While the Tea Party movement started out with normal, conservative people with legitimate gripes about the way the US was going, now it seems to have been taken over by the fringe who worship nutball self promoters ranging from Beck to Palin. There have already been calls by some wacko TeaBaggers to kill the President, so I wonder if they’ll make Stack their patron saint and we’ll see more of this kind of thing as they get madder at Obama and the government.
Seven Deadly Traits: Decoding the confession of the Austin plane bomber
Joseph Stack spent months on his manifesto. He was adamant about convincing us—or himself—why flying his plane into an IRS building was an act of charity.
The five-page rant the software engineer wrote before his performance murder is illogical, hysterical, hyperbolic, and deeply dishonest. Stack’s convoluted arguments explain nothing, and the thumbnail sketch of his impoverished life is absurd. And that’s exactly why it’s so revealing. The software engineer tried to con us with a deceptive self-portrait, but the real Joseph Stack reveals himself in the way he concocts it.
I’ve spent 11 years studying routes to mass murder, in particular for a book on the Columbine school shootings, and it’s startling how similar all the manifestos sound. Many of Stack’s passages were practically lifted right out of the diatribes of Eric Harris, the Columbine mastermind. Yet while the notes are the same, the tune is not. Harris was a textbook psychopath, and Stack doesn’t read that way at all.
[...]
I spoke with several experts in mass murder Thursday, and we identified seven deadly traits of impending danger in Stack’s manifesto.
Read the article to find out what they are.
It’s the airplane.
If this was just another pissed off guy gunning down clerks, nobody would try to pin a team label on him. He would simply be a murderer.
Which he is.
I can’t believe anyone is serious about this psychopath representing a school of political thought.
“He was on your team, leftie!”
“No, he was one of you conservatards!”
What a freaking load from both wings.
I would prefer to remember his victim Vernon Hunter, a 67-year-old veteran who served his country by doing two tours in Vietnam, and ended up being burned alive at his office desk.
Anyone care to call up Mr Hunter’s family and explain why Grand Dad had it coming? How he deserved to spend his last moments in agony, wondering why his body was being consumed by flames?
#73 Uncle Patso – Man’s nature is to preserve his own self interests. What, you don’t think politicians aren’t selfish, cheapskate bastards? We all are. It is safer to assume someone is selfish, then to assume they are altruistic. I don’t feel I’m exempt from federal income tax. Federal income tax on anyone who didn’t sign up for it is illegitimate. The courts’ jurisdiction is backed up by men with guns funded by taxes. So yes, it is illegitimate, but that doesn’t stop them from enforcing their power. Who cares what flags are hung where? Like I said before, these tea bagger partiers are justly frustrated, but their anger is misdirected and thought processes are confused.
Technology is what saved millions of children from getting sick from spoiled milk. Things like refrigeration, pasteurization and faster transportation from farms in the countryside to consumers in the cities. Let’s use some common sense. Politicians have been regulating the marketplace way before the late 1800s. They didn’t invent these technologies. In a free market, if I own a company and I guarantee fresh milk and I’m free to compete, I will gain customers from other companies who don’t do the same. That will force them to do the same if they want to stay in business. You see, government officials do two things very well:
1. They love to take credit for accomplishments they aren’t responsible for, i.e. Al Gore claimed he invented the internet.
2. They love to blame anyone or anything else for the disasters they are responsible for, i.e. bad economy, bank bailouts, etc.
I like to use common sense, which seems to evade liberals. They think politicians can legislate their way out of the very problems their legislation created in the first place.
Majority does not make right. At one point, the majority thought they needed a King, otherwise they’d be living in a hell hole, and only a few believed otherwise. Over time, the few convinced the many this was wrong. Then they chopped the King’s head off. Representative democracy is nothing new. They tried it in Athens. They tried it in Rome. We’re trying it again. And it’s failing. No one man can represent the views of the many. And man is selfish, no matter how much you wish and hope otherwise. That man that is representing you will always look out for his own interests before he looks out for your own (unless you have millions to donate to his election campaign). Until you wake up to that fact, you will always be complaining and crying over the fact that the guy you voted for isn’t fulfilling his promises.
#74 LibertyLover – Thanks for the history lesson. If I had all the time in the world, I’d track this stuff down…but all you really need is common sense, right? All politicians do is sit around passing laws, then running back to their offices to make phone calls for fundraising purposes. It’s the people working in their fields every day who solve society’s problems with ingenuity and skill. And I bet you it took lots of years, effort and money from his own pockets to get those self-serving politicians to listen to him too…btw, where are you running for election and what office?
#76 Phydeau – And all the things you and others like you say have been said for centuries, not only in this forum, but in the lame stream media as well. I’m glad there are new people joining these forums. Then they can get fresh ideas also, instead of the same old talking points repeated over and over. Debate us or not if you like. But if I read something that doesn’t make sense to me, I’m going to argue the counterpoint.
If man is inherently selfish and you can’t count on a mans altruism to make him behave or do good, then all the more reason for rules to protect us from each other. You’re making our point for us. The game can only be played fairly when there are rules and they are followed. Otherwise the strong dominate the weak, the rich dominate the poor, and the powerful dominate the powerless. What you describe is anarchy.
The free market finds slavery, child labor, pollution, unrestricted hours, no vacations, and monopoly abuse all very profitable. I guess that makes those things ok then.
#83, If man is inherently selfish and you can’t count on a mans altruism to make him behave or do good, then all the more reason for rules to protect us from each other. You’re making our point for us.
Not really.
You are failing to understand the situation on two distinct points:
1) “How” are these rules going to protect us? Murder, Rape, etc. have very stiff penalties yet they occur quite frequently. The “rules” are not stopping them.
2) What do you think is most likely to stop someone from hurting you — a rule or knowing there is a distinct possibility the perpetrator will be harmed himself in the process of committing the crime?
Self Defense is one law of nature totalitarian governments wish to strip from the people. Give people back their right to self defense and most problems will right themselves.
The game can only be played fairly when there are rules and they are followed.
You have hit the nail on the head. And if the one inviolate rule is, “you shall not cause harm to another in the process of living your life as you see fit,” then practically no other rules are required.
If that were taught in school, society as a whole would be more moral and would require fewer “rules” dictating how to live their lives.
Otherwise the strong dominate the weak, the rich dominate the poor, and the powerful dominate the powerless. What you describe is anarchy.
Only when you assume there is no government to enforce the single inviolate rule described above.
The free market finds slavery, child labor, pollution, unrestricted hours, no vacations, and monopoly abuse all very profitable. I guess that makes those things ok then.
An immoral free market would. One that followed the inviolate rule above would not.
Now . . . how do you enforce that one inviolate rule?
Hey Loser: thanks for the script info. I’m not smart enough to use it but its nice to know some others are ((if it does?)).
The thing about human beings is we are too adaptable. To the good, to the bad, across the entire spectrum.
Thats why we need rules, society, the angels of our better nature, to nudge us towards something that will work?
A little bit of greed motivates well and is necessary. Too much greed and the society devolves to gated communities.
Everything a balance.
Thats why libertarianism ((and everything else)) fails when it becomes dogma.
Arguing for dogma without balance is – - – - – yes – - – - stupid.
This guy would have been smarter if he burnt down his house and his airplane and ate free meals and received free health care for his obese self at debtors prison on the taxpayer’s dime — er I mean on the national debt’s dime.
Why resort to violence and your own demise when you can resort to LOL sarcasm?
Human societies have levied and collected taxes for as long as they have existed, at least ten thousand years. Even Jesus refused to condemn them when his enemies tried to get him into trouble with the secular authorities (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”). They have also always imposed rules and codes of conduct and regulations of trade. To come along at this late date and claim it’s all wrong and evil, no matter what, smacks of a sort of Flat Earth Society institutionalized monomania. This is the kind of anti-society, anti-civilization propaganda the Communists were accused of fomenting back in the 1950s, but today is being espoused by our own home-grown nutballs.
BmoreBadBoy and his easily swayed and easily angered ilk are being led down a primrose path that logically leads to anarchy, the dissolution of our society, government and nation.
Personally, I’d rather not live through another period of general warfare and chaos. Even if the deaths of two or three billion people might be a good thing for the Earth’s ecosystems, I still don’t think it’s a good idea.
I wonder why these people even bother to continue to live in the U.S., or anywhere in North or South America, Europe or Australia. Currently the only places in the world where they can live tax-free are Somalia, in Africa, and a few of the *-stans, in Asia.
To quote Leo Amery quoting Oliver Cromwell: “Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” Goodbye and good luck with that and write if you find work…
#83 tcc3 – Nobody said there shouldn’t be rules. I just said those rules shouldn’t come from the monopoly that is government. If government makes the rules, judges, and enforces those rules to “protect us from each other”, who governs the government? Nobody! That’s why government officials get away with extortion and mass murder. If you don’t like what your government is doing, you’re pretty powerless to change it, but still have to fund it, as most of the libertarian minded feel. The alternative is to live by the nonaggression principle, which LibertyLover described so succinctly. Most of us already live by it today, with one exception: We allow government to violate it, in order for it to keep us from violating it, forgetting that government is made up of people like us. Kind of bass-akwards when you think about it. The reason we have a government right now is because most people believe it is the best form of society(the result of 12 years of brain-washing from government schools). That’s why we don’t have a monarchy. I just want to educate as many people as possible about the nonaggression principle. That way, we’d have a society that gets along without the need for government. And slavery would be an outright violation of that principle. Pollution would also be an outright violation of that principle, because in a free society you wouldn’t have government owned public property, so if your pollution affected your neighbor’s property, you’d have to answer to that neighbor. But that’s another can of worms…
The free market always balances supply and demand. If anyone is free to start a business, then you will have many businesses competing with each other for the best employees. So if company A offers no benefits (i.e. lesser pay, no vacations, long hours, poor work environment, etc.) to its employees, then the better employees will leave company A to go work for company B, which offers more benefits to its employees, while company A is stuck with lesser skilled employees. Company C sees the success company B is enjoying, and the demise of company A, and attempts to lure B’s employees to itself. So on, and so forth, until the balance of benefits for the employees and the making of profits for the companies are achieved. Add to that the increase of productivity due to advancement in technology, and you get a stronger, more efficient economy. The higher productivity gets, the less hours you work and the more you get paid doing it, since it takes less people and less time to get the same job done. That way, children who had to work before, will no longer have to because the parents will make more money. And those who lost their jobs due to productivity would find better things to do with their time, providing other products or services to those doing the old jobs. Of course, no system is perfect, but without taxes, people could donate more money to charities to help the “less fortunate”. Not to mention insurance companies for unemployment, so on and so forth.
The only way a monopoly can exist in a free market is if that company did such a great job at pleasing the consumer and its employees while making a profit that no other company could compete with it. Who wouldn’t want that? And the moment it tried to start raising prices, it would be opening itself to competition that could undercut its prices, etc. Not to mention, even if there is a monopoly in one market, it is still competing for money with other markets. For example, Burger King competes with McDonald’s for your burger money, but it also competes with KFC for the same money. With government, however, huge corporations use regulations, licenses, copyrights, courts, etc. to keep competition limited.
#87, Personally, I’d rather not live through another period of general warfare and chaos
And that is the crux of the whole argument.
Fear rules people. And if you can control what they are afraid of, you can do whatever you want to them.
In this particular instance, people are afraid to go without a big government “protecting” them from the bad guys when the government can do no such thing. But the government has convinced so many people it can, these people are willing to put up with a lot of BS for that false sense of security.
#89 LibertyLover – Amen. And this fear comes from 12 years of brainwashing through government schooling, not to mention the media, and what passes as common knowledge in this society which most never pause a second to question.