>>14
Once again, assuming. This is why people don't take you seriously. I was arguing not in favor/defense of liberals or their agenda, but in favor of rationality (a quality which I believe both sides of the spectrum need a little bit more of). Since you conveyed your argument using very selective information, I just stated the information that you chose to leave out. You argued one side, and seeing a fallacy in your argument, I argued the other, and in the process, corrected you. It's as simple as that.
But the more you say about yourself, as well as what you think I am, based on what you gleaned from my arguments, goes to show that when you are criticized, you resort to calling me a liberal (which you seem to use as to convey negative connotations, otherwise, you wouldn't use it in conjuntion with the term "sympathizer"). You are no better than liberals that call people "racists" mentioned in the OP, or as I stated previously, conservatives that call people "traitors."