A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That is where the current tax code is illegal, it is not uniform unless you believe it means the uniform of the IRS enforcers.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes because so many f***ing people are in fear right now, aren't they?
You don't need to succeed to be a terrorist. What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have? You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it. It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet. Your average terrorist is very much our own flesh and blood. Kaczynski, who I mentioned previously, was a terrorist, McVeigh was a terrorist, people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, people who attack animal research labs are terrorists, and Joe Stack was a terrorist. That word means someone who threatens or commits violence against non-military targets in an attempt to further a cause. It does not mean someone from an organized group, it does not mean someone who wasn't "fed up with life", and it most certainly does not mean someone "from the other side of the planet".
-
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet. Your average terrorist is very much our own flesh and blood. Kaczynski, who I mentioned previously, was a terrorist, McVeigh was a terrorist, people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, people who attack animal research labs are terrorists, and Joe Stack was a terrorist. That word means someone who threatens or commits violence against non-military targets in an attempt to further a cause. It does not mean someone from an organized group, it does not mean someone who wasn't "fed up with life", and it most certainly does not mean someone "from the other side of the planet".
James L. Thomson wrote:
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet.
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident. That's all I'm saying. And I still stand by the reasons why he did what he did, not exactly what he did. Though, he got his point across pretty well, by striking one of the IRS buildings themselves.
-
No link, so I'm posting the whole thing... ----- Original Message ----- From: tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:47 PM Subject: Mr. Stack, Rest in Peace Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy. You can decide for yourself if this was the case. As best I can tell, today Joseph Stack burned down his house, and then crashed his plane into the Austin, Texas offices of the IRS. We don't need to ponder the reason, because he told us why, in a suicide note, which can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle24783.htm I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans. In other words, compared to the deluded masses of conformists, Mr. Stack was the sane one. Several statements in his suicide note show that he had overcome the authoritarian statist indoctrination far more than most people ever will. Does the following sentiment sound familiar? "We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place ... I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood." [Joseph Stack, 2/18/2010] A lot of you will find aspects of Mr. Stack's personal story disturbingly familiar. I see no need to parse every sentence of it, though I would urge everyone to read it all, carefully. What would drive a rational, intelligent man to do such a thing? Of course, the control freaks and their propagandists will paint Mr. Stack as a nutcase, and will claim that his actions, by themselves, prove that he was insane. But they don't. They prove he was desperate, and frustrated, and that he was willing to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to try to resist injustice. And THAT is the part the parasite class does NOT want people to think about. They will paint him as a "mentally unstable" "tax cheat," or apply to him whatever other labels they think might make people not want to THINK about what Mr.
josda1000 wrote:
Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process.
And, deliberately or not, took the life of a fellow citizen. But, of course, this citizen's life was forfeit: he was merely an employee of the IRS, "the largest extortion racket in the world", and so of no value. After all, they "from CID down to the paper-pushers, are CONSTANTLY initiating violence, every time they levy a bank account, or swipe someone's home, or send threatening letters (i.e., 'pay up or we'll do nasty things to you'). It is their job to use violence, and threats of violence, to take property from those to whom it rightfully belongs." Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally, and that the laws (sorry, scribbles) are made by a democratically elected body: Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees. He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors. If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
josda1000 wrote:
Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process.
And, deliberately or not, took the life of a fellow citizen. But, of course, this citizen's life was forfeit: he was merely an employee of the IRS, "the largest extortion racket in the world", and so of no value. After all, they "from CID down to the paper-pushers, are CONSTANTLY initiating violence, every time they levy a bank account, or swipe someone's home, or send threatening letters (i.e., 'pay up or we'll do nasty things to you'). It is their job to use violence, and threats of violence, to take property from those to whom it rightfully belongs." Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally, and that the laws (sorry, scribbles) are made by a democratically elected body: Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees. He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors. If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Mr Rose has declared open season on all IRS employees.
He has many times in the past already. So yes, he has.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Ignoring the fact that they take that property legally
Yes, they can, because the Constitution says so. Though originally, the Constitution prohibited this very type of tax.
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is saying that anyone is entitled to use violence on them, as they initiate violence and are thus the aggressors.
Yup.
Bob Emmett wrote:
If I were Mr Rose, I would watch my back. There may be armed IRS employees out there who also think that the law is merely politicians' scribbles, and they know where he lives.
I'm sure he does constantly. He's been doing this a long time bro.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, CSS is missing the (Political || Ideological || Religious) part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government calls it the cost of doing business.
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Looks like we're in agreement here. But it's more than being SPENT unethically, it's the way it's directly extracted from us every week, without any course of action on our part. We don't even see that tax money; it's just grabbed right out from under us. Don't you think that's a little low? It's shady. It's wrong. But it's tolerated by the majority. What a great bunch of slaves we are.
josda1000 wrote:
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
It's nice of you to help him out, but that's not what he said. "They were the good guys regardless if they won or not. Their cause was just, reasonable, common sense. With your logic, any women who fights back against a rapist and looses, deserved to be raped and punished." He's equating the American revolutionaries with the "women" in this analogy, and the British colonial government with the "rapist". As I stated that the revolutionaries were terrorists, he's saying that by my logic, a woman fighting back against being raped is a terrorist, and that's completely idiotic. Now, if he has his analogy backwards, and is TRYING to equate the rapist to a terrorist, he has a stronger case, since rape CAN be an act of terrorism in certain contexts (ex. Guerrilla force attacks a village and rapes the women to punish them for siding with the enemy).
josda1000 wrote:
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't justified. A sales tax charges you for every purchase you make, and an income tax charges you for selling your services. In some sense, it's taxing the company for purchasing your services, and they're just stating their offer (salary) with taxes included. They could switch it around, call it a "service tax" paid by employers, and those employers would just cut all salaries to compensate. The advantage to doing it this way, is that the rate can be adjusted based on your individual living situation. If it was a "service tax", and instead of making 50k a year and paying 20k in taxes, you just made 30k a year and your company paid 20k in taxes for employing you... Would you still consider that unjust? Now if you're just
-
James L. Thomson wrote:
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet.
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident. That's all I'm saying. And I still stand by the reasons why he did what he did, not exactly what he did. Though, he got his point across pretty well, by striking one of the IRS buildings themselves.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident.
Name one suicide bomber who didn't plan to die and has been responsible for more than one incident.
-
Ah. read that last line you just stated. "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Here's another reason why a direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional. But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
josda1000 wrote:
direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional.
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality. How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
josda1000 wrote:
But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
How was it not?
-
josda1000 wrote:
OK, yes, I'd agree. But he planned to die, and it was one incident.
Name one suicide bomber who didn't plan to die and has been responsible for more than one incident.
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
josda1000 wrote:
He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
Dude he is not "our own" flesh and blood. He was a nutbag terrorist that flew a plane into a building. Get over this patriotic bullshit. He flew a goddamn plane into a building regardless of his reasons (I hate the IRS, my wife left me, my dog died, I'm just mental). You don't get much more terrorist than that. Terrorist doesn't mean that you are from the middle east and have a grudge against the US it means you terrorize people. Fly plane into building = people in building are in terror. You are a terrorist. It's quite simple.
-
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
josda1000 wrote:
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
That's fine and dandy, but quit acting like he was a hero or a wake up call. They guy killed people, innocent people, with a freaking airplane. You know, a bunch of people had an issue with western capitalism so they flew planes into the symbolic center of the market. This guy had an issue with the IRS, so he flew a plane into the IRS offices nearby. The difference in their actions was he didn't have a high rise target and a bunch of jet fuel to make it spectacular. Don't act like comparing apples to apples is invalid.
-
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
An act of terrorism is just that a single act. It doesn't matter if it is a group that still exists or an individual that dies in the act. Why are you getting hung up on a word. He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
-
josda1000 wrote:
direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional.
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality. How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
josda1000 wrote:
But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
How was it not?
wolfbinary wrote:
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality.
Look it up then. Treasury Decision 2313 Eisner v. Macomber Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
wolfbinary wrote:
How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
Gladly. It's a redistribution of wealth through coercion. If you don't pay, you go to jail. Yes, that's the way with many things in government. However, if you were to pay sales taxes, you'd have to do it on the spot. With income tax, it is usually deferred and you have to do it within a certain period of time. So, if you don't pay it, you have cars, houses, land, etc seized or other extreme things such as jail time. I'd call that immoral, how about you? Violence is wrong, and the founders knew it, so they decided to implement an indirect taxation system through the states, as opposed to directly to the People.
-
Yeah, I do agree that it's overused nowadays. The Detroit flight... Was that the so-called underwear bomber? I think he was part of Al Qaeda, so that makes it pretty obvious. The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)... The problem with getting the other side of the story, most of the time, is that generally these guys don't survive their own attack. Stack was considerate enough to explain his exact motivation, so we can analyze it pretty easily.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)...
He had been harrassed and subject to discrimination for being a muslim. He snapped, went stupidly off the deep end and ended up everything that they accused him of. Reports vary as to how close to the edge he was when the incidents happened, but either way the guy was unstable and found someone to justify his actions to him "because they hated him and were evil" so he could take the next step. What's getting to me is how a group that hates some guy for going nuts when treated poorly by the government has no issues with a guy that went nuts when treated poorly by the government. Guess being white means you aren't a terrorist.
-
josda1000 wrote:
He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
Dude he is not "our own" flesh and blood. He was a nutbag terrorist that flew a plane into a building. Get over this patriotic bullshit. He flew a goddamn plane into a building regardless of his reasons (I hate the IRS, my wife left me, my dog died, I'm just mental). You don't get much more terrorist than that. Terrorist doesn't mean that you are from the middle east and have a grudge against the US it means you terrorize people. Fly plane into building = people in building are in terror. You are a terrorist. It's quite simple.
-
An act of terrorism is just that a single act. It doesn't matter if it is a group that still exists or an individual that dies in the act. Why are you getting hung up on a word. He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Joe Simes wrote:
He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Yes. Absolutely.
Joe Simes wrote:
Why are you getting hung up on a word.
Because it'll be used, and is used, willy-nilly in this country. That's all.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality.
Look it up then. Treasury Decision 2313 Eisner v. Macomber Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
wolfbinary wrote:
How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
Gladly. It's a redistribution of wealth through coercion. If you don't pay, you go to jail. Yes, that's the way with many things in government. However, if you were to pay sales taxes, you'd have to do it on the spot. With income tax, it is usually deferred and you have to do it within a certain period of time. So, if you don't pay it, you have cars, houses, land, etc seized or other extreme things such as jail time. I'd call that immoral, how about you? Violence is wrong, and the founders knew it, so they decided to implement an indirect taxation system through the states, as opposed to directly to the People.
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Reread that last line yourself. Hell, I'll lay it out for you. Power to lay and collect Taxes Duties, Imposts and Excises but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." do you see your problem? Let me highlight. collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform So you are income taxes are unconstitutional and should be a flat tax... Even though at no point in time are taxes stated as being uniform. They put in each case in the first part, and left out taxes in the second. Income tax is constitutional, and it doesn't have to be uniform.
-
Yes. If things are so black and white for you, that's cool with me. I tend to see both sides of every story and I don't jump to conclusions. You stick to your beautiful CNN prefiltered media, I'll investigate for myself.
I don't watch CNN. But Terrorism is a word with a definition. You seem to be trying to make it out to be a nasty word that is only associated with Al-Qaeda or some other Anti-American sect out in the world. What I am tired of is people taking simple concepts and twisting them into complex ideas to fit an agenda. What is the issue with saying some pissed off nutbag American terrorist flew a plane into a building? I hate the IRS just as much as the next guy and the government as a whole. But that doesn't change the fact that Joe Stack was a terrorist. I was born and raised and still live in New Hampshire by the way! ;)
-
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
While you're going around chastising others for not reading the mans suicide note, perhaps you could be bothered to read it yourself. The man was clearly hoping to inspire others to violence. That is what changes this from a random act of violence (a la Amy Bishop) to a terrorist act.