Not a word about Zionists, neo-cons or Jews in the entire six pages. LaRouchers have a thing about Jews. A very big thing.
By what is known so far it is *likely* that Joe Stack was a Tea Party attendee.
Why is it likely? Because he hated the IRS? Is it also likely that he's marched with Code Pink because he hated Bush?
He is not a communist.
He quotes Marx favorably in direct contrast to an anti-capitalist play on Marx's words. After reading the entire screed again, I don't think he knew what he was. But he was clearly more sympathetic to communism than he was to what's left of our system -- probably because no communist country's revenue service had ever audited him.
Why are you and the others trying to stiffle discussion?
Speaking for myself, because we crossed into the realm of praising the guy. One poster -- who is either a troll or a ticking time-bomb -- said he loved Stack and suggested we have an obligation to follow in his footsteps. It was the single most bizarre post I've ever read here. And it's the kind of thing that can do serious damage to FR should it go viral.
In retrospect, I don't see anything else that rises to the level of that post. So, no, I don't care to see any purge. I just over-reacted to one really disturbing post that struck a nerve.
Thanks for reconsidering and all the re-readimg of posts you did. That’s a good analysis, although I’d still assert he could have been a LaRoucher, and suggest that his anti-Zionism was secondary to his anti-Catholicism.
It’s not clear in his screed WHY he hated Bush. The whole thing only makes sense in small parts, if it makes sense then. As a whole it is confused, insane. A 24 year old grudge against Tax Law Section 1706.
>>By what is known so far it is *likely* that Joe Stack was a Tea Party attendee.
>
>Why is it likely? Because he hated the IRS? Is it also likely that he’s marched with Code Pink because he hated Bush?
I think he’s saying it’s likely because the Tea Party is all about being against government’s ever-encroaching & self-serving arrogance... the twisted maze of laws that we have, ESPECIALLY in the Tax arena, is proof of that; recall Ayn Rand’s line about [governments] controlling people.
>>He is not a communist.
>
>He quotes Marx favorably in direct contrast to an anti-capitalist play on Marx’s words. After reading the entire screed again, I don’t think he knew what he was.
>But he was clearly more sympathetic to communism than he was to what’s left of our system — probably because no communist country’s revenue service had ever audited him.
Well, it could be argued that the “what’s left of our system” is analogous to the hypocrisy of the pharisees that Jesus called them on, that is “whitewashed tombs” which is obviously against the righteousness they pretended/presented outwardly.
The same with our system: they CLAIM that it’s Constitutional, but in reality it isn’t. (See Keelo, the 4th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, the prohibition against bills of attainder and/or ex post facto law...)
>>Why are you and the others trying to stiffle discussion?
>
>Speaking for myself, because we crossed into the realm of praising the guy.
I don’t think there was any praise in my post 403:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2454242/posts?page=403#403
I was more or less just saying that I certainly could sympathize with the guy; being on the receiving end of no-win situations myself... and that the deck is stacked against those who would try to use the laws for their own [governmentally unauthorized] gain/advantage.
>One poster — who is either a troll or a ticking time-bomb — said he loved Stack and suggested we have an obligation to follow in his footsteps.
I didn’t see that post. But to be honest, if it came down to a fight [Civ War II] I should hope that I’d cause the tyrants a lot of pain & inconvenience. {Though until the SHTF we won’t know, will we?}
>It was the single most bizarre post I’ve ever read here.
I’ve read some bizarre posts... but you may be right, I missed the post you’re referring to.
>And it’s the kind of thing that can do serious damage to FR should it go viral.
True, it certainly COULD.
>In retrospect, I don’t see anything else that rises to the level of that post. So, no, I don’t care to see any purge.
Good, because I kinda liked my examples in the aforementioned post.
>I just over-reacted to one really disturbing post that struck a nerve.
I’ve done that myself a few times... so I won’t hold it against you.