Fundamentalists...

[cwjerome]

What liberal cliche is that?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What liberal cliche is that?

Well in this thread you seem to suggest "libs" have either the "neo-con imperialist" hack job, or the "Christian fundamentalist" hack job. Hell, why even mention "libs", it was just one guy. He mentioned it first, I suppose, but you didn't have to attack "libs" in your response. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What liberal cliche is that?

Well in this thread you seem to suggest "libs" have either the "neo-con imperialist" hack job, or the "Christian fundamentalist" hack job. Hell, why even mention "libs", it was just one guy. He mentioned it first, I suppose, but you didn't have to attack "libs" in your response. That's all I was trying to say.

I just haven't seen any Libs that DON'T believe in "neocon imperialism" or fear Christian fundamentalists. Have you? I mean, it's kinda the definition of Liberal.

I'll admit my words about Libs to be 9.9% cliche... but that's well within the acceptable range

 

[TheLiberalTruth]

You call liberals cliche while fitting yourself perfectly into the cliche for ignorant right wingers.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: meatball


P.S. It is sad that the crusades failed to rid the world of Islam.

I have to state plainly that you dont know WTF you are talking about.
Durring the crusades the middle east was a bastion of enlightenment and knowledge.
Muslims of the time were fairly peaceful. It was some braindead europeans fundies that thought that the "Holy Land" shouldn't be under anyones control but their own.
And westerners have been trying to invade and take over ever since, and not once have they succeded in occupying for more than a few years (if you don't count Israel).
Read a farking history book, you might learn something.

Correct for the most part. The middle east was intellectually superior at the time (many believe because they had access to the works of greece). That was one good point of the crusades was that it helped spread the enlightenment into Europe. Whether or not the Muslims of the time can be classified as peaceful seems to be a topic of much debate. Here are a couple of interesting links on the crusades.

The Real History of the Crusades

While the article is published in a Catholic magazine (you can't blame them for snagging up anything that helps to repair their image), the author is a professor of hisory ath St Louis University (although I don't know if he has any known biases).

Refutation to ?The Real History of the Crusades?

And so that both sides are represented, here is a rebuttal to the article.

Sorry if this article is "old news". It was the first time I'd seen it, and it was an interesting read. As my own European history professor used to say, "History is 50% false and 50% bias." (Although the percentages changed each time he said it.)

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth
You call liberals cliche while fitting yourself perfectly into the cliche for ignorant right wingers.

This coming from a guy whose name is "oxymoron"

How can anyone possibly take you seriously?

 

[aidanjm]

interesting point, OP

 

[Red Dawn]

All I know is that the Fund A Mental Cases of both of those religions give those religions a bad name and the world would be better off if they'd just disapear.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth
You call liberals cliche while fitting yourself perfectly into the cliche for ignorant right wingers.

This coming from a guy whose name is "oxymoron"

How can anyone possibly take you seriously?

[R Reagan] ...there you go again[/]