead and a madman who unloads an entire clip of ammo into the same dead target, so lost to insanity that he eventually ends up shooting friend or bystander as well as foe.

Riiiiight...
I wouldn't characterize it that way, but then again I'm an atheist and have no qualms about questioning religion.

[Sir Sirius]

Axis, if you belief that these attacks you talk of are "mindless" maybe you should - you know - actualy make an argument against them, instead of just making snide comments and whine incessantly from a far. I mean how hard can refuting a mindless argument be?

[His Divine Shadow]

Ofcourse there is such a thing such as a liberal bias, there's been alot of in good ole pseudo-commie sweden and finland.

Hell in sweden the media was so biased that they tried to portray Abba as a bunch of evil capitalists back in the '70s, alot of people here still see the world through their little red filters.

[Axis Kast]

Axis, if you belief that these attacks you talk of are "mindless" maybe you should - you know - actualy make an argument against them, instead of just making snide comments and whine incessantly from a far. I mean how hard can refuting a mindless argument be?

The whole conflictual mindset on this site says it all: there's no room to accept that religious may have affected positive outcomes on the societies it touched. I recall an argument shortly after my arrival hinging on the Crusades, and which gave absolutely no account to the fact that they were as much political as religious undertakings, led by people not out to raise God and the Church per se, but to line their own pockets by taking advantage of the social conventions of their time and place.

[Edi]

You conveniently ignored that Nitram said that "Bush and his cronies", which translates to "some Republicans", not to "all conservatives" as you try to portray.

Oh, yeah. Because no liberal ever makes blanket denunciations about the “evil” of conservatives. Give me a break. Do you actually believe what you’re saying? You can’t be that blind.

Find a quote from me where I have said that no liberals ever make baseless blanket denunciations, or shove your bullshit back up your arse, Kast. You won't find one.

Some form of generalisation is often used, on bothsides, but usually even the people who do that (and as I've done sometimes) do NOT mean that every single person in the category being generalised actually fits to the generalisation. You haven't seen me dissing RedImperator around here for being a conservative, nor will you. I more often agree with him than disagree, because while being more conservative than I am, he has sound reasons and logical thought to back up his positions. If I make a generalisation about conservatives, it usually applies to the more extreme section of conservatives, not all of them. Those who have any idea of my posting history around here (as you should) should have no trouble in seeing the context such statements are made in.

The trouble with YOU is that you consistently ignore context, purposely interpret everything literally and in the worst possible way and then cry persecution, and that rhetorical bullshittery fool no one here. Why the hell do you think even the conservatives of the board think you are a fucking joke?

I've also yet to see Nitram, Wong, Iceberg, myself, Vympel, Degan or any of the other liberals who have regularly curb-stomped your bullshit here say that liberals or Democrats can do no wrong or that there aren't some left-wingnuts among them.

Oh please. This website is dedicated in part to mindless and enthusiastic attacks on religion. To claim that you represent some kind of rationally tolerant group is to divorce yourself from reality.

Back up your bullshit or fuck off. A big part of this website is dedicated to criticisms of the problems associated with religion (particularly Christianity), especially extreme fundamentalist interpretations of religion, and the analysis is logically consistent and valid. If you find a hole in it, feel free to share those flaws and give some rational, logically consistent reasoning to back your opinion up, and we won't have any problem admitting a mistake.

We are rationally tolerant. The big emphasis is on the word RATIONALLY. We welcome opinions that are backed up with logically consistent reasoning and which are not founded on ridiculous premises. We have no tolerance whatsoever for someone stating their opinion as fact and refusing to provide reasoning or logically consistent evidence to back it up.

Again, the problem YOU run into with us is that you have formed opinions that you consider to be fact, and you almost always fail to provide evidence or logic to back them up. Neither have I seen you change your opinion on anything, ever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Contrast with myself, I have opposed both a more lenient stance on drugs and a more lenient stance on gun-control. RedImperator and Glocksman respectively have convinced me that my earlier opinions have been ill-informed and based partially on misconceptions and ignorance of the facts on these two issues. I've yet to see you have such a change of heart, or even a smaller concession out of you here. You refuse to admit even the possibility that you might be wrong.

Your problem, Kast, is that you consider anybody who does not agree with your Republican drone mentality as a left-wingnut.

No. I just consider all the people you named above wing-nuts, period.

And you have what evidence to back this opinion up? As usual, nothing. You just state your opinion as fact and expect everyone to accept iit as The Truth.

Trying to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with you is an exercise in futility, because you always distort and strawman everything we say out of context and lie like there's no tomorrow.

Coming from the likes of you, that’s just priceless.

The only thing I will give you is that you have a lot of balls to make this accusation. Especially against me, given the first link of your record in the Shit List thread. That thread alone should establish which one of has more credibility and which one is a dishonest obfuscator. Never mind all the threads where Degan and Vympel have caught you in blatant lies.

Find evidence of me lying, or shut the fuck up. We have plenty of evidence for you being a liar, so it comes as no surprise to anyone that you would dishonestly try to accuse others of the very things you constantly do.

Edi

[SirNitram]

One can’t help but laugh at an argument that goes as this one has.

Nitram: “Republicans really scare me, what with their blanket denunciations of democrats as traitors and crazies.”

The first lie! I said nothing about them scaring me; the apologists of the Right amuse me when they bleat there's nothing wrong with the wildly insane comments Right pundits throw out.

Axis: “Gee, that’s a balanced statement.”

Second lie! Instead of anything so simple, Axis just whines about how the Left is 'equally close minded and alarmist'. No evidence is given.

Nitram: “You’re blind! How can you equivocate when it is clear that the Right has done wrong?”

Again a lie. I state simply that you aren't doing anything but what I expected: Mindlessly apologizing for the Right's looney bin by claiming there's just as bad in the Left.. Without any kind of proof. Or, at best, trying to equate 'Bush and his cronies stole an election' with calls to stamp out an entire viewpoint, showing the desperation.

Axis: “I’m not denying anything; I’m pointing out that your indicting only Republicans for a crimes also committed by Democrats.”

He did, in fact, say this. Of course, it's utterly unsupported, but he ignores this and mindlessly bleats it.

Nitram: “No! I was referring to only Bush! The Left is always more rational in its criticisms. If you disagree with me, you’re a blind follower.”

Wow, look at how the RepubliDrone lies out of his ass. Here's my actual statement:

You know, it's particularly highlighting of the point I made a little ways up in this thread, about how those like you are so very indoctorined that you can't tell the difference between the two stances. You honestly can't tell a difference between 'All Liberals are guilty of Treason' and 'Bush's puppeteers commited a felony', can you?

If he wants to submit evidence there are huge swathes of Democrats saying the Right is at fault for all these things, he can do so. Of course, I doubt it will be as accessable as the crap the Republican Propaganda Machine churns out. But facts never slow Axis down.

Axis: “That’s rich.”

Nitram: “Parrot!”

How dismissive, from someone who can't even form a logical rebuttal.

Edi: “I'll conveniently forget that Nitram purposely obfuscated his earlier statements to hide the lie of his blanket accusation. And, by the way, your attempt to defend Republicans here is just evidence of your wanting to defend them for everything everywhere. Parrot!”

No, Comical Axi. Your mindless bleating of something I've discredited before is proof you're a mindless apologist. If you want to actually make the arguments stick, you have to do more than just bleat along to the beat.

In short, Axis is engaging in his usual behavior: Mindlessly bleat the party line, offer no evidence, logic, or proper rebuttals. And whine, of course, about how eviiiiil this site is.

[Edi]

Axis, if you belief that these attacks you talk of are "mindless" maybe you should - you know - actualy make an argument against them, instead of just making snide comments and whine incessantly from a far. I mean how hard can refuting a mindless argument be?

The whole conflictual mindset on this site says it all: there's no room to accept that religious may have affected positive outcomes on the societies it touched. I recall an argument shortly after my arrival hinging on the Crusades, and which gave absolutely no account to the fact that they were as much political as religious undertakings, led by people not out to raise God and the Church per se, but to line their own pockets by taking advantage of the social conventions of their time and place.

Yes, they were as much political as religious. How does that change the fact that if there had been no religious underpinning to them, it would have been a lot harder to get such support for them?

It has not been ignored on this board that religions have sometimes caused good things for societies. However, in the vast majority of cases, said religions have caused orders of magnitude more harm than good, and thus criticism of them are quite valid. Some bad things may have multiple causes, and just because something other than religion also influenced the causation of said bad things, it does not absolve religion of its responsibility for contributing to that bad thing.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Find a quote from me where I have said that no liberals ever make baseless blanket denunciations, or shove your bullshit back up your arse, Kast. You won't find one.

Some form of generalisation is often used, on bothsides, but usually even the people who do that (and as I've done sometimes) do NOT mean that every single person in the category being generalised actually fits to the generalisation. You haven't seen me dissing RedImperator around here for being a conservative, nor will you. I more often agree with him than disagree, because while being more conservative than I am, he has sound reasons and logical thought to back up his positions. If I make a generalisation about conservatives, it usually applies to the more extreme section of conservatives, not all of them. Those who have any idea of my posting history around here (as you should) should have no trouble in seeing the context such statements are made in.

The trouble with YOU is that you consistently ignore context, purposely interpret everything literally and in the worst possible way and then cry persecution, and that rhetorical bullshittery fool no one here. Why the hell do you think even the conservatives of the board think you are a fucking joke?

YOU are the only liar here, Edi. Sir Nitram DID NOT say “Bush and his cronies.” In fact, his original statement used the words “the Right.” THE RIGHT. As in ALL CONSERVATIVES. Nice try, though.

The first lie! I said nothing about them scaring me; the apologists of the Right amuse me when they bleat there's nothing wrong with the wildly insane comments Right pundits throw out.

Strawman. The question is whether you made a blanket statement, not whether, in modified form, your statement might be true.

Second lie! Instead of anything so simple, Axis just whines about how the Left is 'equally close minded and alarmist'. No evidence is given.

You used the words “the Right,” while your example was merely of the same pundits you discussed above. You used a small sample to consciously accuse an entire demographic.

Again a lie. I state simply that you aren't doing anything but what I expected: Mindlessly apologizing for the Right's looney bin by claiming there's just as bad in the Left.. Without any kind of proof. Or, at best, trying to equate 'Bush and his cronies stole an election' with calls to stamp out an entire viewpoint, showing the desperation

Edi’s lie won’t save you now. You used the words THE RIGHT. THE RIGHT. THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT. You did not originally say “Bush and his cronies.” That was a fabrication by Edi to let you survive criticism.

He did, in fact, say this. Of course, it's utterly unsupported, but he ignores this and mindlessly bleats it.

Are you actually asking me to prove that there are liberal extremists?

If he wants to submit evidence there are huge swathes of Democrats saying the Right is at fault for all these things, he can do so. Of course, I doubt it will be as accessable as the crap the Republican Propaganda Machine churns out. But facts never slow Axis down.

Let’s see. Indymedia. Any “traditional” Communist movement worldwide. There are plenty of deranged leftists out there.

No, Comical Axi. Your mindless bleating of something I've discredited before is proof you're a mindless apologist. If you want to actually make the arguments stick, you have to do more than just bleat along to the beat.

In short, Axis is engaging in his usual behavior: Mindlessly bleat the party line, offer no evidence, logic, or proper rebuttals. And whine, of course, about how eviiiiil this site is.

Are you ACTUALLY ASKING ME TO PROVE THAT THERE ARE EXTREMIST LIBERALS OUT THERE JUST LIKE ANN COULTER ON THE RIGHT?!?!?!

Yes, they were as much political as religious. How does that change the fact that if there had been no religious underpinning to them, it would have been a lot harder to get such support for them?

It has not been ignored on this board that religions have sometimes caused good things for societies. However, in the vast majority of cases, said religions have caused orders of magnitude more harm than good, and thus criticism of them are quite valid. Some bad things may have multiple causes, and just because something other than religion also influenced the causation of said bad things, it does not absolve religion of its responsibility for contributing to that bad thing.

The problem with saying that religion is guilty for its own misuse is like saying guns are responsible for the people they kill through negligence by individuals.

It was impossible not to appeal to religious forces during the Crusades, because at that time, the European continent was defined by its political association with an institutional Church.

[Executor32]

You're right about one thing, Axi. Nitram did say the Right. However, you seem to have missed something in that statement. Here it is again:

You are really fucking pathetic, Kast. It's actually beyond your pre-schooler mental development to admit the Right might have done wrong, isn't it?

Right might have done wrong? My my, Axi, that sounds like a pun to me.
Perhaps you need to develop your sense of humor some more, rather than knee-jerking every time someone says anything remotely bad about conservatives.

[Edi]

YOU are the only liar here, Edi. Sir Nitram DID NOT say “Bush and his cronies.” In fact, his original statement used the words “the Right.” THE RIGHT. As in ALL CONSERVATIVES. Nice try, though.

His original question to you was

It's actually beyond your pre-schooler mental development to admit the Right might have done wrong, isn't it?

This is a valid question. The Right, as in conservatives as a group might have done things that are wrong, it does not automatically imply that everyone who belongs to that group is guilty of the actions that highly visible parts of that group have done. There is no contradiction.

When he clarified his response to you, he used the "Bush and his cronies" term. Your fucking complete inability to read any kind of context is not my problem, and you just look like the ridiculous fuckwit that you are. Don't you have anything better to do, like arguing about the stress level of tigers and what causes it?

Edi’s lie won’t save you now. You used the words THE RIGHT. THE RIGHT. THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT. You did not originally say “Bush and his cronies.” That was a fabrication by Edi to let you survive criticism.

Fuck off, Kast. You are completely ignoring context and taking a purposefully strict literal interpretation to promote your big red herrings and strawmen. The Right can indeed have committed wrong actions as a group, yest it does not mean that all rightwing people are guilty of them. Just as it is possible to say that the Left has made mistakes, it does not automagically mean that every single leftwing person has made the selfsame mistakes. Your inability to comprehend context just makes you look fucking ridiculous, and exposes you as the dishonest little dipshit that you are. I have not lied in this thread, and Nitram is indeed immune to your criticism because you don't have anything that holds up to scrutiny when looking at the whole. The only way you have anything is zoom into one isignificant little detail that can be interpreted more reasonably than you have, and begin harping on that. Your usual fucking Darkstar debating method.

Go suck a worm-infested elephant cock.

If he wants to submit evidence there are huge swathes of Democrats saying the Right is at fault for all these things, he can do so. Of course, I doubt it will be as accessable as the crap the Republican Propaganda Machine churns out. But facts never slow Axis down.

Let’s see. Indymedia. Any “traditional” Communist movement worldwide. There are plenty of deranged leftists out there.

Indymedia is now huge swathes of Democrats? Foreign communist governments are now the same as Democrats? Fuck, you don't even need to be set up for a fall, you manage to jump off the cliff without a parachute all by yourself!

Are you ACTUALLY ASKING ME TO PROVE THAT THERE ARE EXTREMIST LIBERALS OUT THERE JUST LIKE ANN COULTER ON THE RIGHT?!?!?!

No, he is not. We freely admit that they exist, and if and when their bullshit becomes relevant to the discussion, we will call it bullshit and tear it apart. So far there has not been anything of the kind relevant to this discussion in this thread.

Yes, they were as much political as religious. How does that change the fact that if there had been no religious underpinning to them, it would have been a lot harder to get such support for them?

It has not been ignored on this board that religions have sometimes caused good things for societies. However, in the vast majority of cases, said religions have caused orders of magnitude more harm than good, and thus criticism of them are quite valid. Some bad things may have multiple causes, and just because something other than religion also influenced the causation of said bad things, it does not absolve religion of its responsibility for contributing to that bad thing.

The problem with saying that religion is guilty for its own misuse is like saying guns are responsible for the people they kill through negligence by individuals.

False analogy. The religious leaders were not acting through neglect. They actively used religion to cause the bad things to happen, and not only for political reasons. And furthermore, the teachings of the religion in question encourage the indiscriminate killing of nonbelievers. Such teachings in and of themselves are bad from a humanistic point of view.

It was impossible not to appeal to religious forces during the Crusades, because at that time, the European continent was defined by its political association with an institutional Church.

And how the fuck does that excuse those religious forces from responsinility for the evils committed by them and in their name, when they encouraged the perpetration of those evils and actively did so themselves?

Edi

[SirNitram]

YOU are the only liar here, Edi. Sir Nitram DID NOT say “Bush and his cronies.” In fact, his original statement used the words “the Right.” THE RIGHT. As in ALL CONSERVATIVES. Nice try, though.

Don't accuse others of lying when you can't keep statements straight, Comical Axi. The Right in general has loudmouth retards who proudly state the Left must be stamped out, charged with treason, stopped at all costs, and in a few isolated cases, hauled out and shot. 'Bush and his cronies' are those blamed for stealing an election, statements you keep trying to say are attributed to the whole Right. Try offering evidence instead of wildly screeching sometime; it's alot harder to refute.

[SirNitram]

The first lie! I said nothing about them scaring me; the apologists of the Right amuse me when they bleat there's nothing wrong with the wildly insane comments Right pundits throw out.

Strawman. The question is whether you made a blanket statement, not whether, in modified form, your statement might be true.

My god, you actually couldn't get the pun I made, and you think it's an offensive blanket statement. Seek psychological help. Now.

Second lie! Instead of anything so simple, Axis just whines about how the Left is 'equally close minded and alarmist'. No evidence is given.

You used the words “the Right,” while your example was merely of the same pundits you discussed above. You used a small sample to consciously accuse an entire demographic.

Again, get a sense of humor surgically installed. 'The Right do wrong'? It's a fucking joke; do they have those on your planet?

Snipping the mindless repetition..

He did, in fact, say this. Of course, it's utterly unsupported, but he ignores this and mindlessly bleats it.

Are you actually asking me to prove that there are liberal extremists?
[/quote]

No. Prove there are liberal extremists of the same calibur as the conservative extremists, in positions to be heard.

If he wants to submit evidence there are huge swathes of Democrats saying the Right is at fault for all these things, he can do so. Of course, I doubt it will be as accessable as the crap the Republican Propaganda Machine churns out. But facts never slow Axis down.

Let’s see. Indymedia. Any “traditional” Communist movement worldwide. There are plenty of deranged leftists out there.

So in order to prove their are Liberals as extreme as mainstream pundits for the Right are, you resort to... Communists. My god. You actually think this is excusable, don'tcha? That's just sad.

No, Comical Axi. Your mindless bleating of something I've discredited before is proof you're a mindless apologist. If you want to actually make the arguments stick, you have to do more than just bleat along to the beat.

In short, Axis is engaging in his usual behavior: Mindlessly bleat the party line, offer no evidence, logic, or proper rebuttals. And whine, of course, about how eviiiiil this site is.

Are you ACTUALLY ASKING ME TO PROVE THAT THERE ARE EXTREMIST LIBERALS OUT THERE JUST LIKE ANN COULTER ON THE RIGHT?!?!?!

In places to be heard and part of the Democratic wing of American politics, yep. I frankly don't care about Communists any more than Libertarians; both are retarded levels of extremists on either side of the spectrum.

[Axis Kast]

This is a valid question. The Right, as in conservatives as a group might have done things that are wrong, it does not automatically imply that everyone who belongs to that group is guilty of the actions that highly visible parts of that group have done. There is no contradiction.

When he clarified his response to you, he used the "Bush and his cronies" term. Your fucking complete inability to read any kind of context is not my problem, and you just look like the ridiculous fuckwit that you are. Don't you have anything better to do, like arguing about the stress level of tigers and what causes it?

His entire rant was focused on people like Ann Coulter of the conservative right, irrespective of the fact that the left possesses its own collection of equally outrageous pundits, including people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Al Franken.

Hell, the entire fucking forum is a collection of singular incidents of conservatives doing wrong, and attempts to link it to some vast propensity by conservatives to destroy the world. For every thread containing criticisms of liberal failures, there are fifteen or more about the right – all with sycophants like you reciting hook, line, and sinker all the same mantras of which you accuse me.

False analogy. The religious leaders were not acting through neglect. They actively used religion to cause the bad things to happen, and not only for political reasons. And furthermore, the teachings of the religion in question encourage the indiscriminate killing of nonbelievers. Such teachings in and of themselves are bad from a humanistic point of view.

You’re disingenuously divorcing the political aspects of religion from the time period. You can’t seriously analyze events after the fall of the Roman Empire without taking into account that because of its unique resources and cohesion, the Church was a far different entity then than it is today.

To call the Crusades an example of “the indiscriminate killing of non-believers” and leave it at that is to purposely manufacture a false account of what went on. The average “crusader” was hauled off his land by a lord eager to join the venture to the Holy Land not for his soul, but for the promise of loot. In fact, Crusaders laid waste to Christian icons on their way to the Holy Land.

[SirNitram]

His entire rant was focused on people like Ann Coulter of the conservative right, irrespective of the fact that the left possesses its own collection of equally outrageous pundits, including people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Al Franken.

No, Axis. This sort of statement is what my rant was about. The fact that retards like you think that 'The Right has a bunch of liars' is equal is scumminess to 'The Left are all traitors'. Because those of us who mentally passed puberty know all professional politicians and pundits are fucking liars. But traitors? That's absurd, and it's that apologist bullshit which claims the two are just as bad as one another that I speak out against. And what do you do in reply? Repeat the very bullshit. Congratulations, Axis. You proved me right.

[Darth Wong]

His entire rant was focused on people like Ann Coulter of the conservative right, irrespective of the fact that the left possesses its own collection of equally outrageous pundits, including people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Al Franken.

No, Axis. This sort of statement is what my rant was about. The fact that retards like you think that 'The Right has a bunch of liars' is equal is scumminess to 'The Left are all traitors'. Because those of us who mentally passed puberty know all professional politicians and pundits are fucking liars. But traitors? That's absurd, and it's that apologist bullshit which claims the two are just as bad as one another that I speak out against. And what do you do in reply? Repeat the very bullshit. Congratulations, Axis. You proved me right.

Now now SirNitram, you're not being very nice. If it weren't for "Tu Quoque" fallacies, Axis Kast would be bereft of 90% of his rhetoric. You wouldn't deprive a village idiot of his only tool, would you?

[SirNitram]

Now now SirNitram, you're not being very nice. If it weren't for "Tu Quoque" fallacies, Axis Kast would be bereft of 90% of his rhetoric. You wouldn't deprive a village idiot of his only tool, would you?

Of course I would! You forget, I'm evil. The straw hat is the dead giveaway.

[Axis Kast]

No, Axis. This sort of statement is what my rant was about. The fact that retards like you think that 'The Right has a bunch of liars' is equal is scumminess to 'The Left are all traitors'. Because those of us who mentally passed puberty know all professional politicians and pundits are fucking liars. But traitors? That's absurd, and it's that apologist bullshit which claims the two are just as bad as one another that I speak out against. And what do you do in reply? Repeat the very bullshit. Congratulations, Axis. You proved me right.

As if, "The Right are all lairs!" is the only thing that comes out of liberal mouths. If liberals are accused of betraying the nation, conservatives are often accused of wanting to hijack or vastly alter it into something different and alien altogether. I can't be responsible if you want to act like you're the only aggrieved party.

[SirNitram]

No, Axis. This sort of statement is what my rant was about. The fact that retards like you think that 'The Right has a bunch of liars' is equal is scumminess to 'The Left are all traitors'. Because those of us who mentally passed puberty know all professional politicians and pundits are fucking liars. But traitors? That's absurd, and it's that apologist bullshit which claims the two are just as bad as one another that I speak out against. And what do you do in reply? Repeat the very bullshit. Congratulations, Axis. You proved me right.

As if, "The Right are all lairs!" is the only thing that comes out of liberal mouths. If liberals are accused of betraying the nation, conservatives are often accused of wanting to hijack or vastly alter it into something different and alien altogether. I can't be responsible if you want to act like you're the only aggrieved party.

Axis, you're barely responsible for your own trollish behavior, because you're such an obvious Drone. As for this constant 'The Right are trying to hijack the nation!' Well, duh. Both parties want to reform the nation to their ideals, but I have yet to see a verifiable quote which indicates the WHOLE Right is doing so or responsible for it. Feel free to prove me wrong, it'd be more than you're usually up to. This is quite a different thing, however, than accusing an entire spectrum of the political scale of a crime punishable by death. But you can't fathom the idea of your preconceptions being wrong.

[Terminator]

His entire rant was focused on people like Ann Coulter of the conservative right, irrespective of the fact that the left possesses its own collection of equally outrageous pundits, including people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Al Franken.

Did you seriously just compare howard zinn to ann coulter? HOWARD FUCKING ZINN?!? have you read any of his histories? He's a historian and a scholar not some fucking extremist pundit, he makes assertions based on evidence and fact to compare him to a mindless propagandest shows that your to damn stupid to even understand the difference between wisdom and idiocy or fact and fiction.

[Darth Wong]

His entire rant was focused on people like Ann Coulter of the conservative right, irrespective of the fact that the left possesses its own collection of equally outrageous pundits, including people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Al Franken.

Did you seriously just compare howard zinn to ann coulter? HOWARD FUCKING ZINN?!? have you read any of his histories? He's a historian and a scholar not some fucking extremist pundit, he makes assertions based on evidence and fact to compare him to a mindless propagandest shows that your to damn stupid to even understand the difference between wisdom and idiocy or fact and fiction.

According to current right-wingnut dogma, you can tell if someone is biased by looking at his conclusions, not his methods. They believe that anyone who agrees with the left-ring position on any given subject is, by definition, biased. It doesn't matter how he arrived at that conclusion, and that's what's so disturbing about the modern political environment. They can dismiss any study, any article, any argument that supports the other side simply because it supports the other side. And people wonder how it is that people dig in their heels and become stubbornly fixed in their thinking.