|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think he was incredibly stupid. He's done a very good job of working against his own goals with this action. What do you call that except stupid? |
His goal was to bring attention to his particular situation. He completely succeeded. |
If his goal was to bring attention to this situation while actively making reform less likely by associating reform with lunatic terrorists, then he absolutely succeeded. If his goal was to bring attention to this issue in hopes of catalyzing change, then he failed pathetically. I somehow suspect the latter rather than the former is more what he had in mind, and as such he's a fool.
| mises wrote: |
| He even tried to kill his family. This was the action of a guy who snapped and wanted the world to know why he snapped. Now we're talking about his thoughts. |
We were talking about his thoughts long before he came to light though; our conversations here aren't exactly representative of what the average man chats about. What's the average American more likely to do in response this, give this terrorists "manifesto" serious consideration, or condemn it out of hand as rubbish because the source of it is a violent terrorist? My guess is the latter.
| mises wrote: |
| It's not your definition. |
No, it's not the definition. Words have meanings. Totalitarianism is a very specific thing. Our tax code is not totalitarian. This is just plain a misuse of the word. Is the tax code overly complex? Definitely. Is it unfair? I think so. Is it totalitarian? No.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anarchy and progressive political thinking are incompatible. |
Anarcho-syndicalism is both 1) progressive and 2) a system without government. Spend some time with the drum circle potheads and you'll see how alive and well anarchism is on the left. |
I'll reitterate: as soon as you start talking about the political ideas you're referencing here, a 2 dimensional political spectrum like "left and right" becomes inadequate.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| trying to label him a liberal is just silly. |
As is trying to label him 'right'. Which is exactly why I said:
| Quote: |
| The argument that he is left-wing is as strong as the argument that he is right wing, or libertarian populist or productivist or simply alienated. |
|
I disagree. His rant has many things in common with people on the right side of our basic left-right political spectrum. It has very little in common with the people on the left side of it, which is why you're having to jump off the spectrum entirely to make your comparison. Assuming we want to keep to the basic political spectrum with regards to the discussion, he's far better classified as right than left. If we want to jump off that spectrum, then right and left cease to have any meaning, and more complex descriptors are required. In neither case is classifying him as leftist even remotely appropriate. It's the fact that the report in question focused on using the basic left-right spectrum that I used it myself.
I think you realize this and you're just playing, honestly.
| mises wrote: |
| So, don't be silly. It is clear he hated the government but it is not at all possible to establish that he hates the premise of government. That isn't anti-government, it is anti-American government. |
Very near to the beginning of his text, he writes:
| Quote: |
| We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. |
He then goes on to attack this idea. Yes, he attacks it through the medium of the American government, but that's less important than the fact that he attacks it. Why? Because the only reason the government is morally permissible is because of the very idea he's attacking: that without governmental enforcement of law and order, horrific anarchy would ensue. You can't be against the idea I quoted and still be for government without being either foolish or unethical. So yes, he's attacking the idea of government.
| mises wrote: |
| What this guy did do was damage the political discourse further. He also will cause a decline in civil liberties. |
Both of which, presumably, are the exact opposite of what he really wanted, which again reinforces my idea that he's a fool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If his goal was to bring attention to this situation while actively making reform less likely by associating reform with lunatic terrorists, then he absolutely succeeded. |
No. You're adding. He wanted to 1) die and 2) make a statement. He was settling a score with the IRS as well. You don't kill off yourself and your family (which he tried to do) because you want reform.
| Quote: |
| We were talking about his thoughts long before he came to light though; our conversations here aren't exactly representative of what the average man chats about. What's the average American more likely to do in response this, give this terrorists "manifesto" serious consideration, or condemn it out of hand as rubbish because the source of it is a violent terrorist? My guess is the latter. |
No. He wanted his little grievance with the IRS etc to be heard. I'm sure millions have read it by now. To the extent he failed it was because his wife and kid were not killed. Otherwise, success.
| Quote: |
| No, it's not the definition. Words have meanings. Totalitarianism is a very specific thing. Our tax code is not totalitarian. This is just plain a misuse of the word. Is the tax code overly complex? Definitely. Is it unfair? I think so. Is it totalitarian? No. |
Take it up with the dead guy.
| Quote: |
| I'll reitterate: as soon as you start talking about the political ideas you're referencing here, a 2 dimensional political spectrum like "left and right" becomes inadequate. |
So, Noam Chomsky isn't on the left?
The leftist goal is the removal of hierarchy. This can be done with or without government. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Well, you want to (for the purpose of this discussion) but there is no need to.
| Quote: |
| His rant has many things in common with people on the right side of our basic left-right political spectrum. |
I know. When I sit around my right-wing buddies at the local Honky Tonk they say things like:
| Quote: |
It�s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don�t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in. |
Then we hug and kiss and read Cosmo.
| Quote: |
| It has very little in common with the people on the left side of it |
1) Hatred of Bush 2) hatred of the medical system 3) hatred of severe inequality 4) elections as a "joke" (false consciousness). Nope. Nothing similar with the left. None at all.
| Quote: |
| , which is why you're having to jump off the spectrum entirely to make your comparison. |
I'm not jumping off anything. You're doing the whole proof by assertion and hand waving thing. "What! leftists can't be anarchists! etc" Nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Assuming we want to keep to the basic political spectrum with regards to the discussion, he's far better classified as right than left. |
For no reason other than he hated a tax system he felt was arbitrarily applied to benefit the rich and powerful? Very right-wing there. Sure, when I hang with my conservative buddies they get all upset (sometimes even cry) about inequality and power structures. It's an emotional disposition, really. Oh, right. And apparently he's an anarchist (he isn't) which leftists can't be (they can). Ok. I stand corrected!
| Quote: |
| If we want to jump off that spectrum, then right and left cease to have any meaning, and more complex descriptors are required. |
Who is "we" in that sentence. I've already said (and then copied what I said) that you can't use the spectrum to describe this guy.
| Quote: |
| In neither case is classifying him as leftist even remotely appropriate. |
Good thing I already said that then, eh.
| Quote: |
| I think you realize this and you're just playing, honestly. |
I will tell you why you think he is "right":
1) He's white
2) He's a male
3) It's Texas
4) He didn't like taxes.
The first 3 were enough and 4 is the kicker. White Texan males with wives are hella likely to be conservative. Add anything about taxes and it's almost a sure thing (but not this time). His identity is what is right wing, not his actual political thoughts (which are not about politics but about him). Had he given us an open declaration of gayness (maybe had he signed it gay_in_Austin just so we're all perfectly clear) we wouldn't be having this conversation.
| Quote: |
| He then goes on to attack this idea. |
Ahh, post it all.
| Quote: |
| Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was �no taxation without representation�. |
He is not rejecting the premise of government but the founding myth of America. He sees in his country injustice and not a society, and he sees the American government as the cause. He describes a system of anarchy. His point is that government is forcing an anarchy upon the people.
See, it isn't a political manifesto where he's laying out his vision for the world. He's calling bullsh!t, pissing and moaning and venting.
| Quote: |
| Both of which, presumably, are the exact opposite of what he really wanted, which again reinforces my idea that he's a fool. |
He wanted to 1) Die and 2) tell the world why he did it. There is no indication of anything else. None. Zip. Zilch. Nadda. Nope. Just those two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| No. You're adding. He wanted to 1) die and 2) make a statement. He was settling a score with the IRS as well. You don't kill off yourself and your family (which he tried to do) because you want reform. |
No one wants to make a statement for no reason. He clearly hopes his statement will bring about some sort of change. Just screaming to be heard is meaningless; dying to make said meaningless statement is ludicrious. If that's really what he did, he's more a fool that I initially believed. I don't think that's what he really did though.
| mises wrote: |
| No. He wanted his little grievance with the IRS etc to be heard. |
If that's really all he wanted, he's beyond pathetic. I don't think that's really all he wanted. He clearly hopes change will come of it, but in actuality, he's made change less likely. He's helped empower -- even if only slightly -- the people he condemns. That's just plain stupid.
| mises wrote: |
| Take it up with the dead guy. |
I clearly can't, but if you insist on defending his usage, I'll take it up with you.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'll reitterate: as soon as you start talking about the political ideas you're referencing here, a 2 dimensional political spectrum like "left and right" becomes inadequate. |
So, Noam Chomsky isn't on the left? |
Not on the left of the basic left-right spectrum, no. He doesn't meaningfully interact with said spectrum, he's far too radical for that.
| mises wrote: |
| The leftist goal is the removal of hierarchy. |
I don't agree with that definition at all. As a leftist myself that's certainly not my goal.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It has very little in common with the people on the left side of it |
1) Hatred of Bush 2) hatred of the medical system 3) hatred of severe inequality 4) elections as a "joke" (false consciousness). Nope. Nothing similar with the left. None at all. |
Plenty of conservatives hate Bush (and rightly so, he certainly wasn't fiscally conservative). Plenty of conservatives hate the medical system. I've seen conservatives rant that socialism actually creates inequality rather than reducing it. And plenty of conservatives consider elections a joke. None of these things are anti-conservative positions. Perhaps anti-Republican positions, but not anti-right ones. I think you realize that.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| , which is why you're having to jump off the spectrum entirely to make your comparison. |
I'm not jumping off anything. You're doing the whole proof by assertion and hand waving thing. "What! leftists can't be anarchists! etc" Nonsense. |
It's not nonsense at all.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Assuming we want to keep to the basic political spectrum with regards to the discussion, he's far better classified as right than left. |
For no reason other than he hated a tax system he felt was arbitrarily applied to benefit the rich and powerful? |
No, rather for the anti-governmental attitude he took away from that.
| mises wrote: |
| Sure, when I hang with my conservative buddies they get all upset (sometimes even cry) about inequality and power structures. It's an emotional disposition, really. Oh, right. And apparently he's an anarchist (he isn't) which leftists can't be (they can). Ok. I stand corrected! |
I'll reitterate since you're confusing two different points: Noam Chomsky's radical anarchical ideals are incompatible with the political spectrum. This man's ideals are either also off the political spectrum or on the far right of it. Whichever they are, they aren't leftist. If we're going to classify him on the basic spectrum, it would be on the right side of it, not the left. I further assert that his ideas are close enough to the political right of our spectrum to be rated with regards to it (unlike, say, Mr. Chomsky).
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If we want to jump off that spectrum, then right and left cease to have any meaning, and more complex descriptors are required. |
Who is "we" in that sentence. I've already said (and then copied what I said) that you can't use the spectrum to describe this guy. |
I think you can, in a fairly rough fashion.
| mises wrote: |
I will tell you why you think he is "right":
1) He's white
2) He's a male
3) It's Texas
4) He didn't like taxes.
The first 3 were enough and 4 is the kicker. |
Incorrect, but thanks of essentially accusing me of irrational racist sexissm. I appreciate it.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He then goes on to attack this idea. |
Ahh, post it all.
| Quote: |
| Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was �no taxation without representation�. |
|
How about you post all of what I said?
| Fox wrote: |
| He then goes on to attack this idea. Yes, he attacks it through the medium of the American government, but that's less important than the fact that he attacks it. Why? Because the only reason the government is morally permissible is because of the very idea he's attacking: that without governmental enforcement of law and order, horrific anarchy would ensue. You can't be against the idea I quoted and still be for government without being either foolish or unethical. So yes, he's attacking the idea of government. |
I addressed your response before you even wrote it. You actually cut the response out of your quote, and then responded as if I hadn't said it. Why is that?
| Fox wrote: |
| He wanted to 1) Die and 2) tell the world why he did it. There is no indication of anything else. None. Zip. Zilch. Nadda. Nope. Just those two. |
Again, I don't agree at all, as listed at the top of the post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's definitely possible that he was a patsy. The idea of some random crazy guy just flying a plane into a government building is pretty suspicious right off. Then there's the timing (so much going on right now with the coming elections in Texas, the tea party movement being infiltrated by neocons etc.), and the Obama administration is already labeling it "right wing terrorism". The obvious implication will be that anyone who is against government corruption or increased taxes (ie. libertarians or anyone on the legitimate side of the tea party movement) is basically crazy, dangerous and a violent terrorist.
Whether he was just a lone terrorist or not is too early to tell (the news reports keep changing), but either way it will be exploited to try to discredit tea partiers and libertarians.
And of course Glenn Beck will spin it as 'his' side of the tea party movement (supporting the Republican neocon agenda) still having a clean slate, and that it's really the Ron Paul 'nut-job' types who are to blame... just as he hypocritically tried to discredit Debra Medina for saying people should have the right to question the official 9/11 report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, of course. Though I did expect ya-ta to roll in with Tea Bagger references. He's held back thus far. Olbermann hasn't given him his opinion yet, I reckon.
|
Cute. Stupid, but cute. You're starting to sound like your previous ID, whatever it was.
I did think of mises when I read the part to the note about his life in Texas and salaries were only 1/3 those of California because of collusion of the bosses.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:28 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
mises wrote:
2) The tax code is totalitarian IF it is used to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the masses. Which is it. So, he's correct. Not left, not right. Correct.
That's not the definition of totalitarian. It might be a good reason to condemn the tax system, but something being worthy of condemnation does not equate to it being totalitarian.
|
I agree with Fox on this. The guy whined about 'taxation without representation' in his note, even though he is represented in the House and the Senate. I can sympathize with where he said he didn't feel he was ever listened to about taxes, but that is not at all the same as not being represented. If he had a problem with skewing the tax code in favor of the wealthy, his problem was with GOP tax philosophy.
On this point of taxes = totalitarianism, mises is in danger of slipping over into ontheway territory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The guy whined about 'taxation without representation' in his note, even though he is represented in the House and the Senate. I can sympathize with where he said he didn't feel he was ever listened to about taxes, but that is not at all the same as not being represented. If he had a problem with skewing the tax code in favor of the wealthy, his problem was with GOP tax philosophy.
On this point of taxes = totalitarianism, mises is in danger of slipping over into ontheway territory. |
I think he felt like the people who were supposed to be representing him in the House and Senate weren't representing him or any of the little people. In his manifesto, he seemed upset that everything was always skewed in favor of the "cronies" of the politicians. I agree with him that he was taxed without representation. Think of it this way, if you hire a defense lawyer, but he tries every way in the world to get you convicted, "If the glove does fit, you MUST convict!" --- that's not real representation. These politicians rarely represent the people who hire them with votes. They're hired with dollars. Votes are worthless. Meaningless.
Stack was shut out of politics, his vote was worthless, and his terrorist attack was his final, desperate attempt to have a voice in the politics of his homeland. The blood of the missing IRS agent is on the hands of Stack, but it's also on the hands of the politicians who sell out to the highest bidder and the corporate executives who bribe them.
Other thoughts:
1. I hope the IRS agent who spent a couple of hours one night on the phone getting my 2005 audit straightened out to where the IRS paid me nearly $800 instead of me owing them over $22,000 as they originally claimed isn't the missing agent. 
2. Thank goodness the pilot wasn't Arab or Muslim. America would've been shut down for days and acting mental instead of moving on with life. 
3. There was a big fire, but there wasn't a controlled demolition this time. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, but it's still an observation.
4. Stack doesn't come off as particularly right wing or left wing. Even though he hated Bush and corporate political influence as many left wingers do, I feel like his terrorist attack was more personal than political. It looked as if he was angry and wanted to "stick it to The Man," regardless of who was in office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greenwald:
| Quote: |
| Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto. Stack's worldview contained elements of the tea party's anti-government anger along with substantial populist complaints generally associated with "the Left" (rage over bailouts, the suffering of America's poor, and the pilfering of the middle class by a corrupt economic elite and their government-servants). |
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism/index.html
How fair.
| Quote: |
| Incorrect, but thanks of essentially accusing me of irrational racist sexissm. I appreciate it. |
Yeah, you're welcome. Now, had he been a muslim how would the identity politics have played then? If he were a black male? In Western society whom is the most important variable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tip of iceberg....america will boil over sooner than later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thomas pars wrote: |
| tip of iceberg....america will boil over sooner than later. |
True, but those of us who work in the private sector won't have the balls. We never have, with Stack being an extremely rare exception to the rule. But Katie-bar-the-door when the government can no longer afford to send welfare checks, food stamps, and government jack cheese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stack held a mixed bag of political beliefs, so no one gets to claim him. Perhaps being so middle of the road is a sign of his schizophrenia.
One thing should be clear to all, however, and that is that there are millions of people of all ages, male and female, all income brackets, all walks of life, and all regions of the political map (outside of the fascist-socialist corner) who are disgusted by, fed up with, revolted by and revolting against the IRS.
There will be more attacks against the agents and property of the IRS, state income tax and property tax collection agencies.
Income taxes and property taxes are fascist-socialism in action. Such taxes must all be repealed. They can all be replaced by consumption taxes, collected from business sales, eliminating the direct payment of taxes by individual citizens and, if evenly distributed and properly limited to no more than 10% on all goods and services, eliminating the frustration and alienation of individuals throughout America that comes from the current tax system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
He seemed as angry at the Catholic Church and GM as he did at the IRS. Did anyone understand about the tax class he took?
|
Cool! I get to answer my own question:
From: Wingnut Rage Boils Over
by John Avlon
"Stack's tale of serial downsizing appears to have run into the IRS back in the 1980s. "Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having 'tax code' readings and discussions," Stack wrote. "This is where I learned that there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us�that little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000.00 plus ten years of my life and set my retirement plans back to zero. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie." The anger at America only increased from there. But let's take a step back and look at the larger shadowy movement he apparently embraced.
"The Tax Protester Movement�or the Truth and Taxation Movement, as some advocates call it�began with the belief that the institution of the federal income tax under Woodrow Wilson in 1913 has at best been misapplied and at worst is unconstitutional.
By the early 1970s, two distinct schools of Tax Protesters had emerged: leftist anti-Vietnam war tax protesters who got to break the law and get rich(er) while feeling morally superior; and the right-wing Posse Comitatus movement, which argued that the federal government was essentially illegitimate.
While the left-wing group faded with the end of the Vietnam War, anti-government activists on the right gained ground, seeding the "Sovereign Citizens" movement and the Patriot movements of the 1990s. These groups claimed that the highest government authority lay with county officials like sheriffs and that there had been a subtle subversion of the U.S. Constitution that reflected a "criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, disfranchise citizens, and liquidate the Constitutional Republic of these United States."
The article goes on to list a series of attacks on the IRS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-19/the-roots-of-a-texas-suicide-attack/?cid=hp:exc
So the guy was from the flakey anti-tax wingnutosphere.
I take his reference to Marx (From each...) not as an endorsement, but as a reference point to what he conceived to be the ultimate evil, then compared the tax code of our capitalist system to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I think he felt like the people who were supposed to be representing him in the House and Senate weren't representing him or any of the little people. In his manifesto, he seemed upset that everything was always skewed in favor of the "cronies" of the politicians. I agree with him that he was taxed without representation. Think of it this way, if you hire a defense lawyer, but he tries every way in the world to get you convicted, "If the glove does fit, you MUST convict!" --- that's not real representation. These politicians rarely represent the people who hire them with votes. They're hired with dollars. Votes are worthless. Meaningless.
Stack was shut out of politics, his vote was worthless, and his terrorist attack was his final, desperate attempt to have a voice in the politics of his homeland. The blood of the missing IRS agent is on the hands of Stack, but it's also on the hands of the politicians who sell out to the highest bidder and the corporate executives who bribe them.
|
I can partly agree with this.
I understand the frustration of not getting your way. I've been at odds with the dominant political/tax philosophy since the Election of 1980. In the first Reagan tax cut I only got $20 a month--not nearly enough to stimulate my economy, but more than enough to run up the national debt. I was frustrated then, and I'm still frustrated that the gov't was so irresponsible in cutting income while not cutting expenditures (and by raiding Social Security to pay the shortfall).
I didn't get my way, but I was represented. Our system doesn't guarantee that we get our way all the time. Or even ever if we happen to have flakey political notions.
I'm also sympathetic with the idea of politicians being bought. That's why I, along with about 80% of the rest of the public, disagreed with the recent Supreme Court decision okaying unlimited corporate campaign contributions.
I don't agree that votes are worthless. I haven't entirely given up hope on the system, although I am extremely frustrated with the gov't's present inability to function in a crisis. I still have faith in the Constitution since it has mechanisms within it to correct itself. However, my faith that we will act quickly and decisively enough to head off an explosion is swiftly declining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At least some elements of the right are claiming Stack as one of theirs:
"Donna Wald writes, "I dont [sic] know about you all but, if I were in that building when Joe struck it I would have been honored to die for a good cause that would finally at least open up some eyes."
"His name was Joseph Andrew Stack," writes Allen Morgan. "In death we are all Joseph Stack."
Adrian Mojica offered up the following, "END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED!"
And from the guy who put up the page:
"Finally an American man took a stand against our tyrannical government that no longer follows the constitution and is turned its back on its founding fathers and the beliefs this country was founded on."
"The group was deleted by Facebook yesterday; however, a new Joseph Stack Facebook fan page was created soon after. The administrator of that site, "Mike from Kentucky," wrote in a comment on the page, "We were deleted earlier but we are back until they delete us again. So much for freedom of speech."
"The 29-year-old construction worker told AlterNet over the phone that his girlfriend had started the original Facebook page, but that the page -- and her personal account -- had been deleted by Facebook. He suspects Facebook may have killed the site after being pressured by the government."
http://www.alternet.org/news/145734/man_who_crashed_plane_into_irs_building_posted_online_manifesto_%28and_gets_right-wing_macabre_facebook_fan_page%29?page=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Yeah, you're welcome. Now, had he been a muslim how would the identity politics have played then? If he were a black male? |
Not by me. I'm happy to admit the existence of statistical patterns (since denying them is just ludicrious), but I have never utilized those statistical patterns in making snap judgments about particular individuals. I don't deny that identity politics get played in a general sense, but you're accusing me specifically of them, and I frankly think that's unfair and also unlike you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
