This website has been taken offline due to the sensitive nature of the events that transpired in Texas this morning and in compliance with a request from the FBI.
Regards,
T35 Hosting
....and the taxes of Texans are going to pay for this building to be repaired. Thanks, Mr. Stack.
.... must suppress urge to start taking flying lessons ...
.... must suppress urge to start taking flying lessons ...
I was pricing flight schools this morning, before this happened. It's not that expensive.
If by "many" you mean 40 hours of flight time..... must suppress urge to start taking flying lessons ...
I was pricing flight schools this morning, before this happened. It's not that expensive.
I'm pretty sure it is. You need many hours of experience before you can get your license.
The important thing is that they're not getting a penny from me in taxes. Ever. Not for a cigarette, not for a cup of coffee (tariffs), not even for fuel tax if I can help it!
You can only fly a plane into a building once, and most people will not follow your example. But if you practice tax resistance throughout your whole life, then you can teach others to do the same thing, and you just might live to see some better opportunities for freedom emerging (secession, seasteading, etc).
Still doesn't top the killdozer.
cept for setting his house on fire first. that was pretty bad ass.
Still doesn't top the killdozer.
cept for setting his house on fire first. that was pretty bad ass.
Its lucky this guys name wasn't Muhammed, otherwise private flight would be totally fucked right now
Still doesn't top the killdozer.
cept for setting his house on fire first. that was pretty bad ass.
Its lucky this guys name wasn't Muhammed, otherwise private flight would be totally fucked right now
Naw, the official word in the media so far has been "This is not terrorism, this can't be terrorism, terrorism doesn't happen now that Barack is in charge. This is a guy who hated the IRS."
But the open question is will he be pegged as a crank from the left (with his criticism of Health Care, and "GW Bush the Puppet President"), or a crank from the right (and his rabid criticism of a currupt government and unfair taxation ala the Tea Party?) - or does his case completely fail to fit into that framing?
The plane was too small.Meh. It's not size that matters. The fire did a lot of damage.
Still doesn't top the killdozer.
cept for setting his house on fire first. that was pretty bad ass.
With his wife and 12 year old daughter inside (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/18/austin-plane-suicide-manifesto), apparently. Not so badass.
I read that two women showed up at the house before the fire department and went nuts, crying and such, claiming ti was their house. This sounds like a first stab at making the guy look evil.Flying a plane into a building on purpose makes you look evil.
I read that two women showed up at the house before the fire department and went nuts, crying and such, claiming ti was their house. This sounds like a first stab at making the guy look evil.Flying a plane into a building on purpose makes you look evil.
lawl pwned.
I wonder what regs the governments is going to cook up in response to this this time.
Everything described in your second sentence sort of negates everything you said in your first sentence.
Guess he blew his stack.
I read that two women showed up at the house before the fire department and went nuts, crying and such, claiming ti was their house. This sounds like a first stab at making the guy look evil.Flying a plane into a building on purpose makes you look evil.
In the end, it was the only way for him to defend himself.
If he wanted to "defend" himself, he would have gone after all the specific IRS agents who harassed him, rather than thinking like a collectivist and attacking en masse people who did him no direct harm.
And you'd still be hard pressed to justify his behavior as sane or reasonable.
In the end, it was the only way for him to defend himself.
How in the name of Jupiter's BALLS did he defend himself?!?!?
He kinda died.
That isn't self defense. That is murder/suicide.
I thought for a while that it wold be pretty cool to pay taxes next time with a sack of pennies. I would think that the first thing the taxman on the other end of the desk would say is "It wasn't my fault....."
In the end, it was the only way for him to defend himself.
How in the name of Jupiter's BALLS did he defend himself?!?!?
He kinda died.
That isn't self defense. That is murder/suicide.
Ah, but it is self defense. If a bully messes with a kid at school for years and the kid finally stands up to him knowing full well he is going to get his ass kicked the action of confronting the bully is self defense. That fact the kid will get hurt does not negate the self defense part.
As far as thinking collectively well that is the fault of governement schools. We all can move past that idea but not everyone can. In the end, it was the governments own indoctranation program that left this man with no other option.
Ah, but it is self defense. If a bully messes with a kid at school for years and the kid finally stands up to him knowing full well he is going to get his ass kicked the action of confronting the bully is self defense.
Isn't collective thinking the problem?
In the end, it was the only way for him to defend himself.
How in the name of Jupiter's BALLS did he defend himself?!?!?
He kinda died.
That isn't self defense. That is murder/suicide.
Ah, but it is self defense. If a bully messes with a kid at school for years and the kid finally stands up to him knowing full well he is going to get his ass kicked the action of confronting the bully is self defense. That fact the kid will get hurt does not negate the self defense part.
As far as thinking collectively well that is the fault of government schools. We all can move past that idea but not everyone can. In the end, it was the governments own indoctrination program that left this man with no other option.
Isn't collective thinking the problem?
Government isn't a person. There isn't any one person responsible for government.
If the gang bangers in the Bloods are terrorizing my neighborhood doing violence and such and they harm one of my family members I would be perfectly justified to extract justice on any members. Even if the member I catch is not the one that did me harm personally, he/she did do harm to one of my neighbors.
The fact that the harm done by government is impersonal and diffuse, is not an excuse to react personally and specifically.
How far do you take it? Do you get to attack anyone who ever paid taxes (After all, they're helping the government operate).
Now you might draw the line at that, because people are paying under duress, but when you start talking about personal responsibility for the crimes of an amorphous super group like government, its extremely shaky ground to kill someone you've never met, someone whos never directly harmed you and call it self defense.
You'd have to be insanely sure of yourself to start killing random government employees. Emphasis on insanely.
If the gang bangers in the Bloods are terrorizing my neighborhood doing violence and such and they harm one of my family members I would be perfectly justified to extract justice on any members. Even if the member I catch is not the one that did me harm personally, he/she did do harm to one of my neighbors.
You allow common sense draw the line. Of course you would not go after the rape victim instead of the rapist
It is a great disservice to these individuals to not put the blame where is belongs; on them. Personal responsibility is the foundation of freedom and liberty.
If the gang bangers in the Bloods are terrorizing my neighborhood doing violence and such and they harm one of my family members I would be perfectly justified to extract justice on any members. Even if the member I catch is not the one that did me harm personally, he/she did do harm to one of my neighbors.
Any members?
What if the bloods had an accountancy department, and lunch room workers, and cleaners who cleaned their buildings, and an IT guy who comes in to fix the wireless network when it goes down and so on.
They all fair game too?
Its very easy to draw the line when you're not on the side that says its okay to kill this person.
Tyrants can act collectively to initiate aggression against you, but you cannot retaliate against any of them because no one is individually guilty?
The only guy you get to retaliate against (morally), and with any degree of practicality, is the end guy. The guy with the iron fist who kicks in your door and tries to imprison you and kill you if you resist.If your intent is to win, you need to "hit where it hurts".
The principle is that in any form of conflict, if you want to win, you must hit your adversary where it hurts.
I have to explain that when I talk about "hitting where it hurts" I am not necessarily referring to physical blows or to any other form of physical violence. For example, in oral debate, "hitting where it hurts" would mean making the arguments to which your opponents position is most vulnerable. In a presidential election, "hitting where it hurts" would mean winning from your opponent the states that have the most electoral votes. Still, in discussing this principle I will use the analogy of physical combat, because it is vivid and clear.
If a man punches you, you can't defend yourself by hitting back at his fist, because you can't hurt the man that way. In order to win the fight, you have to hit him where it hurts. That means you have to go behind the fist and hit the sensitive and vulnerable parts of the man's body.
Suppose a bulldozer belonging to a logging company has been tearing up the woods near your home and you want to stop it. It is the blade of the bulldozer that rips the earth and knocks trees over, but it would be a waste of time to take a sledgehammer to the blade. if you spent a long, hard day working on the blade with the sledge, you might succeed in damaging it enough so that it became useless. But, in comparison with the rest of the bulldozer, the blade is relatively inexpensive and easy to replace. The blade is only the "fist" with which the bulldozer hits the earth. To defeat the machine you must go behind the "fist" and attack the bulldozers vital parts. The engine, for example, can be ruined with very little expenditure of time and effort by means well known to many radicals.
The only guy you get to retaliate against (morally), and with any degree of practicality, is the end guy. The guy with the iron fist who kicks in your door and tries to imprison you and kill you if you resist.If your intent is to win, you need to "hit where it hurts".
To the libertarians calling this "terrorism:" Terrorism involves killing innocents. Whether you support it or not, this was not terrorism.Terrorism doesn't need to involve innocents. This seems to fit most definitions of terrorism perfectly.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.
I have a friend that's a tax appraiser in Arlington, Va. (D.C.) He sent me a text after the plane crash and said he should get hazard pay for the dangers inherent in his job.
His joke points out that he, like other tax villians (IRS agents) know the evils of their ways, but do it nonetheless for a fucking PAYCHECK.
I don't think you have to do a whole hell of a lot of mental gymnastics to see taxers as the original aggressors.
That being said, I would never perform or condone such an action.
I have a friend that's a tax appraiser in Arlington, Va. (D.C.) He sent me a text after the plane crash and said he should get hazard pay for the dangers inherent in his job.
His joke points out that he, like other tax villians (IRS agents) know the evils of their ways, but do it nonetheless for a fucking PAYCHECK.
I don't think you have to do a whole hell of a lot of mental gymnastics to see taxers as the original aggressors.
That being said, I would never perform or condone such an action.
My uncle works for the IRS, and I approve of this message.
To the libertarians calling this "terrorism:" Terrorism involves killing innocents. Whether you support it or not, this was not terrorism.Terrorism doesn't need to invovle innocents. This seems to fit most definitions of terrorism perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismQuoteTerrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
IRS office workers are not combatants. They are civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CivilianQuoteA civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.
I have a friend that's a tax appraiser in Arlington, Va. (D.C.) He sent me a text after the plane crash and said he should get hazard pay for the dangers inherent in his job.
His joke points out that he, like other tax villians (IRS agents) know the evils of their ways, but do it nonetheless for a fucking PAYCHECK.
I don't think you have to do a whole hell of a lot of mental gymnastics to see taxers as the original aggressors.
That being said, I would never perform or condone such an action.
My uncle works for the IRS, and I approve of this message.
Do y'all tell these people how evil they are?
I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
:lol:To the libertarians calling this "terrorism:" Terrorism involves killing innocents. Whether you support it or not, this was not terrorism.Terrorism doesn't need to invovle innocents. This seems to fit most definitions of terrorism perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismQuoteTerrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
IRS office workers are not combatants. They are civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CivilianQuoteA civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.
1) Wikipedia is statist shit.
2) Did it ever occur to you that statists would want to confuse the difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare? Think about the people who this government recognizes as the "the founders." Think about how difficult it is to objectively view them in a good light, given their definitions.
3) Calling tax-eating state thugs "civilians," and more specifically the ones who are actively stealing said taxes, is a copout that only a statist could ignore. Referencing "law" to resolve such a question is idiocy.
BTW: There was no coercion in his action. His was a response to coercion.
Oh, the "just following orders" defense.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
Damned straight they're under duress! If you've been filing and you stop, they'll be at your door eventually.
Oh, the "just following orders" defense.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
Damned straight they're under duress! If you've been filing and you stop, they'll be at your door eventually.
It sucks that I am a part of the problem.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
It's a real pickle, isn't it.
What do you think would happen to the Nazi prison guard who doesn't follow orders?Oh, the "just following orders" defense.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
Damned straight they're under duress! If you've been filing and you stop, they'll be at your door eventually.
Being the victim of armed robbery ≠ being a Nazi prison guard.
And maybe taxpayers shouldn't volunteer for a job if they know their money will be used to fund evil stuff. And after the murder and imprisonment of random brown people around the world, you would think taxpayers would re-evalutate their options. But they don't. They just keep funding it.What do you think would happen to the Nazi prison guard who doesn't follow orders?Oh, the "just following orders" defense.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
Damned straight they're under duress! If you've been filing and you stop, they'll be at your door eventually.
Being the victim of armed robbery ≠ being a Nazi prison guard.
Maybe he shouldn't have volunteered. Further, at the point of murder in imprisonment of random Jews, I'd think he should have re-evaluated his options. I'd like to think I would have.
And maybe taxpayers shouldn't volunteer for a job if they know their money will be used to fund evil stuff. And after the murder and imprisonment of random brown people around the world, you would think taxpayers would re-evalutate their options. But they don't. They just keep funding it.What do you think would happen to the Nazi prison guard who doesn't follow orders?Oh, the "just following orders" defense.I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
I think the payers could claim duress.
Damned straight they're under duress! If you've been filing and you stop, they'll be at your door eventually.
Being the victim of armed robbery ≠ being a Nazi prison guard.
Maybe he shouldn't have volunteered. Further, at the point of murder in imprisonment of random Jews, I'd think he should have re-evaluated his options. I'd like to think I would have.
TryHide your assets.producing wealthliving with your assets seized.
TryHide your assets.producing wealthliving with your assets seized.
Or for Libman: [...] |
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed
I would just like to say that it is my belief that those who participates in the process of initiating force aren't innocent.Then anyone who pays taxes isn't innocent. They fund it.
When they stop, they can be forgiven. Until then, they deserve what they get.
FAIL
While they're actively using the violence of government to steal, they deserve what they get.
FAIL
While they're actively using the violence of government to steal, they deserve what they get.
So Ron Paul deserves what he gets?
When Ron Paul works for the IRS actively collecting taxes, he does. Oh...yeah...he doesn't do that.
Push people to a psychotic break and what do you expect will happen? I expect more events like this will happen as more people are pushed over the edge. Just because I understand the why does not mean I agree with the results.
The IRS paperwork and rules are so complex that I doubt anyone in the country is 100% in the clear from being maliciously prosecuted. It is also a tool used to stamp out political decent. The United States has plenty of political prisoners they just are not seen that way because of the complex network of laws, rules and regulations which makes everyone an outlaw.
Oops, you left out a step. He then votes against the whole package. Then again, that doesn't matter anyway, because, once again, he's not collecting any taxes.When Ron Paul works for the IRS actively collecting taxes, he does. Oh...yeah...he doesn't do that.
But he passes on all the earmark requests for his district. Therefore he helps steal your money.
Then again, that doesn't matter anyway, because, once again, he's not collecting any taxes.Is it OK for me to take out landlords?
Oops, you left out a step. He then votes against the whole package. Then again, that doesn't matter anyway, because, once again, he's not collecting any taxes.
Push people to a psychotic break and what do you expect will happen? I expect more events like this will happen as more people are pushed over the edge. Just because I understand the why does not mean I agree with the results.
The IRS paperwork and rules are so complex that I doubt anyone in the country is 100% in the clear from being maliciously prosecuted. It is also a tool used to stamp out political decent. The United States has plenty of political prisoners they just are not seen that way because of the complex network of laws, rules and regulations which makes everyone an outlaw.
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/01/15/irs-commish-doesn-t-do-his-own-taxes-in-a-related-story-secretary-of-agriculture-doesn-t-live-on-a-farm.aspx
Oops, you left out a step. He then votes against the whole package. Then again, that doesn't matter anyway, because, once again, he's not collecting any taxes.
It doesn't matter that he votes against it.
Look, its pretty f--kin simple................. I'll explain it as if you are 10 yrs old
The taxpayers in his district pay a shitload of money to the federal govt......... the federal govt decides they want to spend that money....... RP votes against it (lets give it back to the people that paid it)............. the majority votes to pass the spending bill because they are not like RP, his vote lost, so since it passed anyway, he might as well get some of that money back to the people in his district that paid it in the first place, and that is done through earmarks. Understand?
If you were a tax payer in his district, would you rather the federal govt take your money and spend it on studying the mating habits of earthworms somewhere in California 1000 miles away , or would you rather at least get some of it back to your town where the money came from in the first place? Sure, it would be better if they didnt take it from you at all, but since they do, would you rather just have a congressman that said "nah, let them spend our money somewhere else" ?
Why is it wrong for him to request that the federal government give them their stolen money back?
FAIL
While they're actively using the violence of government to steal, they deserve what they get.
So Ron Paul deserves what he gets?
Look, its pretty f--kin simple................. I'll explain it as if you are 10 yrs old
The taxpayers in his district pay a shitload of money to the federal govt......... the federal govt decides they want to spend that money....... RP votes against it (lets give it back to the people that paid it)............. the majority votes to pass the spending bill because they are not like RP, his vote lost, so since it passed anyway, he might as well get some of that money back to the people in his district that paid it in the first place, and that is done through earmarks. Understand?
If you were a tax payer in his district, would you rather the federal govt take your money and spend it on studying the mating habits of earthworms somewhere in California 1000 miles away , or would you rather at least get some of it back to your town where the money came from in the first place? Sure, it would be better if they didnt take it from you at all, but since they do, would you rather just have a congressman that said "nah, let them spend our money somewhere else" ?
So two wrongs make a right?
Then again, that doesn't matter anyway, because, once again, he's not collecting any taxes.Is it OK for me to take out landlords?
Landlords are government property tax collectors, whether they like it or not.
Can I go after cashiers because they collect sales tax from me?
just as the guns to our heads.I've never had anyone put a gun to my head.
not 100% civillian.
they work for an organization that will come after you w/ guns, if you refuse to pay them.
their employ involves threat of force....
just as the guns to our heads.I've never had anyone put a gun to my head.
I have never had anyone threaten to put a gun to my head.just as the guns to our heads.I've never had anyone put a gun to my head.
The threat is there, and they also steal bank accounts (and I've seen that.)
Why is it wrong for him to request that the federal government give them their stolen money back?
If it was simply issuing checks back to taxpayers, then that would be different. But that's not the case.
I have never had anyone threaten to put a gun to my head.just as the guns to our heads.I've never had anyone put a gun to my head.
The threat is there, and they also steal bank accounts (and I've seen that.)
I have never had anyone threaten to put a gun to my head.just as the guns to our heads.I've never had anyone put a gun to my head.
The threat is there, and they also steal bank accounts (and I've seen that.)
Then you're not paying attention, or you're stupid. Judging by this thread, I have my own opinion.Good argument, Mr. Hyperbole.
Then you're not paying attention, or you're stupid. Judging by this thread, I have my own opinion.Good argument, Mr. Hyperbole.
No hyperbole there at all.So you literally have an IRS agent with a gun to your head right now?
No hyperbole there at all.So you literally have an IRS agent with a gun to your head right now?
His daughter called him a hero, sorta, but was then forced to retract... (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/joe-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-calls-dad-hero/story?id=9903329)
His daughter called him a hero, sorta, but was then forced to retract... (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/joe-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-calls-dad-hero/story?id=9903329)
The part I didn't find was whether this Vernon Hunter that died in the attack worked for the IRS.
The part I didn't find was whether this Vernon Hunter that died in the attack worked for the IRS.I read something that said he worked for the IRS.
(http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/Flutter/thirdparty/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/Flutter/files_flutter/1266599044021910_vernonhunter2.JPG&w=259&h=312)
We now know the IRS worker who was killed in the attack on an office building in Austin. He was Vernon Hunter, a 67-year old Revenue Office Manager. He was responsible for collections. Correspondent Kris Gutierrez talked with his wife, Valerie, who also works for the IRS and was in the same building when the attack happened. They have six grown children who live outside of Austin and who are flying in to be with their mother.
Valerie Hunter says before yesterday, she had never heard the name Joseph Stack. He’s the man investigators say set fire to his own home before getting in a plane and flying it into the office building. Witnesses confirm it was a deliberate attack. They say the plane looked like it was “dive-bombing” the building that is next to a busy Austin freeway. Stack left behind a lengthy, obscenity-filled internet post expressing his frustration with the IRS. Within hours of the attack, several Facebook pages were created in support of Stack’s barbaric attack. Looking at the building and the surrounding area, it’s amazing more people were not killed or injured. Another person was also severely hurt in the attack, a worker for the Texas Comptroller’s office.
Stack’s wife has decided not to talk with the media at least for now.
Look, its pretty f--kin simple................. I'll explain it as if you are 10 yrs old
The taxpayers in his district pay a shitload of money to the federal govt......... the federal govt decides they want to spend that money....... RP votes against it (lets give it back to the people that paid it)............. the majority votes to pass the spending bill because they are not like RP, his vote lost, so since it passed anyway, he might as well get some of that money back to the people in his district that paid it in the first place, and that is done through earmarks. Understand?
If you were a tax payer in his district, would you rather the federal govt take your money and spend it on studying the mating habits of earthworms somewhere in California 1000 miles away , or would you rather at least get some of it back to your town where the money came from in the first place? Sure, it would be better if they didnt take it from you at all, but since they do, would you rather just have a congressman that said "nah, let them spend our money somewhere else" ?
So two wrongs make a right?
No, but two Wrights made the airplane
It's amazing how people have mixed feeling about this. I'm loving it.
I actually wrote a joke about it that pretty well received in an open mike I did last night.
'Does anyone here know who joe stack is? He's the guy that burned down his house and suicide bombed the IRS building in Texas? It was tragic.... Because he only killed one IRS worker.
They took away his money, but left his plane. Bad move.'
It's amazing how people have mixed feeling about this. I'm loving it.
I actually wrote a joke about it that pretty well received in an open mike I did last night.
'Does anyone here know who joe stack is? He's the guy that burned down his house and suicide bombed the IRS building in Texas? It was tragic.... Because he only killed one IRS worker.
They took away his money, but left his plane. Bad move.'
Stefan's take:
It's amazing how people have mixed feeling about this. I'm loving it.
I actually wrote a joke about it that pretty well received in an open mike I did last night.
'Does anyone here know who joe stack is? He's the guy that burned down his house and suicide bombed the IRS building in Texas? It was tragic.... Because he only killed one IRS worker.
They took away his money, but left his plane. Bad move.'
Not yet. Writing Jokes is not the easiest thing in the world. I did my first open mike in a whiole last night, and all moy new jokes and some rewritten old jokes but 2 went over really well... Specifically my police brutality jokes. I'm working on a lot of stuff, particularly about my ethnicity(Puerto Rican) but it's about how I get annoyed about the culture, rather than embracing it. I hope to be ready for 5 minutes at the improv in the next month or so. I'll film that and post it. I've gotta start working on my comedy pages on myspace and facebook soon, too. I'll post it.
Heheheh. Do you have any recent vids of your work?
It's amazing how people have mixed feeling about this. I'm loving it.
I actually wrote a joke about it that pretty well received in an open mike I did last night.
'Does anyone here know who joe stack is? He's the guy that burned down his house and suicide bombed the IRS building in Texas? It was tragic.... Because he only killed one IRS worker.
They took away his money, but left his plane. Bad move.'
Not yet. Writing Jokes is not the easiest thing in the world. I did my first open mike in a whiole last night, and all moy new jokes and some rewritten old jokes but 2 went over really well... Specifically my police brutality jokes. I'm working on a lot of stuff, particularly about my ethnicity(Puerto Rican) but it's about how I get annoyed about the culture, rather than embracing it. I hope to be ready for 5 minutes at the improv in the next month or so. I'll film that and post it. I've gotta start working on my comedy pages on myspace and facebook soon, too. I'll post it.
Heheheh. Do you have any recent vids of your work?
The idea that someone coerced into handing money over to a violent organization somehow makes him responsible for how that money is spent if f***ing ridiculous blackie.lol. Denial.
lol. Idiocy.The idea that someone coerced into handing money over to a violent organization somehow makes him responsible for how that money is spent if f***ing ridiculous blackie.lol. Denial.
lol. Idiocy.The idea that someone coerced into handing money over to a violent organization somehow makes him responsible for how that money is spent if f***ing ridiculous blackie.lol. Denial.
lol. Idiocy.The idea that someone coerced into handing money over to a violent organization somehow makes him responsible for how that money is spent if f***ing ridiculous blackie.lol. Denial.
It's all our responsibility to stop the theft. If we don't, then we are held responsible.
It's all our responsibility to stop the theft. If we don't, then we are held responsible.
lol. Idiocy.The idea that someone coerced into handing money over to a violent organization somehow makes him responsible for how that money is spent if f***ing ridiculous blackie.lol. Denial.
It's all our responsibility to stop the theft. If we don't, then we are held responsible.
But how do you partition out cumulative responsibility? And isn't the most effective way to limit taxation....becoming a politician?
But how do you partition out cumulative responsibility? And isn't the most effective way to limit taxation....becoming a politician?
That worked for Ron Paul?
Maybe if you refused salary and any expenses you incur to the state?
We're having elections for both the Texas state house and a city council seat right now, and it's really amusing to see people bicker back and forth on the newspaper's blog about the importance of electing a "true conservative." A lot of them claim to be Tea Party supporters. But of course they're all pro-life, anti-drugs, support forcing kids to say the pledge of allegiance in schools, support a federal anti-gay marriage amendment, etc. It hasn't occurred to any of them that real fiscal conservatism requires social liberalism, because the money to chase down all of those immoral people and lock them up has to come from somewhere. I would even go so far as to say it's nonsensical to claim to be a fiscal conservative if you're also a social conservative-- you're just shelling out the tax money to put people in prison and otherwise control them rather than give them welfare.