Author Topic: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.  (Read 37255 times)

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2010, 05:25:00 pm »
;D`

Dang shame that not everyone can be as level-headed and reasonable as you 'n me, Curtis.  ;)

I'm glad we can laugh about it, Mike.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2010, 10:16:30 pm »
Quote
... oh, and by the way, I happen to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Better sweep me up too. ---michaelintp



I would love to sweep you and the boston tea party goon squad out of the picture but I don't have the authority.



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

People have been kicked for less...

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckForum&plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a3d8ccf80-20ef-4d8d-b395-c8cfe3b025cfForum%3ae57f16e6-1a9c-4fbf-868d-deb2de40a0ffDiscussion%3a7d4ce137-c66a-412d-b4be-443da0a351a7

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2010, 12:10:50 am »
Tanksleyd, I looked at your link.  The article from the Wall Street Journal that I posted (way above) agreed that Joe Stack's attack fits the literal definition of "terrorism."  Just not of organized terrorism.

However, efforts to draw parallels to the Ft. Hood shooting are misplaced.  Majar Hasan long adhered to an internationally active terrorist ideology and was in communication with active leaders of that movement.  In contrast, it appears the Joe Stack adhered to no coherent ideology (judging by his rambling incoherent "manifesto") and was in contact with no one. The only way in which the two cases might be compared is that maybe (maybe) Hasan also "snapped" (Stack, it appears, clearly did).  Here is some info on Hasan, for those who are interested:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2010, 12:36:31 am »
Tanksleyd, I looked at your link.  The article from the Wall Street Journal that I posted (way above) agreed that Joe Stack's attack fits the literal definition of "terrorism."  Just not of organized terrorism.

However, efforts to draw parallels to the Ft. Hood shooting are misplaced.  Majar Hasan long adhered to an internationally active terrorist ideology and was in communication with active leaders of that movement.  In contrast, it appears the Joe Stack adhered to no coherent ideology (judging by his rambling incoherent "manifesto") and was in contact with no one. The only way in which the two cases might be compared is that maybe (maybe) Hasan also "snapped" (Stack, it appears, clearly did).  Here is some info on Hasan, for those who are interested:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan


I am leary of talking directly to you as last time I did I got the consequence of Black Pathology/White Nobility (Let's just say good ridance to Joe Stack.) but is this why the Tea Party crew wants to remain "leaderless" so that they can disavow any knowledge?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/politics/28keli.html?hp

Ya'know ALL conservatives disavow any violent act from Tennessee churches (A precedent?) to Dr. Tiller's church to the chapel at the OKC (A precedent?)federal building ("I didn't know kids were there": Timothy McViegh). ALL conservatives claim to be the party of God.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 05:04:24 am by Tanksleyd »

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2010, 01:26:35 am »

The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged
 By FRANK RICH

Published: February 27, 2010

No one knows what history will make of the present — least of all journalists, who can at best write history’s sloppy first draft. But if I were to place an incautious bet on which political event will prove the most significant of February 2010, I wouldn’t choose the kabuki health care summit that generated all the ink and 24/7 cable chatter in Washington. I’d put my money instead on the murder-suicide of Andrew Joseph Stack III, the tax protester who flew a plane into an office building housing Internal Revenue Service employees in Austin, Tex., on Feb. 18. It was a flare with the dark afterlife of an omen.

What made that kamikaze mission eventful was less the deranged act itself than the curious reaction of politicians on the right who gave it a pass — or, worse, flirted with condoning it. Stack was a lone madman, and it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a “Tea Party terrorist.” But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner. That rant inspired like-minded Americans to create instant Facebook shrines to his martyrdom. Soon enough, some cowed politicians, including the newly minted Tea Party hero Scott Brown, were publicly empathizing with Stack’s credo — rather than risk crossing the most unforgiving brigade in their base.

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, even rationalized Stack’s crime. “It’s sad the incident in Texas happened,” he said, “but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary. And when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the I.R.S., it’s going to be a happy day for America.” No one in King’s caucus condemned these remarks. Then again, what King euphemized as “the incident” took out just 1 of the 200 workers in the Austin building: Vernon Hunter, a 68-year-old Vietnam veteran nearing his I.R.S. retirement. Had Stack the devastating weaponry and timing to match the death toll of 168 inflicted by Timothy McVeigh on a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, maybe a few of the congressman’s peers would have cried foul.

It is not glib or inaccurate to invoke Oklahoma City in this context, because the acrid stench of 1995 is back in the air. Two days before Stack’s suicide mission, The Times published David Barstow’s chilling, months-long investigation of the Tea Party movement. Anyone who was cognizant during the McVeigh firestorm would recognize the old warning signs re-emerging from the mists of history. The Patriot movement. “The New World Order,” with its shadowy conspiracies hatched by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Sandpoint, Idaho. White supremacists. Militias.

Barstow confirmed what the Southern Poverty Law Center had found in its report last year: the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback. And now it is finding common cause with some elements of the diverse, far-flung and still inchoate Tea Party movement. All it takes is a few self-styled “patriots” to sow havoc.

Equally significant is Barstow’s finding that most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P. despite the party’s ham-handed efforts to co-opt them. The more we learn about the Tea Partiers, the more we can see why. They loathe John McCain and the free-spending, TARP-tainted presidency of George W. Bush. They really do hate all of Washington, and if they hate Obama more than the Republican establishment, it’s only by a hair or two. (Were Obama not earning extra demerits in some circles for his race, it might be a dead heat.) The Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington — a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All.

The distinction between the Tea Party movement and the official G.O.P. is real, and we ignore it at our peril. While Washington is fixated on the natterings of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele and the presumed 2012 Republican presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, these and the other leaders of the Party of No are anathema or irrelevant to most Tea Partiers. Indeed, McConnell, Romney and company may prove largely irrelevant to the overall political dynamic taking hold in America right now. The old G.O.P. guard has no discernible national constituency beyond the scattered, often impotent remnants of aging country club Republicanism. The passion on the right has migrated almost entirely to the Tea Party’s counterconservatism.

The leaders embraced by the new grass roots right are a different slate entirely: Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Simple math dictates that none of this trio can be elected president. As George F. Will recently pointed out, Palin will not even be the G.O.P. nominee “unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states” (as it did in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Waterloo). But these leaders do have a consistent ideology, and that ideology plays to the lock-and-load nutcases out there, not just to the peaceable (if riled up) populist conservatives also attracted to Tea Partyism. This ideology is far more troubling than the boilerplate corporate conservatism and knee-jerk obstructionism of the anti-Obama G.O.P. Congressional minority.

In the days after Stack’s Austin attack, the gradually coalescing Tea Party dogma had its Washington coming out party at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), across town from Capitol Hill. The most rapturously received speaker was Beck, who likened the G.O.P. to an alcoholic in need of a 12-step program to recover from its “progressive-lite” collusion with federal government. Beck vilified an unnamed Republican whose favorite president was the progressive Theodore Roosevelt — that would be McCain — and ominously labeled progressivism a cancer that “must be cut out of the system.”

A co-sponsor of CPAC was the John Birch Society, another far-right organization that has re-emerged after years of hibernation. Its views, which William F. Buckley Jr. decried in the 1960s as an “idiotic” and “irrational” threat to true conservatism, remain unchanged. At the conference’s conclusion, a presidential straw poll was won by Congressman Paul, ending a three-year Romney winning streak. No less an establishment conservative observer than the Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz describes Paul’s followers as “conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged.”

William Kristol dismissed the straw poll results as the youthful folly of Paul’s jejune college fans. William Bennett gingerly pooh-poohed Beck’s anti-G.O.P. diatribe. But in truth, most of the CPAC speakers, including presidential aspirants, were so eager to ingratiate themselves with this claque that they endorsed the Beck-Paul vision rather than, say, defend Bush, McCain or the party’s Congressional leadership. (It surely didn’t help Romney’s straw poll showing that he was the rare Bush defender.) And so — just one day after Stack crashed his plane into the Austin I.R.S. office — the heretofore milquetoast former Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, told the audience to emulate Tiger Woods’s wife and “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country.”

Such violent imagery and invective, once largely confined to blogs and talk radio, is now spreading among Republicans in public office or aspiring to it. Last year Michele Bachmann, the redoubtable Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, set the pace by announcing that she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous” to oppose Obama administration climate change initiatives. In Texas, the Tea Party favorite for governor, Debra Medina, is positioning herself to the right of the incumbent, Rick Perry — no mean feat given that Perry has suggested that Texas could secede from the union. A state sovereignty zealot, Medina reminded those at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

In the heyday of 1960s left-wing radicalism, no liberal Democratic politicians in Washington could be found endorsing groups preaching violent revolution. The right has a different history. In the months before McVeigh’s mass murder, Helen Chenoweth and Steve Stockman, then representing Idaho and Texas in Congress, publicly empathized with the conspiracy theories of the far right that fueled his anti-government obsessions.

In his Times article on the Tea Party right, Barstow profiled Pam Stout, a once apolitical Idaho retiree who cast her lot with a Tea Party group allied with Beck’s 9/12 Project, the Birch Society and the Oath Keepers, a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose. She frets that “another civil war” may be in the offing. “I don’t see us being the ones to start it,” she told Barstow, “but I would give up my life for my country.”

Whether consciously or coincidentally, Stout was echoing Palin’s memorable final declaration during her appearance at the National Tea Party Convention earlier this month: “I will live, I will die for the people of America, whatever I can do to help.” It’s enough to make you wonder who is palling around with terrorists now.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8792
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2010, 04:39:02 pm »
Tanksleyd, I looked at your link.  The article from the Wall Street Journal that I posted (way above) agreed that Joe Stack's attack fits the literal definition of "terrorism."  Just not of organized terrorism.

However, efforts to draw parallels to the Ft. Hood shooting are misplaced.  Majar Hasan long adhered to an internationally active terrorist ideology and was in communication with active leaders of that movement.  In contrast, it appears the Joe Stack adhered to no coherent ideology (judging by his rambling incoherent "manifesto") and was in contact with no one. The only way in which the two cases might be compared is that maybe (maybe) Hasan also "snapped" (Stack, it appears, clearly did).  Here is some info on Hasan, for those who are interested:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan



Y'know, Mike... 
It is very amusing watching you defend the indefensible! ;D  That's what lawyers are trained to do, eh?

It is almost as equally enjoyable as watching President Obama tell your former presidential candidate two years after the fact, at a convened (and much delayed) Health Care summit, in front of all his political peers,

"John, the election is over.  The campaign is over..." ;D

...but really, the whole ruckus in this thread really is about the fall of 2008.  I don't think it would have been fair for the republican party to have another republican president in office. No one does...
---except the republican conservative kooks! :D

Do you know that had Senator McCain became president in that election cycle, the republican conservative political machine would have enslaved everyone who is not like them?

They would've had a permanent presence in the judicial branch with one more supreme justice pick...
They would've filled the legislative branch with 60 fresh, new senators...
and the republican-in-chief would be sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office right now if it wasn't for that 'mean ol' Barack Hussein Obama'.  Y'know, the black guy with the funny name your kind keeps calling names?  (socialist! muslim! etc...)


No one within earshot of this website would have no rights whatsoever!  That's what these tea party types are enraged at...   they missed their shot at jim crow part 2!

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2010, 07:27:41 am »
Battle, thank you for reminding us of the President's mean-spirited remark directed against John McCain, in response to McCain's daring to express his point of view at the health care meeting.

Reginald, I’m not sure if your posting of opinion pieces reflecting the views of folks who agree with you (wholly or partially, I’m not sure) are meant to be a response to my posts (in which I express my views and ask for your comment).  It is a bit unclear. Of course one can find advocates in the Media, on the Left and the Right, who will most likely parrot any point of view (whether or not well founded, and whether or not based on all the facts).  I think citing articles is valuable, I really do, but I think personal dialogue in conjunction with that is valuable as well. Because much of what is in the Frank Rich's article is just a repeat of matters we've already discussed.

Though, honestly, the tenor of some of the articles I’ve seen from Left-of-Center editorialists and bloggers give me the creeps. These extreme efforts to demonize those who would dare challenge the Administration, who would dare challenge the idea that the Central Government should dominate our lives, that we as Americans should never dare to advocate that our Republic, as envisioned, was founded on Individual Liberty, not Government Dictate, are downright scary

Because the attitudes reflected in these articles represent the antithesis of what the American Revolution, and the founding of the United States of America, was all about.  See the debates in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, for example (none of which envisioned the dominating central government that exists today ... indeed, the Federalists went out of their way to assure everyone that what in fact happened would NOT happen).

In connection with the rather strident opinion piece in the New York Times authored by Frank Rich that you posted above, I think it is first worth noting that the woman active the Tea Party Movement, Keli Carender, profiled in the New York Times article posted by Tanksleyd (above), certainly does not resemble the demonic caricature painted by Frank Rich.  For good reason. The author, Kate Zernike, of the news article about Keri Carender for the New York Times, apparently actually felt that a news story should be objective, and thus as a newspaper reporter (rare these days?) she did not reveal an ideological axe to grind and actually made some effort to be objective:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/politics/28keli.html?hp

Ms. Carender, discussed in the article, is a woman after my own heart.

Now, on to the article you quoted.  Needless to say, I’m not going to respond to every doggone sentence, but I’ll respond to things that got my goat or amused me.  But before I do, I again want to repeat ... as I have several times already ... that to the extent there are any organizations or individuals who are participating in the “Tea Party” Movement who advocate violence against the United States Government or against American Citizens, those organizations MUST been closely scrutinized and we must be vigilant to make sure that they don’t make good on such goals.  However, closely monitoring them should not in any way be used as a pretense to excuse, and not monitor, those who with international terrorist connections to radical Islamic organizations pose a serious threat (and probably a far more serious threat, though I understand you might wish to debate that point).

Reginald, for goodness sake.  Vernon Hunter, murdered in Austin, was the dedicated public servant.  I sent money to his family [not dictated by Socialist-Wealth-Transferring Government Fiat, but rather because I thought it was the right thing to do], in trust for the benefit of Vernon’s grandchildren, along with a letter expressing my condolences and my feeling that Vernon was a true American (as he was).  This should not be an issue of partisan politics.


The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged
 By FRANK RICH

Published: February 27, 2010

No one knows what history will make of the present — least of all journalists, who can at best write history’s sloppy first draft. But if I were to place an incautious bet on which political event will prove the most significant of February 2010, I wouldn’t choose the kabuki health care summit that generated all the ink and 24/7 cable chatter in Washington. I’d put my money instead on the murder-suicide of Andrew Joseph Stack III, the tax protester who flew a plane into an office building housing Internal Revenue Service employees in Austin, Tex., on Feb. 18. It was a flare with the dark afterlife of an omen.

What made that kamikaze mission eventful was less the deranged act itself than the curious reaction of politicians on the right who gave it a pass — or, worse, flirted with condoning it. 


Cut the bullsh*t, Mr. Rich.  No elected officials gave it a pass, and nobody condoned it.  Indeed, even respectable non-politicians who are active in the Conservative Movement made every effort to make clear that they did not condone this act of violence.


Stack was a lone madman, and it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a “Tea Party terrorist.” But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner.


What a crock is this?  Mr. Rich is obviously dying to blame the “Tea Party Movement” for Stack’s attack, but lacking any evidence whatsoever, descends to innuendo.  However, clever journalist that he is, he inserted the mandatory line denying that he is doing exactly what he is clearly doing.

Frank Rich reveals his bias in the above passages.  “Flirted with” condoning the Stack attack?  That is a partisan way to say, “I don’t have any evidence that they condoned it” so I’ll say that they “flirted with it” instead.  Elected Republicans did not support Stack’s attack any more than Elected Democrats in the 1960’s supported terrorist bombings in protest of the Vietnam War (see my comments below).

Actually, Stack’s “manifesto” was an expression of insanity. It bashed Capitalism and Republicans. It bashed Bush (for goodness sake, a sentiment shared with many on the Left).

Of course, anything can overlap with anything. The rantings of the deranged Mr. Stack also “overlap” with the rantings of Leftists. But, for some odd reason, Mr. Rich, the liberal/leftist editorialist for the New York Times, didn’t think this worthy of mention.

That rant inspired like-minded Americans to create instant Facebook shrines to his martyrdom.


Screw them (to the extent they exist – Mr. Rich did not provide any citations – and a lotta folk on the Right are wary of Stack, given what he “published” in his manifesto). 

As I said, a calculated way to condemn all those who express a Conservative point of view is to find some isolated A-Hole on the Internet who advocates some lunatic point of view.  Of course, Mr. Rich could have done the same with lunatics on the Left, and the crazy things they advocate, but ... for some odd reason ... he chose not to.

Soon enough, some cowed politicians, including the newly minted Tea Party hero Scott Brown, were publicly empathizing with Stack’s credo — rather than risk crossing the most unforgiving brigade in their base.


Again, this is bullsh*t.  I already addressed this in my posts above, in which I provided an article that quoted what Scott Brown really said. That he hoped Stack's act would be not attributed to people who hold Conservative views.

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, even rationalized Stack’s crime. “It’s sad the incident in Texas happened,” he said, “but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary. And when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the I.R.S., it’s going to be a happy day for America.” No one in King’s caucus condemned these remarks. Then again, what King euphemized as “the incident” took out just 1 of the 200 workers in the Austin building: Vernon Hunter, a 68-year-old Vietnam veteran nearing his I.R.S. retirement. Had Stack the devastating weaponry and timing to match the death toll of 168 inflicted by Timothy McVeigh on a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, maybe a few of the congressman’s peers would have cried foul.


I already addressed King’s response (prior post above). OK, OK, now all Conservatives, or at least all “Tea Party Activists” are smeared with the memory of the Oklahoma City bombing?  All Conservatives in the Congress are wimps? No member of Congress may dare advocate that the Internal Revenue Code be abolished, to be replaced with a National Sales Tax, without being tainted with the Austin bombing and now even the Oklahoma City Bombing?  Funny thing is that tax theorists talk about these things (as well as a value-added tax and other proposals) all the time. But now, according to Mr. Rich, nobody in Congress can express the point of view that they are concerned about excessive (or potentially excessive) taxation, which is SURE to happen (given the magnitude of “mandatory” “non-discretionary” entitlement programs).  For goodness sake, even the former head of the Congressional Budget Office honestly states that this is a bona fide concern, looking into the future.  Anyone who knows anything about the federal deficit has to admit that either (1) taxes must be dramatically increased in the future or (2) federal expenditures must be dramatically cut in the future.

Anyone, anyone, with an ounce of objectivity, will see that the author of this article, Frank Rich, has an ideological axe to grind.

Equally significant is Barstow’s finding that most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P.


This clearly contradicts an allegation made by you, Reginald, in your posts above.

Equally significant is Barstow’s finding that most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P. despite the party’s ham-handed efforts to co-opt them. The more we learn about the Tea Partiers, the more we can see why. They loathe John McCain and the free-spending, TARP-tainted presidency of George W. Bush. They really do hate all of Washington, and if they hate Obama more than the Republican establishment, it’s only by a hair or two. (Were Obama not earning extra demerits in some circles for his race, it might be a dead heat.)


That there are some racists involved in the Tea Party Movement no one can deny.  Just as, on the Left, there are vicious bigots involved in that movement (and there are, even if some wish to deny it).  But the main point of this quote is that the Tea Party Folk are opposed to Big Government, whether it be facilitated by Republicans or Democrats.  Sadly, the last Republican President that we had who actively advocated the doctrine of Small Government was Ronald Reagan, and he was more successful in his rhetoric than in his deeds, though fault can’t be placed entirely on his doorstep.  Once the beast of Big Government is unleashed, it is virtually impossible to place it back in its cage.  Put another way, it is virtually impossible to change the course of the Titanic, no matter one’s best intentions.

The Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington — a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All.


My stars and garters! End spending on entitlement programs! No Government at all?!!! :o  Hahaha. Mr. Rich seems to think that Libertarians have horns growing out of the sides of their heads.  When I read this passage, I really laughed out loud.  [Of course, regarding Mr. Rich’s “objective” reference to the Republican Party is the “Party of No” ... I’m sorry guys, but this is so retarded].  And most Tea Party Activists, as far as I am aware, do not advocate the abolition of the Federal Government.  The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, these are legitimate programs of the Federal Government, and only the most extreme Libertarians would deny this.  I believe that most Tea Party Activists do not take Libertarian philosophy to an extreme.  But as a general principle, that Government should leave the individual alone, this is a sentiment that they, and I, wholly agree with.

The article then goes on, attacking Conservative TV figures such as Glen Beck.  I don’t have a lot to say about Beck, as I don’t have cable TV.   Mr. Rich also makes reference to those psychos who blame the Islamist 9/11 attacks (on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on the U.S. Government.  Well, believe it or not, I used to be active in Human Rights Circles surrounding Afghanistan (because of my interest in Women’s Rights), and I got to know a lotta Leftist Activists in that connection, and a whole lot of that 9/11 conspiracy theory bullcrap was, at that time, coming from these folks on the Left. They published garbage on the Internet blaming Bush for 9/11.

As to Ron Paul, he and his followers are idiots.  On that, I agree with the author of the article.  But it is unfair to taint the Tea Party Movement with them.  See the article posted by Tanksleyd to substantiate my point that the Tea Party Movement is not the Ron Paul Movement.

In the heyday of 1960s left-wing radicalism, no liberal Democratic politicians in Washington could be found endorsing groups preaching violent revolution.


I laughed when I read this as well.  Most of the Forum members, and probably most reading Mr. Rich’s opinion piece, are too young to remember that it was Democrats ... JFK and LBG ... to got us into Vietnam.  Not only did most Liberal Democrats of the Era not support those who advocated “violent revolution” ... most of those Democrats did not support those “Progressives” who advocated immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and condemnation of the United States of America in the “court world opinion” as a purveyor of war crimes.  Mr. Rich fails to mention that many of those “Progressive” activists later became leaders of the Democratic Party (including the Democratic Party’s nominee prior to Barack Obama, John Kerry).  The mind-set of all these folks is F-The United States of America, that America is always to blame, etc etc etc.  And of course there were folks on the Progressive Left who sympathized with the feelings the anti-war bombers (like Bill Ayers) but who did not condone their violent methods.

Nevermind the fact that most “Liberal Democrats” of the mid-1960s would today (in terms of their world view) be moderate Republicans.  Most Democrats of that Era were not Communist sympathizers.  Most were not advocates of Socialism.

The article does a few more things -- it (of course) bashes Sarah Palin, bashes a famous quote by Thomas Jefferson (regarding the Tree of Liberty), and provides silly anecdotal stories, etc.  Which is the best Mr. Rich can do, since, despite his obvious desire, he cannot attribute Joe Stack’s attack on the Austin IRS Building to the Tea Party Protesters.

This is NOT objective journalism.  This is not even an attempt at an objective analysis.  This article borders on hate mongering.  To demonize all those whom the Liberal Left disagrees with.  To set the stage for ... what? 

“Rounding them all up” ...?  :P

Also, one must wonder ... to what extent these folks on the Left are determined to distract the American People from the threat of terrorism that faces us from united and determined international forces.  The sentiment to minimize Major Hasan’s attack at Ft. Hood is an example of this.  The lame attempts to equate Hasan and Stack are an example of this.

While extreme Right-Wing lunatics need to be monitored, as they always have, the real threat of significant terrorism comes from radical Islamists, supported by Regimes who have the financial, technological and military means to support them.

As Rich says, “No one knows what history will make of the present.”  Despite Mr. Rich’s polemics, decades from now, it is far more likely that people will look back (if we are so lucky) and say that this was the time that the American People could have done something, but did nothing, to stop the real threat, because they were too busy pointing fingers at one another.

Anyway, Reginald, I think we all know where we stand, and I really can't imagine much more can be accomplished here.  I admit, this thread is looking more and more like the cartoon that Curtis posted.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8792
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2010, 07:47:08 am »
Battle, thank you for reminding us of the President's mean-spirited remark directed against John McCain, in response to McCain's daring to express his point of view at the health care meeting.


Mean-spirited?  No more mean-spirited as the things I've been hearing from FOX radio in the last 2 years and the interesting thing is this...  that kind of tone from that  radio station did not exist until Senator Obama entered the presidential primaries.

Your tone is nearly identical to what I've been hearing on that radio station so your remarks on this forum is simply anticipated and predictable.

The silver-haired senator was  expressing the concerns of his constituents and the president merely replied in kind.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 02:19:40 pm by Battle »

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2010, 07:25:33 pm »
I have no objection to people fully quoting things their political opponents say, in context, if they object.  That is a part of fair discourse.  What I do find objectionable is when people take partial quotes out of context, or no quote at all (instead just making accusations up).  This is what Rich's article was almost entirely comprised of.  What is doubly disturbing is that after the falsity of the accusations are demonstrated, by providing the full quotes and the full context, some people still insist on repeating the lies.  As if repeating a lie over and over makes it true.

And when all else fails, dismiss the person providing you with any inconvenient facts (and with that, dismiss the facts as well).  Because really, all this agenda-driven stuff has nothing to do with truth or falsehood.

That is why trying to discuss such matters is usually pointless.


Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2010, 07:40:32 pm »
Michael, I use the articles partly because I haven't had time to do the personal response I want to do, and partly because there's some stuff in there that I agree with.  I appreciate you taking it all seriously, whether or not we agree.

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2010, 07:07:44 am »
I understand fully about the not having a lot of free time.  It is time consuming, this stuff.  Fun, interesting, even enlightening, but time consuming.  I appreciate your comment.  Though I do wonder, at the end of the day, really what I intend to accomplish, haha. ::) Not much, really, but when I see an article like Rich's it just riles me up, and I can't let the distortions and innuendos go unanswered.  ;)

But that said, I can't help but share this highly amusing tidbit ...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) is now a behind-the-scenes Tea Party Activist?!!! The Nevada Tea Party. ;D

STOP! THIEF! ID Theft:Stealing the ID of the Tea Party Movement in Nevada
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/stop-thief-id-theftstealing?xg_source=shorten_twitter

Is the Nevada Tea Party and its newly minted third-party status for real?

Critics say the party, which already has a candidate for Senate, doesn't have any connection to the state's "tea party" movement and looks like an attempt to draw votes from Republicans, thereby aiding embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his re-election bid.
...
The Tea Party of Nevada isn't easy to reach. The party didn't issue a press release at its launch and appears to have no Web site. The sole phone number listed in its filing is for Las Vegas lawyer Barry Levinson, named as the party's secretary, but a receptionist at his office said, "He's not making any comments at this time."
...
The Reid campaign did not return a phone call from a reporter.
...
Critics note that Mr. Levinson, known for defending oft-arrested porn star John Wayne Bobbitt, doesn't fit the profile of a typical tea partier. He was an Obama supporter during the 2008 election and affiliated with the "Bush lied, people died" protest ...

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2010, 10:09:03 am »
Any thoughts on the Keith Olberman commentary that is on the Home page of the Hudlin Entertainment site?

I liked it.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Catch22

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • You gots to have vision, Willie!
    • View Profile
    • PapiCatch22's Urban Suite
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2010, 10:48:39 am »
Any thoughts on the Keith Olberman commentary that is on the Home page of the Hudlin Entertainment site?

I liked it.


I liked it, too.  I said virtually the same thing earlier in this thread.  I've looked at Tea Party websites and Googled "Tea Party Pictures" and I have yet to see a black face in the crowd.  On one site there were over 200 pictures and I couldn't make out a single black face.  Maybe there was a mulatto or someone passing in the crowd, so I could be mistaken.  With the make up of the crowds, even though many of these people may mean well, it comes off as a lynch mob.  I don't know one black person that sees this stuff and doesn't draw a racial conclusion from it.  How could you not?   I'm sure now that it's been made and issue, they'll find 2 or 3 black folks to trot out in front of the masses for a cheap pop. 

Offline BmoreAkuma

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2010, 10:52:00 am »
Any thoughts on the Keith Olberman commentary that is on the Home page of the Hudlin Entertainment site?

I liked it.
could you provide a sum? Im at work but ill check it out when i go home
With these choices, I felt that the American black man only needed to choose which one to get eaten by; the liberal fox or the conservative wolf because both of them will eat him.

Offline JLI Jesse

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3788
  • We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
    • View Profile
    • Grab Them By The Pod