A right winger and Christian Fundy:


Nuggler
#1
Guess Stevo, Anders, and a few on here, might have a lot to talk about................Thank whosisname he's not a "leftist"





Norway gunman used bullets that 'exploded inside body' - World - CBC News
 
CDNBear
#2
Seems he saw himself as a revolutionary.

Not sure what your comment has to do with anything relevant though.

You have to love the spin though. The bullets involved are as common as house flies.

So common in fact, that it should be mentioned in the title, instead of the real jist of the story.

A nutter killed innocent people because he was nuts.

He didn't even target the object of his obsessions. Muslims.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jul 24th, 2011 at 05:21 PM..
 
Corduroy
+2
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

Thank whosisname he's not a "leftist"

Why? Either way people are going to make stupid threads like this blaming the whole left or right side of the political spectrum for the actions of extremists. Though this guy was obviously more crazy than he was right-wing.
 
petros
#4
Far left totalitarian, far right zero gov at all. I've explained this before.
 
Corduroy
#5
Ah ha, Karl Marx was a far right extremist. Interesting.
 
Nuggler
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Ah ha, Karl Marx was a far right extremist. Interesting.


Don't be slow, it doesn't become you. Karl buddy never killed anyone either, but lots were killed in his name. I just like to slag back at the "righties" in self defense.

Obviously this monster (shooter) is so deranged he's beyond right or left, and should be put down just to make sure he doesn't propogate, if it's not too late.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Seems he saw himself as a revolutionary.

Not sure what your comment has to do with anything relevant though.

You have to love the spin though. The bullets involved are as common as house flies.

So common in fact, that it should be mentioned in the title, instead of the real jist of the story.

A nutter killed innocent people because he was nuts.

He didn't even target the object of his obsessions. Muslims.


Hey, I didn't make up the title. There might have been some muslims present, but we don't know for sure. What we do know is some probably pretty great young people had their future stolen and their families wounded forever by this nutbar.
 
petros
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

He didn't even target the object of his obsessions. Muslims.

What he did do was target the party that supports Palestine and religious freedom and multi-culturalism in Norway. He targeted the gateway not the people walking through it.

His statement will be a very interesting to hear.
 
Corduroy
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

Don't be slow, it doesn't become you. Karl buddy never killed anyone either, but lots were killed in his name.

Totally irrelevant. If told you not to kill someone and you went off and killed someone saying you did it in the name of Corduroy, does that mean I promote murder? No, that would be retarded. If Karl Marx says that a communist society is a stateless society and self-avowed Marxists create a totalitarian state, that doesn't Karl Marx a totalitarian.

If, according to petros, totalitarianism is far left and a stateless society is far right, then Karl Marx, who believed there should be no state, was far right.
 
petros
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Totally irrelevant. If told you not to kill someone and you went off and killed someone saying you did it in the name of Corduroy, does that mean I promote murder? No, that would be retarded. If Karl Marx says that a communist society is a stateless society and self-avowed Marxists create a totalitarian state, that doesn't Karl Marx a totalitarian.

If, according to petros, totalitarianism is far left and a stateless society is far right, then Karl Marx, who believed there should be no state, was far right.

There has never been a truly Marxist state. We've seen Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Minhism but no 100% Marxist realm.
 
CDNBear
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What he did do was target the party that supports Palestine and religious freedom and multi-culturalism in Norway. He targeted the gateway not the people walking through it.

Ya, that's why I said, what I said.
 
Corduroy
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

There has never been a truly Marxist state. We've seen Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Minhism but no 100% Marxist realm.

Fidel Castro no longer smokes cigars. Is it unrelated facts about communists time?
 
AbtFet
+1
#12
Yeah why do nutjobs speak of communist crimes while completely ignoring the crimes that have happened and continue to happen under capitalism?
Far worse crimes I might add. And quantitatively superior as well.
 
gopher
+1 / -1
#13
Christian fundies claim to worship the Prince of Peace but are likelier to be antichrists.
 
Corduroy
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by AbtFet View Post

Yeah why do nutjobs speak of communist crimes while completely ignoring the crimes that have happened and continue to happen under capitalism?
Far worse crimes I might add. And quantitatively superior as well.

What? We aren't talking about that either. I'm commenting the petros' right/left dichotomy where a stateless system is far right and totalitarianism is far left. This would make Karl Marx or Mikhail Bakunin right-wing.
 
petros
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Fidel Castro no longer smokes cigars. Is it unrelated facts about communists time?

Communist isn't Marxist.
 
Bar Sinister
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Far left totalitarian, far right zero gov at all. I've explained this before.

No - zero government is anarchism, which has very little of the elements of capitalism within it. In fact anarchism resembles socialism without a government. That essentially puts it on the left side of the political spectrum.

I think what you are referring to is the right wing's desire for a lack of government regulation so far as the economic system is concerned. That does not mean the far right does not want any government; it is quite strongly in favour of forcing its moral values on everyone else (ie Michele Bachman).
 
Corduroy
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I think what you are referring to is the right wing's desire for a lack of government regulation so far as the economic system is concerned. That does not mean the far right does not want any government; it is quite strongly in favour of forcing its moral values on everyone else (ie Michele Bachman).

Breaking it down to just the role of the state is overly simplistic. It really comes down to who in society has power and political ideologies focus on some forms of power more than others. Some want to increase the power of the state at the expense of corporations and other forms of power, while other wants to decrease the power of the state in favour of corporations. On both extremes, power and the potential for its abuse remains. The difference becomes merely a matter of nomenclature. For what is the state if not an extremely powerful and encompassing corporation? And is history not littered with examples of corporations using coercion and violence to control labour, markets and access to resources?

So you can say that the right promotes less government and the left promotes more government, but that ignores where the power shifts and leaves communists like Karl Marx on the right side of the spectrum. What differentiates Marx from a Libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist is that Marx also seeks to do away with corporate (capitalist) power. The simple left/right pro-gov/anti-gov analysis fails because it doesn't account for such a fundamental difference.
 
Bar Sinister
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Breaking it down to just the role of the state is overly simplistic. It really comes down to who in society has power and political ideologies focus on some forms of power more than others. Some want to increase the power of the state at the expense of corporations and other forms of power, while other wants to decrease the power of the state in favour of corporations. On both extremes, power and the potential for its abuse remains. The difference becomes merely a matter of nomenclature. For what is the state if not an extremely powerful and encompassing corporation? And is history not littered with examples of corporations using coercion and violence to control labour, markets and access to resources?

So you can say that the right promotes less government and the left promotes more government, but that ignores where the power shifts and leaves communists like Karl Marx on the right side of the spectrum. What differentiates Marx from a Libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist is that Marx also seeks to do away with corporate (capitalist) power. The simple left/right pro-gov/anti-gov analysis fails because it doesn't account for such a fundamental difference.

I can't say that I disagree with the first part of your analysis, but placing Marx on the political right is a no-no. In fact I would be very surprised if you can find an example of a political spectrum that places Marxism anywhere but on the extreme left. Marx was in favour of no government; essentially a form of anarchy as his idea that the state would gradually "wither away" illustrates. However, he differed from anarchists in that he believed that a transition to this stateless existence required a gradual transition in which a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would govern. Anarchists believed that this gradual transition was unnecessary and would probably simply result in one form of autocracy being replaced by another. As it turned out in the case of the USSR the anarchists were proved right.
 
Praxius
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Seems he saw himself as a revolutionary.

Not sure what your comment has to do with anything relevant though.

You have to love the spin though. The bullets involved are as common as house flies.

So common in fact, that it should be mentioned in the title, instead of the real jist of the story.

A nutter killed innocent people because he was nuts.

He didn't even target the object of his obsessions. Muslims.

From what I understand from the quick reading of reports, was that he was targeting people who supported multiculturalism, and I think in his little manifesto thingy, he noted Canada as well.

Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto
Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto - Canada - CBC News
 
mentalfloss
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

From what I understand from the quick reading of reports, was that he was targeting people who supported multiculturalism, and I think in his little manifesto thingy, he noted Canada as well.

Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto
Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto - Canada - CBC News

His target was the Labour party, but yea, since they are a socially-democratic party - it's an umbrella for the left-wing, multicultural side that he is vehemently against.
 
winespius
+2
#21
Official multiculturalism should be abolished in this country as well..
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

From what I understand from the quick reading of reports, was that he was targeting people who supported multiculturalism, and I think in his little manifesto thingy, he noted Canada as well.

Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto
Canadians noted in Norway attacker's manifesto - Canada - CBC News

Most of the people he killed were children, he's a coward. Whether he was Christian or right wing has little relevance.
 
winespius
#23
He is a real good justification for the death penalty/...
 
Colpy
+1 / -2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Christian fundies claim to worship the Prince of Peace but are likelier to be antichrists.

Bull****.

Quote:

CBC news anchors started repeating every hour: The murderer was by a “Christian fundamentalist” who hated Muslims.
Except Breivik didn’t actually kill any Muslims — he went after the Norwegian government and its ruling liberal party.
And the Christian part? He hadn’t been to a church since he was a teenager. His manifesto said the opposite.
He wrote, “I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic.”
And “myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.”
Nothing else about his own beliefs in 1,500 pages. But the CBC calls him a Christian fundamentalist.

This guy couldn't make a face like a Christian.

Breivik no Christian nut, just nuts | Columnists | Opinion | Edmonton Sun
 
Bar Sinister
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by winespius View Post

Official multiculturalism should be abolished in this country as well..


Right, might as well give in to extremist nut jobs like Breivik.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Right, might as well give in to extremist nut jobs like Breivik.

He won't be the last one. Give it a week or two.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Bull****.



This guy couldn't make a face like a Christian.

Breivik no Christian nut, just nuts | Columnists | Opinion | Edmonton Sun


It's either an Op-ed or a Levant article...

Oh, it's both.. shocker.
 

Similar Threads

11
How exactly is this Christian???
by CDNBear | 4 hours ago
73
What is a Christian?
by Cliffy | 4 hours ago
21
Christian Law
by petros | Oct 25th, 2010
3
From an american "right-winger": a dubious thought
by the caracal kid | Jan 24th, 2006