Additionally, you should consider why you get banned so much when you make arguments like this that are usually nothing but ridiculous things to back up what you want to believe.

It generally tends to have the same pattern that exists when someone creates a "console warz" thread complaining about why the Wii and how nobody should like it. Or exaggerating RROD or exaggerating the PS3 software sales problems.

This is something you should notice... and take to heart and think... "Am I maybe like them, but in the political realm?"

Your arguments tend to have the construction of someone arguing that No More Heroes is a flop or tjhat LBP should of sold 10 million.

Which is sad considering you like mount and blade.

Also... it wouldn't help you that if you use Authoritarian as your basis for violence considering... that would mean

The Leftwing UK party is more violent then the Rightwing one...  It's also more Authoritarian then the Republican party

So in reality, you are throwing the entire Labour governmet right in there with the Republicans.  ABOVE the republicans actually!

I don't think our UK friends would be too happy with that realization.

Radical Islamists are conservatives.

You equated a statement I said about mainstream Conservative opinion, specifically that many conservatives vandalize non-Christian advertisements and George Bush saying atheists shouldn't be citizens, to conservatives commiting acts of violence, which is the use of physical force to harm others.  Notice that there is a huge difference here.

A)  Thats what the graph you posted is about, so its even more absurd that you dont understand it.  Social issues on one axis and economic issues on the other, free economy vs controlled economy and social conservative vs social liberal.

B) Terrorist and guerilla groups who commit violence in an effort to force others to adopt their beliefs are exhibiting authoritarian characteristics.

C) I guess I didn't see the 'danger level' of authoritarianism that the Republicans are hovering under.  Sarah Palin was just below Stalin on the authoritarian scale but above Robert Mugabe, a sigh of relief for Zimbabweans who post here because they now know that they are in the safe zone. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

D) When someone like Republican President George Bush says that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens of the United States of America, I don't consider that a fringe idea.

E) Of course there are crazy peolple in all groups, but there are a lot more conservatives commiting acts of violence than liberals.  By the very definitions of authoritarian and liberal, when someone commits acts of violence to force other people to adopt their beliefs, that is not a liberal action, that is an authoritarian action.

Wow, way to just ignore the majority of what I said.  Even though you call them conservative, radical islamists are just about as far away idelogically as you can get with what is called "the conservative movement" in America. 

Per your definition conservatives do not want change.  If you still stick to that definition then there is not a single conservative living in the US because nobody is content with the way things are now.  In fact, the previously mentioned islamists would not be conservatives either because they are definitely in favor of change - one big, worldwide regime change. 

When people refer to "conservatives" in America the term is used to mean people in favor of smaller government/less government involvement in peoples' lives.  If you still think that equates to wanting to institute sharia law then you're just being willfully ignorant and I'm done tring to talk to you.

You do realize you've more or less implied under your standards that the Labour party is even more violent then the republican party in the US right Manus?

You do know that the Labour party is actually more left wing then the Republican party right?

Also, more left wing then the UK conservatives. Kinda... defeats your whole point.

As for your response to terrorists... it's all QUITE clear and painted in black and white.

You don't consider Conservatives violent... not at all.

You consider violent people conservatives... you said as much under your new reasoning that even if leftest guerillias are fighting to install a leftwing libretarian socalist democracy they are showing "conservative tendencies". 

Because you aren't a conservative. You just don't want anything "icky" being a part of your side, therefore all things negative must somehow be the opposing views outcome.

Of course... this isn't anything we didn't already know, but you continue to prove it. This is partially why you keep ending up getting banned in these debates. 

Thats not my defintion, its the Webster Dictionary definition.

Conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change

Islamic Radicals want to restore the Islamic State.  They blame Westernization for Muslim's loss of political power and think that restoring an Islamic state based on Shariah Law, just like Mohammed and his Caliph succesors who controlled most of the Middle East, will bring them back to power.  Nazis wanted to restore the German Reich, Mussolini wanted to restore the Roman Empire, and Conservatives want to restore 19th century America.  Do you see the pattern?

Conservatives may want less taxes and government spending, but Conservatives are not for less government in people's lives.  They want the government to be able to violate civil liberties (Patriot Act), they want the government to not allow gay couples the same rights as straight couples, they want Christianity to be forced on others, and the list goes on an on.

Thats the only way I'm going to stop making you look bad :)

Like I said, according to your source Sarah Palin is more authoritarian than Robert Mugabge.  I should probably stop there, thats a pretty strong statement to end on and I dont want to take away from it.

I'd say you were the only one who believes that... but even that isn't true.  Afterall, these threads tend to go like the aforementioned console warz threads.  Someone uses and misrepresents silly numbers and predefined definitions made soley for use in their arguement, then when disporven, they tend to spaz out and get banned for insulting someone.

Which tends to be the way these threads go.

As for Sarah Palin being more authortarian then Robert Mugabe... well of course he is.  There aren't actually many authortarian laws in Zimbabwe.

He just sends out his army to illegally fuck with people who disagree with him.  Interesting you didn't bother to confirm or deny whether you think the British Labor party was more or less violent then the republicans or conservatives (UK).

Which is kinda the the point.  You don't have to be authoritarian nor conservative to be a dick, and it doesn't even correlate that way.

I mean hell, those Tea Party guys you started this thread about!  They're probably less Authrotrain then Obama is.  Afterall they're about LESS government control.  (Which is why the Republicans using Palin as their "in" has always been pretty funny, and it's why most of the actual tea party leaders have distanced themselves from the republican made "Tea Party Express.")

The miltia groups your talking about... they want to make sure the government CAN'T control people.   The problem is, your using a pastiche of different definitions to try and prove your point... and it's one (of many) reasons your failing.  I mean... lets review three of the arguements you've made in this thread. 

1) Muslims and Republicans are conservatives because they want things to be like the used to be.

2) Socialist Guerrillas who want a socialist dictatorship are conservatives because they are Authortarian.  Even though they are trying to change things.

3) Leftwing Guerrillas who want to replace a dcitatorship with a Democracy because they're using violence to get their views heard.  (Once again... contradictry).

4) The people who threaten senators are conservative because they want things to stay the same.

So, according to your definition a Conservative is...

Someone who wants to change the government (Or make it stay the same) for any reason and comits violence.

So in otherwords... anyone who uses violence is a conservative in your mind.  Based on your own arguements in this thread. 

You prove by your own words that it isn't that Conservatives comit violence in your mind.  It's that if you comit violence you are... a conservative.

You consdier violence itself a conservative trait.  Not that conservatives are more likely to comit violence.  You haven't been making me look bad.  You've been making yourself look bad.  Per usual, you've contradicted yourself, and proven yourself wrong.

As there isn't anything else to say...outside of the eventual rebutting of you trying to back out of your words...

I'll depart from my thread before this degenerates to where you get yourself banned again... as you are already dangerously tredding towards that line yet again.

The only pattern present is your perpetual oversimplifaction of the issue at hand, ignoring points made against you because that's easier than thinking about them, and sweeping generalizations that are not even remotely accurate.  If you choose to be narrow-minded that's your issue, the arguments are all laid out in this thread for anyone else to follow, but you are no longer worth my time.  Respond if you like, but I won't be back to this thread.