I ask because he seemed particularly down on GWB yet a number of the Teabaggers I've seen have been pretty pro-Bush Co. His rant seemed more violent Libertarian to me, honestly.
Yeah, that basically should put paid to thinking that Obama is anything like a leftist - if you can only identify terrorism when it's perpetrated by non-Anglos, you can't identify terrorism.
Well, define "terrorism". I'd call it terrorism because it's an act of violence intended to promote a political agenda, but that's not how the U.S. Code's criminal statutes define terrorism for the purposes of terrorism charges.
Actually, if you read his final manifesto, it's part anti-tax and part anti-capitalism, so it might not be quite teabagger. It's probably just, y'know, insane fucktard.
(d) Definitions As used in this section— (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism; (4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country— (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization— (i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or (ii) as a transit point; and (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under— (i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50; (ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or (iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
Exactly. He's not a subnational group or a clandestine agent.
It's like "rape". What is strictly rape by the legal definition and what might be thought of as "rape" are not always one and the same, and it's probably better for government spokespeople to stick to the legal definitions.
Well, it's insane in part because it's not like he was actually screwed over. Rather, he attempted to hardcore evade the tax code and lost his shit because he got constantly called out for it. This guy has a good summary.
Good for you. People have been protesting the IRS for decades. 'Tea Party' is a recent movement protesting the Stimulus bills and deficit spending.
Labeling someone a 'Tea Partiest' or worse a 'Tea Bagger' on no real evidence is as bad as labeling some random criminal a 'Muslim terrorist' or whatever. It suggests that all Muslims throw bombs -- or all Tea Party people do violence.
A Google search for [ IRS "Tea Party" -Austin -plane ] doesn't find much, so apparently the IRS has not been a big issue for Tea Party people.
What evidence do you have of Tea Party people being violent? Also, some are Libertarian but most are not. (And ftm, most Libertarians aren't really violent, either.)
I did a search in the rant (posted at my LJ) for terms like 'tea', 'stimulus', 'deficit', and 'Obama' and found none; those are big Tea Party issues and would be expected if he were sympathetic to the Tea Party.
There was an insult to the Catholic church (and by implication all churches that get tax deductions); not a Tea Party issue, they seem to mostly be socially conservative and religious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:21 pm (UTC)O_o
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:23 pm (UTC)Did he go to any tea parties? Unknown. Probably, he talks about meeting up with various "groups" that were "attempting to mount a campaign".
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 11:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:09 am (UTC)I actually know and respect some tax-paying Libertarians.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 12:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 01:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 01:15 am (UTC)Ahhhh, lack of brown people. Never mind, carry on. I have some headdesking to do
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 01:49 am (UTC)(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 01:51 am (UTC)It's like "rape". What is strictly rape by the legal definition and what might be thought of as "rape" are not always one and the same, and it's probably better for government spokespeople to stick to the legal definitions.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 01:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 02:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 03:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 03:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 03:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 04:19 am (UTC)Wasn't catholic, either.
http://mashable.com/2010/02/18/austin-plane-crash/ has the manifesto
He was a software engineer, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 04:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 04:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 05:36 am (UTC)Agreed.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 09:33 am (UTC)Labeling someone a 'Tea Partiest' or worse a 'Tea Bagger' on no real evidence is as bad as labeling some random criminal a 'Muslim terrorist' or whatever. It suggests that all Muslims throw bombs -- or all Tea Party people do violence.
A Google search for [ IRS "Tea Party" -Austin -plane ] doesn't find much, so apparently the IRS has not been a big issue for Tea Party people.
Maybe he was just a D&D player.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 11:17 am (UTC)I did a search in the rant (posted at my LJ) for terms like 'tea', 'stimulus', 'deficit', and 'Obama' and found none; those are big Tea Party issues and would be expected if he were sympathetic to the Tea Party.
There was an insult to the Catholic church (and by implication all churches that get tax deductions); not a Tea Party issue, they seem to mostly be socially conservative and religious.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 04:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-20 12:18 am (UTC)It's not terrorism because he's not that color.