Texas IRS building

[mr_pack]

Thoughts on the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building? Am I way off base on this?

Just from what I have been hearing it seems like he is painted as a crazy person who hates paying taxes. I just recently read his “manifesto” - I think most Americans would empathize with him and maybe there is a certain notion made by the media to make him seem crazy so people don’t follow in his footsteps. I think most of his points are valid…the idea right now is that everyone is struggling, yet executives get a nice pay day from the government while people are losing their homes and can not find work. Also how he goes on about how politicians that run this country are just self serving and he complains a lot about big business and such.

It is terrible that he killed someone and injured a few people which really are the wrong ways to do things. I don’t think his intent was to kill mass amounts of people even though it might seem like that but rather bring attention to what he believes. Maybe he should have done his act after business hours so maybe it could be shown he isn’t a crazy murderer…or maybe that is he who he really is. If he wanted to kill people, he could have bought a gun and gone on a crazy rampage inside the IRS building. I could go on about the “founding fathers” quotes and actions of what they did back in the day, I think it would look a lot similar to what this guy did today but today we label him a crazy criminal/terrorist rather than a revolutionist type.

When I was debating with someone on this topic about “how this guy might have some validity in what he was trying to accomplish”, all they kept doing is referring to the violent act and saying that I condone what he did....no, what he did is not acceptable… but how do you bring about change other than making a huge statement like he did? Since he already made up his mind of doing such an act, he should have done it after hours so then maybe if his goal was to get people to rally around his idea then it might seem like he might be a bit rational since he took into consideration of other peoples life.

[NevadaConvert]

A person that kills innocent people has no right to any kind of empathy. He's a domestic terrorist just like McVeigh. He's no different and he could've caused a major collapse that could've killed lots of people....people that didn't even work for the IRS (like it should matter anyway). If he didn't want to kill a lot of people, then he would've flown his plane into the building in the middle of the night and made sure there weren't any janitors or whoever in there.


He's a Grade-A POS.

[Slapdad]

I don't think the media has painted him as being crazy.....I think he did that all by himself. I read his manifesto and, while he may have some valid points about the tax code being difficult to understand and politicians being out for themselves and all of that.....but you know what. That's life. Deal with it like a grown up. If it gets to be too much, go talk to someone. If that doesn't do the trick and you still feel like you're in a hole you'll never get out of, then make your statement without hurting innocent people. Everyone has those "what if I...." thoughts at some point, but having them and acting on them are two completely things. If he thought he was going to make a statement to affect change, he went about it the wrong way. Nobody is going to listen to someone that comes across as being nuts.....if anyone in Washington said "you know what, that cuckoo has a point", they would be run out of town on the next election, if not sooner.

Taxes suck....but the tax structure here is so much better than most of the world.
The Tax Code is confusing.....but it is what it is because people kept finding loopholes and figuring out how to not pay taxes.
Politicians are in it for themselves. Guess what.....just about everyone in the world is.

He has screwed his family for life.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Exactly. The guy's manifesto showed his craziness and flying a plane into a building proved it. No help from the media was needed.

[thevoice]

It takes no guts to do what he did. He was a gutless sissy until the very end. If you've got a problem with the IRS, go after the guy at the top Geithner. Don't kill a bunch of innocent people that were just doing their jobs. Also, I'm sure they had paid their taxes, unlike Geithner.

[mr_pack]

I am not some radical so I will try to choose my words carefully and precisely.

My issue with something like this is what about what happen to the loyalist prior and during the revolution, are we at a point where we just disregard what happened 200+ years ago. I don’t want to say targeting federal buildings is what I am advocating for, but what do you do to bring about change in our current government. Groups like the Sons of Liberty, Minutemen and other notable men in our history are considered heroes and patriots today but really their antics were just as insane and destructive but we shed a different light on them. If they lived by a philosophy of “Just deal with it” when they thought they were subjected to excessive taxes, chances are we still would be supporting the queen.

It has been said that the 2nd amendment was made to protect yourself from the government, now I do realize he used a plane but it seems to have been a concern back in the day in regards to fighting against what one might think is tyranny - so it seems to be of some importance for the positioning of the 2nd amendment hence it was not stated “in no particular order” for the Bill of Rights.

Today it seems that if an American wants to attack his government violently, he is labeled a terrorist. What Al Qaeda did I believe is terrorism, but what this guy did in Texas I feel he did it more to go back to the roots of the ideals this country was founded on. So really my issue is I find it difficult to automatically label him as some sort of domestic terrorist, whom I actually do consider him on the cusp of being a terrorist, but I think 230 years ago he would be considered a hero for trying to bring change in the system to which he was living under. I do support our current system but a lot of people don’t, so if they want change what do they do…sit quietly or take drastic measures as this guy did.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I am not some radical so I will try to choose my words carefully and precisely.

My issue with something like this is what about what happen to the loyalist prior and during the revolution, are we at a point where we just disregard what happened 200+ years ago. I don’t want to say targeting federal buildings is what I am advocating for, but what do you do to bring about change in our current government. Groups like the Sons of Liberty, Minutemen and other notable men in our history are considered heroes and patriots today but really their antics were just as insane and destructive but we shed a different light on them. If they lived by a philosophy of “Just deal with it” when they thought they were subjected to excessive taxes, chances are we still would be supporting the queen.

It has been said that the 2nd amendment was made to protect yourself from the government, now I do realize he used a plane but it seems to have been a concern back in the day in regards to fighting against what one might think is tyranny - so it seems to be of some importance for the positioning of the 2nd amendment hence it was not stated “in no particular order” for the Bill of Rights.

Today it seems that if an American wants to attack his government violently, he is labeled a terrorist. What Al Qaeda did I believe is terrorism, but what this guy did in Texas I feel he did it more to go back to the roots of the ideals this country was founded on. So really my issue is I find it difficult to automatically label him as some sort of domestic terrorist, whom I actually do consider him on the cusp of being a terrorist, but I think 230 years ago he would be considered a hero for trying to bring change in the system to which he was living under. I do support our current system but a lot of people don’t, so if they want change what do they do…sit quietly or take drastic measures as this guy did.
Your view of history is completely wrong IMHO. The colonists were required to pay taxes with no right to vote on whether those taxes were just or how those taxes would be used. Their rights were restricted in many other ways as well. They were restricted from buying their tea from anyone but England to force them to pay the tax. There were many other goods that colonists were not allowed to trade in as well and their rights to petition the government on these issues was also limited or non existant. It's a completely different thing as none of these things now apply.

Our elected representatives put these taxes in place. We voted them in. These taxes are not being imposed by some third party over which we have no control. We can vote them out of office and change these taxes...something we could never do 250 years ago.

[mr_pack]

Your view of history is completely wrong IMHO. The colonists were required to pay taxes with no right to vote on whether those taxes were just or how those taxes would be used. Their rights were restricted in many other ways as well. They were restricted from buying their tea from anyone but England to force them to pay the tax. There were many other goods that colonists were not allowed to trade in as well and their rights to petition the government on these issues was also limited or non existant. It's a completely different thing as none of these things now apply.

Our elected representatives put these taxes in place. We voted them in. These taxes are not being imposed by some third party over which we have no control. We can vote them out of office and change these taxes...something we could never do 250 years ago.


I agree with you on the reasoning by the colonist…but does that justify their violent actions?


“Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims”

“I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say”

“During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time”

“In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws”

Right 250 years ago we didn’t have the option of voting people out of office…but I think we can’t vote people out of office today. Yes we can get rid of a particular person but they will just be replaced by the same person in essence. Lets take Obama for example, fresh new face with a great tag line on changing everything yet look around.

I realize all the statements I have quoted by him are all “boo who pity me” quotes but I feel they are in line with what you said about what the colonist were going through. By his quotes it seemed that he felt he was being taxed excessively, no one listened, and feels there is no way of bring about change with current system. I do understand that you cant be heard in a country of +300million people but if you feel like you are being taxed without representation...what shall you do?

Some reason I have gained a lot of interest in this story and I am trying to really understand any parallels from back in the revolution era to what this guy was trying to accomplish today or even if there is a parallel - while everyone jumps to a certain conclusion resulting in him being a crazy nut, the act was crazy and uncalled for but his reasoning I feel is not that crazy.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I agree with you on the reasoning by the colonist…but does that justify their violent actions?



Right 250 years ago we didn’t have the option of voting people out of office…but I think we can’t vote people out of office today. Yes we can get rid of a particular person but they will just be replaced by the same person in essence. Lets take Obama for example, fresh new face with a great tag line on changing everything yet look around.

I realize all the statements I have quoted by him are all “boo who pity me” quotes but I feel they are in line with what you said about what the colonist were going through. By his quotes it seemed that he felt he was being taxed excessively, no one listened, and feels there is no way of bring about change with current system. I do understand that you cant be heard in a country of +300million people but if you feel like you are being taxed without representation...what shall you do?

Some reason I have gained a lot of interest in this story and I am trying to really understand any parallels from back in the revolution era to what this guy was trying to accomplish today or even if there is a parallel - while everyone jumps to a certain conclusion resulting in him being a crazy nut, the act was crazy and uncalled for but his reasoning I feel is not that crazy.
There are no parallels with the American Revolution. They didn't rise up to stop taxation. They rose up to secure their freedom from what was a foreign sovereign who oppressed the colonists and did not grant them the same rights and liberty (equal rights under the law) that those in England received.


I can accept that some laws are so immoral that they should be disobeyed. The underground railroad is an example of that. Standing up for equal rights under the law is another example.

I don't agree that dislike for the tax laws falls under that, but if someone wants to refuse to pay taxes they can do so. They can raise the issue and get elected or they have the freedom to unite with others to elect people they feel will change the laws to what they want. If the majority does not feel as strongly on that issue and will not unite with you to do something about it...you're simply on the wrong side of the issue or your emphasis on that issue is far beyond that of the majority. Dislike for the lawful choices of your fellow citizens doesn't give you the right to go attempt to murder innocent people, and making that attempt sure doesn't make you a hero.

You are advocating the murder of minor bureaucrats and the violent overthrow of a government that the vast majority of the country supports. This guy was no John Brown; he was a Timothy McVeigh. And he sure as heck was no Paul Revere alerting us all that "The taxman is coming! The taxman is coming!"

[wolfin1]

Well said SIS. To add, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

[Slapdad]

Agreed......this guy (despite what his daughter is saying in the paper today) is more Tim McVeigh than anything else. What makes this guy any different than the Unabomber (and why is it spelled "una" instead of "uni".....he got the name from targeting universities???)....he is rebelling against something he views as a threat by killing innocent people and writes a manifesto. Joe Stack is Ted Kaczynski with a norelco and who lived beyond his means rather than beneath them. I don't have much sympathy for a guy complaining about how paying taxes was ruining him when he has a plane and tons of expensive musical equipment. He had started two software companies, but both were shut down by a Franchise Tax board, one for non-payment of back taxes totalling ($1,153. That's $1,153 dollars.....to keep your company going???? Are kidding me??) and once for not filing a return at all. I understand that the Tax Code may be confusing at times, but that doesn't mean you just blow it off. Being an adult means having responsibilities and paying your taxes is one of them. Most tax agencies are very accommodating and will work with you.

[Blueblood]

Agreed......this guy (despite what his daughter is saying in the paper today) is more Tim McVeigh than anything else. What makes this guy any different than the Unabomber (and why is it spelled "una" instead of "uni".....he got the name from targeting universities???)....he is rebelling against something he views as a threat by killing innocent people and writes a manifesto. Joe Stack is Ted Kaczynski with a norelco and who lived beyond his means rather than beneath them. I don't have much sympathy for a guy complaining about how paying taxes was ruining him when he has a plane and tons of expensive musical equipment. He had started two software companies, but both were shut down by a Franchise Tax board, one for non-payment of back taxes totalling ($1,153. That's $1,153 dollars.....to keep your company going???? Are kidding me??) and once for not filing a return at all. I understand that the Tax Code may be confusing at times, but that doesn't mean you just blow it off. Being an adult means having responsibilities and paying your taxes is one of them. Most tax agencies are very accommodating and will work with you.

...and the house he tried to claim as a church. The guy was nothing more than a freeloading terrorist - he gets no sympathy from me. Here's a question, do you think if he wouldn't have been caught for all the times he didn't pay taxes, would he still have made the same statement he did? I don't think so. He only did what he did because he got caught, otherwise he'd be bragging to all his friends on how he outsmarted the government in not paying thousands of taxes.

[PACKFAN22]

While I do not agree with the actions taken by this individual, I think he is getting his intended effect. Think about this, this is a thread on a sports community forum. Imagine what all the tax forums are talking about, and all the major newspapers, etc. Now it may only be a small flurry of activity, but guess what now a lot of people know about it. whether they agree with it they have now heard what the IRS was doing to this individual.

Trying to draw parallels to the US revolution is going to be tough. He didn't take a stand against soldiers or a highly oppressive government, he attacked unarmed civilians with an airplane. He has a voice in his government, there are other means that are not nearly as drastic to get word of your cause out there. With the internet, everything is just a few clicks away.

[Stuck in Seattle]

While I do not agree with the actions taken by this individual, I think he is getting his intended effect. Think about this, this is a thread on a sports community forum. Imagine what all the tax forums are talking about, and all the major newspapers, etc. Now it may only be a small flurry of activity, but guess what now a lot of people know about it. whether they agree with it they have now heard what the IRS was doing to this individual.

Trying to draw parallels to the US revolution is going to be tough. He didn't take a stand against soldiers or a highly oppressive government, he attacked unarmed civilians with an airplane. He has a voice in his government, there are other means that are not nearly as drastic to get word of your cause out there. With the internet, everything is just a few clicks away.
Everyone except the far left and far right fringes of political debate think the guy is an absolute lunatic. The TEA Party is already and effective voice for tax issues and they are doing it the way you're supposed to in a representative democracy. This guy just clouded the debate. He didn't advance it.

[PACKFAN22]

Everyone except the far left and far right fringes of political debate think the guy is an absolute lunatic. The TEA Party is already and effective voice for tax issues and they are doing it the way you're supposed to in a representative democracy. This guy just clouded the debate. He didn't advance it.
I agree that a majority of people think he is a lunatic, but it's those fringe people that could take his cause and run with it. The TEA party is a good taxation representative, but maybe he didn't know, or didn't believe that they would be helpful to him. There are too many things that I don't know about his situation to be able to pass judgment on his cause. However I will pass judgment on his cations as being despicable.

[wolf_chatter]

I agree with some of what he had to say but the way to deal with it isn't to murder people and leave your family to deal with what you have done.

Anyone that compares this to the revolution doesn't understand the revolution but there are also some things about the revolution that aren't all high and idealistic either. Did you know that a majority of the "founding fathers" where in debt to creditors in the uk for farming equipment and seed to the tunes of 100,000 to upwards of a million dollars in today's money? Guess what happened to that debt when we became our own country? That's right poof gone.. I suggest u read a book called an An Imperfect God, it will piss you off when you realize how much of what you learn in school is bullshit! It's stunning!

[Stuck in Seattle]

I agree with some of what he had to say but the way to deal with it isn't to murder people and leave your family to deal with what you have done.

Anyone that compares this to the revolution doesn't understand the revolution but there are also some things about the revolution that aren't all high and idealistic either. Did you know that a majority of the "founding fathers" where in debt to creditors in the uk for farming equipment and seed to the tunes of 100,000 to upwards of a million dollars in today's money? Guess what happened to that debt when we became our own country? That's right poof gone.. I suggest u read a book called an An Imperfect God, it will piss you off when you realize how much of what you learn in school is bullshit! It's stunning!
If a big share of the populace hadn't been willing to back the revolution, there would have been no revolution.

The rich always back the status quo unless there is something in it for them to rise up - hence the loyalists who benefited from British rule and remained loyal.

Expecting such people to be saints is beyond naive. What was accomplished shook the world, changed history and has benefited all mankind. These men also risked everything they had including their lives to gain independence. Pick at nits all you want...these men are legends and heroes, albeit human like everyone else.

And the British, by the way, could easily have avoided the war if they'd simply given the colonists some of what they demanded.

[wolf_chatter]

If a big share of the populace hadn't been willing to back the revolution, there would have been no revolution.

The rich always back the status quo unless there is something in it for them to rise up - hence the loyalists who benefited from British rule and remained loyal.

Expecting such people to be saints is beyond naive. What was accomplished shook the world, changed history and has benefited all mankind. These men also risked everything they had including their lives to gain independence. Pick at nits all you want...these men are legends and heroes, albeit human like everyone else.

And the British, by the way, could easily have avoided the war if they'd simply given the colonists some of what they demanded.

And I am not nit-picking. Having all the facts is necessary to view an event in the best light. Acting as if there weren't any selfish motives isn't seeing the real history. I do agree that most of the reasons were valid reasons and American's at the time had every right to do what they did, although I disagree with your assertion that England could have kept the revolution from happening if they had just placated the colonies. I think the war was coming sooner than later anyway. Being ruled by someone months away by boat wasn't going to be accepted for very much longer even if they allowed Americans some say in the way their Gov.t is run.

[Stuck in Seattle]

And I am not nit-picking. Having all the facts is necessary to view an event in the best light. Acting as if there weren't any selfish motives isn't seeing the real history. I do agree that most of the reasons were valid reasons and American's at the time had every right to do what they did, although I disagree with your assertion that England could have kept the revolution from happening if they had just placated the colonies. I think the war was coming sooner than later anyway. Being ruled by someone months away by boat wasn't going to be accepted for very much longer even if they allowed Americans some say in the way their Gov.t is run.
Canada and Australia.

[Stuck in Seattle]

And by giving them what they wanted, that would have meant representation in Parliament, the right to free trade and other things. But the British did not want to grant them equality and representation.

[wolf_chatter]

Canada and Australia.

those countries for whatever reason didn't break free as fast as you would have thought.