Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

Quote - "I'd suggest you not stick to the BBC, Guardian, and other such relativist sources" !!!!And your sources are....?Utter, utter, utter rubbish.The BBC, an organisation attacked by both left and right, an organisation funded by the people, an organisation not run (explicitly) for profit, an organisation overseen by a non-elected, unpaid (except for expenses) board of governers, an organisation that is regarded the world over for thoroughness and honesty in journalism and an organisation that is the envy of broadcasters the world over. And your source is...?And as for the Guardian, a non-profit, apolitical daily newspaper in the UK. Where are you from CanadianSteve........? WTF do you know about the Guardian and it's values?I apologise for the tone of this but I cannot allow the previous posters' comments stand unchallenged.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

I will not respond, I will not rise to the bait, I will not, I will not........Sod it!The BBC is far left!! Evidence, evidence, evidence. The Guardian, again evidence, evidence, evidence.Statements from someone who lives in another country, who, if at all, gets soundbites quoted by other (less accountable, more biased) news sources. What is it that the BBC and the Guardian get tarred with the far left brush? They are not owned by Murdoch perhaps. Or they do not get paid by Bush to ask easy questions? If only all press were that far left!re. your next post.
For every Pro-life, anti abortionist, fire bomber of abortion clinics(and doctor murderer), christian fundamentalist there is a moderate christian in denial. More condemnation by christian moderates would be welcomed as would condemnation by moslem moderates of islamic fundamentalism. A quick check on the internet would enlighten you as to the extent to which christianity is also at war with itself.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

Thanks Mick for the info. I was so pissed off with the assertions that I proposed a new topic with respect of what is far left. As a Guardian reader of 25+ years I actually welcome the label of far left, without believing it.The centre of UK politics is indeed leftish to many in North America but very far left is patently ridiculous. If the Guardian editorial staff could be accused of any bias it would be anti-establishment not any left/right political bias. As for left leaning at the moment, or indeed throughout the eighties and nineties I would say the opposite. The economics were laissez-faire (in line with moderate right-wingers and liberals), the arts coverage elitest or at best upper-middle class and editorially anti-government (both left and right). Their only crime in many readers' eyes is that they rarely go far enough.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

The post you replied to asked for evidence, do not repeat the assertion blindly and do not assume my politics.The far left bias you ascribe to the BBC is lost to any who watch and listen to the BBC on a daily basis. In the middle of writing this you have posted your evidence. Hmmm. A self-proclaimed 'middle of the road conservative' quoted in a right-wing newspaper. The same newspaper that advocates a scrapping of the licence fee that funds the BBC and removing all privileges given to BBC re coverage of Parliament. So no hidden agenda there. And one of many examples. Bring them on. Hopefully not from the same source or a Murdoch owned media outlet (who also, as owner of the next biggest broadcaster in the UK, advocates scrapping of the licence fee and removing of all broadcast privileges bestowed on the BBC). The article even suggests that radio presenters should be changed because The Daily Mail says so.Please quote an independent source, one who has no axe to grind (or bury between the shoulderblades).Admittedly re the second point, not so much at the moment but a look at history will tell you that christianity is not above any of those things. (maybe not flying planes into buildings).

I think you will find that Churchill's opinion did not find many takers in his own political party let alone the BBC. Using Churchill as an example is going back some in your effort to find an unbiased reference to bias. The same BBC was condemned as being a puppet of capitalism by communist countries in the eastern bloc, a communist puppet by Franco, the British Bolshevik Corporation by Norman Tebbit (the man who came up with the cricket test for national identity) and threatened recently by the labour government over its coverage of the Hutton report. Now looking down the list of google entries for 'BBC left bias' I count several Daily Mail entries, several Daily Telegraph entries and some blogs that want the licence fee scrapped. Now lets get this straight, much of the air-time given for claims of bias are themselves biased. The sound of an axe to grind. I will concur to a North American, in the light of Mick's post, that the BBC to you may look left wing biased. To me I see a national broadcaster that does not toe any party political line, does not bow to nationalistic ideas and gives a fair crack of the whip to any that care to involve themselves without bowing to the prevailing political wind.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

I have a sneaky feeling that the crusades tried it, the Spanish conquest of South America tried it. The inquisition tried it on its own people. The schism sparked by Martin Luther, The English Civil War, the bombing of innocents by protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland and mainland UK, the civil war in Lebanon, and the list could include biblical support for slavery and racial separation in South Africa and the southern states of the US. Your interpretation of the bible may not excuse these, but the bible was used by someone. For Islam the same. The difference is the Islamic struggle/dichotomy is more current, just not much different. As for the tone and content of your post - is that english? Brad! A translation please!Ps.Deuteronomy chapter 12 verse 25 onwards has some things to say about dispossesing those of other faiths, of their lands, and I do not think it means when asked nicely.

The Incan population stood at upwards of 8 million prior to the Spanish invasion and 1.5 million 60 years later, whilst many deaths could be attributed to small pox (brought to the continent by the spanish invaders) this represents near enough a genocide. But as you say those remaining must have been pretty grateful that the christians had come to save them. Oh yes, the invasion was sponsored by the pope of the time.You also may state the Inquisition was anti-christian. But it was perpetrated by the Vatican, so christian-on-christian violence. Martin Luther himself may not have intended any violence or wars, but , well they did happen, christian against christian.The rest of your answers indicate that a)yes you do have a plaster for every sore. b)there might have been politics, bad religion involved but the point I was replying to implied that christianity in its many guises did not partake in such acts, that it was somehow different to Islam.The Deuteronomy reference was just one picked up after a 30 second search, and whilst you may explain it your way, it is just as easy to interpret it the way I saw it. This is how Islamic extremists justify their actions, a few well chosen passages from the Koran and anything is allowed. The same pick and mix approach to the bible has resulted in many of the events I quoted including segregation in South Africa. At no stage did I accuse you, Faith of being a party to them but the bible is definitely there in one form or another.And yes books do not kill, people do, but the people concerned were christians and the book they all read was the bible.I also apologise for my glib remark, the sentence just did not read well.And now to bed.