Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

Instead of gloating over your imagined victories, why don't you tell Oodain where these apparent faults are in his argumentation?

Compare him with someone that history hasn't decided a winner. Compare him to Che Guevera. Some see him as a hero, some as a piece of s**t.

I don't think comparing him to Guevara would be fair either. I am not a big fan of Guevara, but... Breivik is not a revolutionary, his manifesto is like a blog entry on a white supremacist/truther web page. He is a profoundly sick man

but still nowhere near the same.

true he used violence, true he did so out of political ideals, but he fought with his(actually the opressors of others) opressors directly.

when you look at true terror attacks they often pick a purely civillian target and do not confront anyone, they are made only for one thing and that is to cause fear and promote violence, civil unrest and hate.
i am happy to see that the political influence in scandinavia of his actions werent in his favor.

what matters here isnt what people think of him but his intentions, the ideology behind his actions and his train of thought, something he went to great lengths to make perfectly clear.
some think bill gates is a piece of s**t, some think obama or Norman Gorlaug(man who literally saved a billion people), that however says nothing about the morality nor validity of their actions.

Che was likely racist as well. http://lefroy.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/ ... xist-hero/

This is an example of selective out rage.

Who is outraged, or backing Che in this discussion?

a few of the quotes are ambiguous, i agree he probably did hold some views that today would be seen as implicitly racist.

something that is noted in the first comment on the blog.

most men back then were also misogynistic in varying degrees by todays standard and most average americans probably werent much better.

that is not to say that he was right in holding those beliefs but one cannot take something that old completely out of its historical context.

also did he ever aspire to a racial cleaning?
did he try to convince others to do the same?
was he willing to use weapons of mass destruction to do so?
have you taken his extensive travels into account and the fact that he was deeply involved in several cultures around the globe?

i am by no means saying he was perfect or even that i think what he did was right or justified, his later actions taken into account, they upheld a regime after the revolution, there were instances of excessive violence as well.
but try reding some of their literaute side by side and it wouldnt compare, their thought process was wildly different.

((also look at vigs comment above))

you dont know what inspired him is what i am saying and 15 pages of his ideological outline wont tell you how he actually looked at the issues in modern light, much of his justification and reason comes from old religious doctrine and he admits as such, he likened himself to the knights templar for one.

my real issue here is that you are basically saying that you dont think his actions were right but you can udnerstand his ideology and where he is coming from with it, and i say that that in itself is born out of an underlying cause, in this case a dislike of a particular group of people.

also please stop talking about what if he was right, because there isnt an iota of evidence that he is or will be anytime soon, his actions were based on the idea that there was a conspiracy between the arab leadership and the european leadership to crea new euro arabian nation capable of world domination.

Well, selective lack of outrage.

Actually, it all depends on your idea of morality. That, along with your political opinion, is a result of your environment and social conditioning. What Breivik did is not objectively right or wrong. We all disagree with it, and I've made that abundantly clear while being backstabbed by liberals for being more nuanced and saying I can imagine why Breivik thought what he did and arrived at the wrong conclusion, but it's not "moral" or "immoral" to agree or disagree with something. That's all a result of the type of society you live in, how you've been raised, and where you find yourself in terms of subculture or counter culture.

Is it wrong to sacrifice children? Several societies around the world didn't think so. To them, it served a greater good.



Then you've been reading my posts wrong. I didn't say that. The difficulties I have with muslims is that they threw stones at my dog, tried to hit my dog with a stick, called my mother a white whore, nearly hit me with a car, tried to scam me out of my money, yell insults at me almost every week, and have lured someone I knew into prostitution because she was fair game to them. Additionally, I've been threatened, and asked to convert.



I don't know about Canada, but where I live, 'close to half of white people' is not the definition of a majority. It was not, as is often claimed, a political cause taken up by the downtrodden masses.



Motivated by a political opinion. Did not feel represented by a government. Resentment towards a certain group. Use of violence in an attempt to cause the situation to deteriorate into open warfare.



For one, there is very little argumentation. It's about my morality compared to his instead of anything I've remotely wanted to discuss, and it involves accusations of violent white supremacism.

I take care of all those things by being a taxpayer and being self-reliant with my money. With out having the GOV to take care of me. Or mooching off the taxpayers like a parasite.

Isn't it more like the gov't relies upon the tax payer to fund those services, than the tax payer relying on the gov't to provide them? After all, the tax payer could (in theory) choose to purchase those services elsewhere, but the gov't only has one source of tax revenue: the citizens.

While a decent enough point, I feel it misses the thrust of the argument: the government provides these services as an ostensibly objective manifestation of the social contract we all live under. Government facilitates, with the main thrust of the argument being that there is no survival in modern society without such facilitation unless you choose to live in the wild as a hermit.

Pretty much JWC that is how I see it Liberals how ever will never see it that way.,

I don't view the IRA as such

You must not have hit a nerve yet because he would have called you a troll or a douchebag by now.