Wow. Plane crash in Texas was an attack against the IRS.

[JohnOfSheffield]

Intent, target and publishing it means that this was a terrorist attack.

You don't have to say "well if insurgents who only attack foreign forces are terrorists" to justify that this was a terrorist attack.

It was a terrorist attack based on intent, target and publishing of the cause.

 

[werepossum]

You don't realize, when things start getting truly bad, and people start doing stuff like this guy did, they won't 'give a f&ck' either when they walk into your office and shoot you and your boss in the head. Or make a little home visit. Or some other fun scenario.

Funny thing though: You'll write this off as an impossibility, something that'll never happen, crazy. And if you asked any of the people in that building he flew into what they thought of someone PO'd at them crashing a plane into it, they'd tell you that was an impossibility, something that'll never happen, crazy.

Keep thinking you're better than others...sooner or later, it'll start catching up to you Elites.

Chuck

I don't agree with LegendKiller on much of anything, but how is he being elitist? Insurance is a contract; the insurance company will protect you if an unlikely event causing a great deal of damage happens. The reason the company can do this is that it only insures you against unlikely events and it has a lot of people being insured for the same unlikely events. One of the most basic rules of this contract is that you don't intentionally cause the unlikely event, which raises the chance the unlikely event happens to you to 100%. That's only common sense. If insurance companies paid off houses that the insured burned, then a lot more houses would burn, a lot more resources would be wasted, and ultimately home insurance would become unavailable which would make home loans unavailable. That's not being elitist, it's simply being sensible, and if the insurance company does choose to pay it will be because of fear of bad publicity and loss of business from the mushy headed, not because of some moral principle.

People attempting to kill others to enforce their own societal preferences or excuse their own failings are no better than Muslim terrorists on jihad.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm uncertain if this really falls under terrorism. I don't think anyone could have done anything to prevent this attack, though, short of devoting massive resources to scanning every single web page and following up with every disaffected person out there. The Fort Hood shooter, that was easily stopped, but even there the failure was at a much lower than Obama. You could validly say the culture of extreme political correctness caused the failure, but that exists outside of the president or Congress. I can blame liberalism for the Fort Hood shooting (along with the military's refusal to remove from service someone who obviously was not fit out of PC), but I don't think even liberalism had anything to do with this guy.

I shudder to think of the level of resources and the universal (within America) loss of freedom that would be required to prevent an attack like this.

It was a terrorist attack, no doubt about that, there is nothing that could have been done about it unless you want to turn the US into China with regards to control.

Fort Hood shooter was no act of terrorism, THAT was an individual who had enough and got stressed out to the degree where he saw no way out, the mistake was that he wasn't caught before he had gotten that far.

I'm more surprised that it doesn't happen more often.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I shudder to think of the level of resources and the universal (within America) loss of freedom that would be required to prevent an attack like this.

It might just take a better government.

 

[chucky2]

werepossum: Yes or No: Do you think it's a good idea for the wife and kid to live homeless so the (likely) multi-$Billion insurance company can save $100k so their multi-$Million dollar Exec's can get another .001c on their share price? All the while the family has been paying their monthly insurance? And the wife nor kid burned the place down, and the husband is now dead?

Take away the profits of the company, or whether they're legally entitled to the insurance payout. Do you think that's something you'd consider 'Right' or not?

Chuck

 

[werepossum]

The only thing that I can think of that would prevent things like this is if we improved the way mental health is looked at by society and availability of services. People that kill their families , or shoot up work places, or do what this guy did could have usually been stopped had they just had someone who would take the time to help them cope. The stigma though is that getting help somehow makes you an outcast or defective. If people thought they could go talk to someone anytime they needed help without the stigma a lot of abuse, murder and suicides could be prevented.

This man was evidently a committed atheist judging from his ravings about the Catholic Church. Had he been religious, he would have had access to a minister who could hopefully have defused the situation. I don't disagree with your point about the unnecessary stigma for mental health care in our society, but there are many low cost clinics with mental health counselors and psychiatrists. And this guy was not poor - he owned a Piper Cherokee PA28. That's not a ten grand aircraft, and upkeep isn't cheap either (compared to an automobile or boat, not to other light planes.) He certainly had access to mental health care. I suppose the stigma on mental health care might have played a part in his deciding not to seek it out, but from his rant I see no indication that he thought that any part of the problem was him - the problem was government, the IRS, and "rich people".

 

[Modelworks]

He certainly had access to mental health care. I suppose the stigma on mental health care might have played a part in his deciding not to seek it out, but from his rant I see no indication that he thought that any part of the problem was him - the problem was government, the IRS, and "rich people".

I have worked as a volunteer with a lot of suicidal people and the ones that get to the point of trying to kill themselves all have one thing in common, they don't see other options even if they exist, reality becomes distorted. For this guy it was nobody could help him, nothing could be done to fix the situation, there was no way out. When someone gets to the point of acting on their impulses it is usually too late for them to make the decision on what is the right thing to do, they get tunnel vision.

 

[werepossum]

werepossum: Yes or No: Do you think it's a good idea for the wife and kid to live homeless so the (likely) multi-$Billion insurance company can save $100k so their multi-$Million dollar Exec's can get another .001c on their share price? All the while the family has been paying their monthly insurance? And the wife nor kid burned the place down, and the husband is now dead?

Take away the profits of the company, or whether they're legally entitled to the insurance payout. Do you think that's something you'd consider 'Right' or not?

Chuck

I would say it is absolutely right for the wife and children to NOT be made whole and have their home replaced (probably considerably more than $100K) considering that the husband burned the house. The insurance company (and by extension its stockholders) contracted with them for a specific list of conditions NOT caused by the policy holders - any of the policy holders. That the insurance company turns a profit is immaterial. Profit is not inherently evil. In fact, in this case the profit motive is the only reason he was able to purchase a home in the first place. (I am assuming here that the home is mortgaged.)

If the home had been destroyed by something not technically covered but within the spirit of the agreement - say, because of an asteroid strike - you might have a point. Instead you seem to be quoting from Marx and assuming that because some people have pooled their money to create this insurance company, thereby creating this pool of money, this woman therefore has a claim on that money simply because she needs it.

 

[werepossum]

I have worked as a volunteer with a lot of suicidal people and the ones that get to the point of trying to kill themselves all have one thing in common, they don't see other options even if they exist, reality becomes distorted. For this guy it was nobody could help him, nothing could be done to fix the situation, there was no way out. When someone gets to the point of acting on their impulses it is usually too late for them to make the decision on what is the right thing to do, they get tunnel vision.

So true.

 

[chucky2]

That's not really what I was asking. Let me try again:

They bought home insurance. They paid home insurance. Unless it is some small time insurance company, their insurance Exec's and the business itself has Billions.

Do you think it is morally right for that insurance company, who took their money month after month after month, to leave the wife and kid out on the street with no compensation because the husband burned his house down and then killed himself.

I'm not talking about full compensation, I'm talking about some compensation (and not here's $200, have a nice day).

If you were the owner of the that insurance company, sitting pretty, your company sitting pretty, you'd look the wife and kid right in the eye and say:

"<you fill in the quotes>"

Chuck

 

[woolfe9999]

This man was evidently a committed atheist judging from his ravings about the Catholic Church.

Railing on about corruption in the Catholic church does not make one an atheist. Lots of people complain about corruption in the Catholic church. Even some Catholics do.

- wolf

 

[waggy]

This man was evidently a committed atheist judging from his ravings about the Catholic Church. Had he been religious, he would have had access to a minister who could hopefully have defused the situation. .

not true. Many complain about the curruption of the church (not just catholic either).

even if he was (not sure if he was or not) just because he has access to a minister does not mean he used them.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

That's not really what I was asking. Let me try again:

They bought home insurance. They paid home insurance. Unless it is some small time insurance company, their insurance Exec's and the business itself has Billions.

Do you think it is morally right for that insurance company, who took their money month after month after month, to leave the wife and kid out on the street with no compensation because the husband burned his house down and then killed himself.

I'm not talking about full compensation, I'm talking about some compensation (and not here's $200, have a nice day).

If you were the owner of the that insurance company, sitting pretty, your company sitting pretty, you'd look the wife and kid right in the eye and say:

"<you fill in the quotes>"

Chuck

Hey now, this country has laws that come into play when morality and ethics may threaten the bottom line thank goodness.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This man was evidently a committed atheist judging from his ravings about the Catholic Church.

Just like everyone who raves against other sects are atheists too? Including you in that case.

There is no greater sorrow for a religious man than to feel betrayed by his sect.

The man was probably Catholic and felt let down because the Catholic church was not honest on it's inception, not honest about editing and rewriting scripture and to this day are not honest about the horrors that goes on within the cult.

 

[Fern]

His wife and daughter will live in the new house that their house insurance will buy for them.

-snip-

I suspect that is unlikely.

He (they) owed the IRS money. I suspect he burned it down because they had a lien on it, or were going to get one.

The wife is now on the hook for the IRS debt. (And from reading his manifesto looked like the IRS problem came from her unreported earnings)

Even if she gets homeowners insurance to pay for the house (which I highly doubt), the bank and the IRS will likely get the money (unless their home equity exceeds the combined debts).

-------------------------------

I wouldn't read too much political ideology into his ramblings. What stood out most to me was his frustration/anger over having lost his 'nest egg' several times. You see, it was never his fault. It was a crooked system etc etc.

He loved money more than his life or his family, or other innocent peoples' lives. That's the sadest thing to me, and I don't think he's all that atypical for an American.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I know you can't help being so transparent, but like it or not, you are. he was complaining about what the goverment was doing with HIS TAX MONEY, all the while he was attempting to cheat his way out of paying his fair share.


Teabagger all the way baby!!

Edit: It must suck not being able to admit what party you most closely align with. How embarassing for you guys. LOL

Reality check:

I prepare tax returns for a living.

I've yet to see a democrat/Liberal not complain about taxes; they are always trying to do whatever they can to minimize them just like everyone else.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

I suspect that is unlikely.

He (they) owed the IRS money. I suspect he burned it down because they had a lien on it, or were going to get one.

The wife is now on the hook for the IRS debt. (And from reading his manifesto looked like the IRS problem came from her unreported earnings)

Even if she gets homeowners insurance to pay for the house (which I highly doubt), the bank and the IRS will likely get the money (unless their home equity exceeds the combined debts).

-------------------------------

I wouldn't read too much political ideology into his ramblings. What stood out most to me was his frustration/anger over having lost his 'nest egg' several times. You see, it was never his fault. It was a crooked system etc etc.

He loved money more than his life or his family, or other innocent peoples' lives. That's the sadest thing to me, and I don't think he's all that atypical for an American.

Fern

I suspect he made an Error or received some bad Tax Advice. Early on he talks about some kind of Taxation Scheme, which I suspect failed to pass muster and quite possibly didn't Fail until he was so deep into it that trying to financially fix it was way beyond his Means.

Add in the merciless rigidity of the IRS and the guy was completely in a hopeless situation.

That's my prediction of what went down.

 

[Fern]

It was a terrorist attack, no doubt about that, there is nothing that could have been done about it unless you want to turn the US into China with regards to control.

Fort Hood shooter was no act of terrorism, THAT was an individual who had enough and got stressed out to the degree where he saw no way out, the mistake was that he wasn't caught before he had gotten that far.

I'm more surprised that it doesn't happen more often.

Ft Hood shooter was a terrorist. Hell, he had been trying to contact Al Qaeda etc.

This guy was angry about his losing his savings again and blamed it on the 'system' etc. The only reason he attacked the IRS is because they were the ones taking his money.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I suspect he made an Error or received some bad Tax Advice. Early on he talks about some kind of Taxation Scheme, which I suspect failed to pass muster and quite possibly didn't Fail until he was so deep into it that trying to financially fix it was way beyond his Means.

Add in the merciless rigidity of the IRS and the guy was completely in a hopeless situation.

That's my prediction of what went down.

That was part of it, the last straw.

He also complained about getting hit with the .com bust. Lost his job and money etc.

Then complained that after moving Austin he couldn't get paid as much as he wanted because of a 'conspiracy' by the few corporation there who utilized his type of service.

Money was his focus. If a bank had forclosed on his home, he'd have probably crashed into them. His ideology is money, with a big dose of victimhood thrown in.

Fern

 

[NoStateofMind]

You guys keep calling him a nutjob, he just took the grievances we all have and went too damn far.

Most of the gripes in his manifesto are the same we spew out here, left and right on a daily basis. Our system is fucked and this guy has had enough.

Yes, he's crazy for taking it to this level, for killing himself and for trying to kill others, but the roots of his unhappiness are present in all of us to varying degrees.

Its about damn time someone said it right!

 

[werepossum]

That's not really what I was asking. Let me try again:

They bought home insurance. They paid home insurance. Unless it is some small time insurance company, their insurance Exec's and the business itself has Billions.

Do you think it is morally right for that insurance company, who took their money month after month after month, to leave the wife and kid out on the street with no compensation because the husband burned his house down and then killed himself.

I'm not talking about full compensation, I'm talking about some compensation (and not here's $200, have a nice day).

If you were the owner of the that insurance company, sitting pretty, your company sitting pretty, you'd look the wife and kid right in the eye and say:

"<you fill in the quotes>"

Chuck

I absolutely think it is morally right for the insurance company, who took their money month after month to protect them against events beyond their control, to leave the wife and kid out on the street with no compensation because the husband burned the house down, whether or not he then killed himself. I am assuming here that ONE policy was issued to the couple and that there are no exceptions (within the policy and also within applicable state law) for mental incapacity - which WOULD be beyond their control and thus MIGHT give them a legal leg to stand on. Assuming my insurance company has billions (not all do), it would be an abject betrayal of the nice people who gave me part of their life savings to invest if I handed out their money because I felt sorry for someone. An insurance company does not receive money to go out and pay off people who are pitiable, but to provide a good and honest service at an acceptable price in order to earn a profit (or in the case of organizations like BCBS, to provide such a service at cost, to benefit its members.) Unless this is a privately owned insurance company (and I doubt there even is one that can insure houses), the man running it doesn't own the money; he is under a mandate to manage it for others. He has a moral requirement to honor his part of that mandate, as well as to honor his part of the contracts into which his company enters. There is no Grace in seizing other people's money to do good.

If I'm in charge, however, I'd probably quietly negotiate with the widow to make up part of her losses, perhaps to pay off the outstanding loan balance - not because it is morally right, but because of the bad publicity from people like you who feel that big corporations have an obligation to protect people from themselves (and in this case, their spouses.) Depending on the circumstances, it might make sense to keep her happy if it can be done quietly, keep down bad press. It would NOT make sense to do it publicly because there are numerous other people who also feel that the insurance company should bail them out - their spouse neglected to make the payment, their kid burned down the house, a flood destroyed it and they didn't buy flood insurance, they didn't know you couldn't weld wood, and so on ad nauseum.

Valid point that the guy might not be an atheist, guys. I know a number of Baptists and NDCs who say much the same thing about the Catholic Church. If he had an available clergyman, he either failed to use him (perhaps for the reason Modelworks suggested) or received really bad ministering. I think however from his rant that he rejected the idea that he himself bore any blame for his situation, which wouldn't lead him to seek help for himself.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ft Hood shooter was a terrorist. Hell, he had been trying to contact Al Qaeda etc.

This guy was angry about his losing his savings again and blamed it on the 'system' etc. The only reason he attacked the IRS is because they were the ones taking his money.

Fern

It's entirely possible that he might have been a potential terrorist but his act was not an act of terrorism. It had no direct cause, no published agenda, no civilian setting.

This guy had a cause, a target of civilians and published his cause. THAT is a terrorist act.

I'm sorry if the whole "but he wasn't Muslim" gets in your way of understanding terrorism but terrorism isn't and Islamic thing and no, you can't just make shit up to be terrorism as you go along no matter how much you try.

Insurgents are not terrorists, most people who fight foreign forces are NOT terrorists, people who plant road bombs for foreign military vehicles are NOT terrorists.

That fucking use of the buzz word needs to stop so we can focus on the REAL terrorists and leave Iraq and most of Afghanistan alone to rebuild their nation while fighting the REAL terrorists.

 

[LegendKiller]

werepossum: Yes or No: Do you think it's a good idea for the wife and kid to live homeless so the (likely) multi-$Billion insurance company can save $100k so their multi-$Million dollar Exec's can get another .001c on their share price? All the while the family has been paying their monthly insurance? And the wife nor kid burned the place down, and the husband is now dead?

Take away the profits of the company, or whether they're legally entitled to the insurance payout. Do you think that's something you'd consider 'Right' or not?

Chuck

Either you're a complete moron, or you're 16, probably both.

1. An insurance policy is a contract. That contract likely includes a suicide provision or against fraud. You expect the company to honor the contract even if the policy holder wont? Fuck that.

Insurance isn't a guaranty, it is a hedge against risk. You can't create your own risk and expect somebody to hedge it. If this company honored the policy then ALL policies of people who intentionally set fire to their house, then killed themselves, would have to be paid.

Don't be dense.

2. Premiums are paid by ALL policy holders underwritten to common risk metrics (number of accidents, health of the policy holder, size of the house...etc). If they started honoring this they'd fuck up the risk metrics. Naturally, this would feed into the fact that risk metrics can't predict anything, thus, ALL policy holders are now more risky.

This means that ALL policy holders get fucked due to more systemic risk. So, not only do YOU pay for it in higher premiums (to cover this one asshole) you cover it for ALL assholes (since the ins. company can't sort out non-assholes from assholes).

3. Most insurance companies are owned by shareholders. Since ~80&#37; of all stocks are owned by institutions and most of those are mutual funds or pensions, that means that reduced profitability fucks 80% of common shareholders. That means because this assfuck, like you, was a self-centered loser, everybody else (society) has to take a hit. Fuck him, fuck you.

Do you need anything else there sparky? Do you really expect to be taken seriously here with such obvious gaps in knowledge and logic?


Now get your pansy assed communist/anarchy bullshit out of here. This guy was a selfish coward and you're a fucking retard.

 

[werepossum]

Either you're a complete moron, or you're 16, probably both.

1. An insurance policy is a contract. That contract likely includes a suicide provision or against fraud. You expect the company to honor the contract even if the policy holder wont? Fuck that.

Insurance isn't a guaranty, it is a hedge against risk. You can't create your own risk and expect somebody to hedge it. If this company honored the policy then ALL policies of people who intentionally set fire to their house, then killed themselves, would have to be paid.

Don't be dense.

2. Premiums are paid by ALL policy holders underwritten to common risk metrics (number of accidents, health of the policy holder, size of the house...etc). If they started honoring this they'd fuck up the risk metrics. Naturally, this would feed into the fact that risk metrics can't predict anything, thus, ALL policy holders are now more risky.

This means that ALL policy holders get fucked due to more systemic risk. So, not only do YOU pay for it in higher premiums (to cover this one asshole) you cover it for ALL assholes (since the ins. company can't sort out non-assholes from assholes).

3. Most insurance companies are owned by shareholders. Since ~80% of all stocks are owned by institutions and most of those are mutual funds or pensions, that means that reduced profitability fucks 80% of common shareholders. That means because this assfuck, like you, was a self-centered loser, everybody else (society) has to take a hit. Fuck him, fuck you.

Do you need anything else there sparky? Do you really expect to be taken seriously here with such obvious gaps in knowledge and logic?


Now get your pansy assed communist/anarchy bullshit out of here. This guy was a selfish coward and you're a fucking retard.

Wait - I'm confused. How do you really feel? LOL

Excellent Internet rant - mean, focused, and absolutely unrebutable.

 

[cKGunslinger]

I usually disagree with a lot of LK's posts, but here's a /salute to that last one.