Man blows up his house and flies aeroplane into tax office

Post Reply New Topic

I think that's a very clear difference between this guy and the tea party protesters. This guy simply did not want to pay taxes, the tea party protesters are fine paying taxes but they're much more concerned about the overspending end. From recent news though it sounds like Greece and the UK needed tea parties even worse than we did.

I've been reading up on tax protest on wiki, and wiki makes a clear distinction between tax PROTEST, where one believes that the govt has no power to levy a tax (thus making the tax illegal), and tax RESISTANCE, where one objects to the uses that the tax is being put towards, but doesn't object to the tax or raise the claim that the govt has no right to levy a tax.

The guys who think that income tax is unconstitutional, or that white people aren't subject to taxes, are tax protesters, while most of the tea party crowd are tax resisters, they don't like taxes being spent on welfare and war. The tea partiers, well most of them, aren't saying that the taxes are in and of themselves illegal, but that govt is raising taxes too high and wasting the money. "TEA" originally was supposed to stand for "Taxed Enough Already".

It sounds like Stack was a tax protester from the beginning, he hated the provision, known as Section 1706, that forced him to use a headhunting agency which took a big cut of his salary (which is why he was so mad about losing money) and then he was embraced by some of these real weirdos in the farm belt tax protest movement, guys who think they know more law than the lawyers yet only have a HS education, if that. Sec 1706 was probably lobbied for by the employment agencies so they could take 50% of these high tech guys' salaries. The young guys don't know any different, but the old farts are still pretty sore over the betrayal. Stack sounds like he never got over it, and dived into the tax protest movement.

As is often the case, wifey was smarter than he was, and when she saw that she was sinking too, she cut him loose. He'd already lost one wife to his obsession with taxes, and now he was gonna lose another one-only Texas is a community property state, so she could take 50% of everything. Bye bye house, plane, cars, and virtually everything else he owned, sold by judicial order to pay her off. He couldn't deal with it. (Wife #1 had been cut loose in California, where women are less able to take their hubbies to the cleaners.) So the house was burned and the plane crashed with him in it. It was less a rebellion against the IRS than against his wife, imo.

How would you like to be Sheryl Stack, and every time you close your eyes you see this guy saying "If you leave me I'll burn the house and fly the plane into the IRS building!" and you saying "Go ahead doofus, you're not man enough to do it!" She'll have to live with that the rest of her life.

He set his own house ablaze.

ruveyn

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and if he was going to destroy her life and bring her down with him - what else could she have done. Divorcing a spouse and having them turn into the new domestic terrorist is quite the lottery odds, even with nuts like him.

My own life has not been particularly satisfactory lately and I wonder what it would take to get into a mental state to crash a plane into an office building. There are several major problems. Although I have a pilot's license I have no plane and there are so many tempting targets it's almost impossible to choose the very one that would foreclose choices on all the others. If I was a cat and had nine lives plus a small fleet of planes the possibilities would be more interesting.

Pretty damn easy. I mean, are you humorless? If not, then can't you recognize that while some humor is cheery, a lot of it is quite dark? Friends of mine and myself when we were younger actually joked around about 9/11, which was a serious, actually fatal, terrorist attack on US soil. Maybe that is heartless, soulless, whatever, but a lot of humor is messed up.

I have yet to make a 9/11 joke and certainly wouldn't consider it approperiate to joke right after a terrorist attack. Usually there must be a time delay when the material is dark in content.

Frankly, to compare this minor attack by a semi demented persecuted individual to the 9/11 attack is to violently mischaracterize both totally. The 9/11 attack had international implications and resulted in massive horrors and huge policy repercussions. I do not minimize the one unfortunate death of one of the building's occupants but to puff this insane incident up to the same proportions as 9/11 is rather silly.

Firstly, I didn't compare this attack to 9/11 - I responded to AG's claim that it's "okay" to laugh a day or two after a terrorist attack because he and his friends joked about it. I merely pointed out that I've never done so and, in any event, consider no terrorist attack, no matter how small or failed the scale, ideal for comedic material just a few days after the attack.

There was a case in Florida a few years ago that made me smile.

The tax vampires came into a man's shop.

He pulled a gun, made them strip naked and made them march out onto the street.

He said "I am just doing to you what you are trying to do to me"

Ya gotta admire his sense of humor.

People die every day. Unless I know one of these, I don't see a difference in waiting any period of time. I don't give a rat's ass on what people consider "appropriate". It is just some social game on having weak sensibilities. Unless the comment hurts somebody, then who cares how you get your jollies?


Why? Because you're a sentimentalist? I hardly see that as a good reason for a universal rule. Frankly, I think more funerals need clowns and roasts. Unfortunately the closest we get to that is Fred Phelps. More signs that there is a God and that he plays with creation just like many people play with their sims.

A terrorist attack is an attack conceived and executed to create terror. Do you seriously think government officials are cringing under their desks these days because of this unfortunate man's impulsive insanity? This was not a terrorist attack. The man was a simple nut, not a terrorist.

Here it is folks. The online game.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/528055

Torch your house and then fly an aircraft into the tax building.

Should I be shocked or amused?

As far as I see, there has been no evidence (aside from the lack of self-preservation) that the man was mentally disordered.

As for the terror - as people who work in office buildings in Austin or the victims of the attack if they are "terrorized". Something tells me you wouldn't marginalize the psychiatric effects of these attacks so much had you been in the building.

Disgusted

Certainly could of been worst and must have terrorized the people near the site of impact.