In the Cavuto interview, Sen. Brown actually said, “He could have had other issues” besides the tax problems.
You think so?

God Bless Massachusetts.

Heh. Brown hinted he may vote with Democrats on some issues. Let’s hear it for bipartisanship!

I just wonder if Brown would be embracing Joe the Homicidal, Batshit Crazy Pilot if he’d used an AK-47 on a military base rather than a plane on a federal building.

I guess it’s just their standard MO: terrorism=good for Republicans.

Can’t let the valiant martyrdom of an anti-government loon be wasted, could they? That would be the strategy called… what was the term? Oh yeah, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Nope, not that one. I think the historical precedent, since this happened in conjunction with a fascist rally in our nation’s capital, would now have the breaking of so many windows using the modern anti-monied weapon of choice, the airplane, should be called Kristalmorning. This of course followed the Dorkstag fire.

These people welcome the comparison. They’ll propose a strong, forceful leader who gets things done. Maybe in three years Sarah will be going through menopause and will sport a small mustache to accessorize her ridiculous statements.

I guess it’s just their standard MO: terrorism=good for Republicans.

It’s not terrorism, the pilot was a genuine caucasian U.S. Citizen!! and Tim McVeigh and his accomplices were domestic extremists!! Sheesh, you need to get your terminology straight! /s

Interestng how the study done about how dangerous conservative whack jobs are, is coming true over and over again. Oh how the Repudlickins wailed about what a smear job the report was. The next week we had a bible thumper whack job in a church thinking it was up to him and him alone as to who should live or die. Too bad for that sack of shit the courts didn’t see it that way. Awww. He was so misunderstood. Awwww.
Well strap on your guns teascrotums and embrace your new martyr he’s all yours. Every corn nut teeth, inbred, hillbilly,racist,birther, deather, last one of you.

Thanks for posting this. I saw the story and hoped someone would put it up for discussion.

Two bodies found.

Saudi Prince charged with murder.

posted a rambling screed on a Web site in which he railed against “big brother,” the Catholic Church, the “unthinkable atrocities” committed by big business and the governments bailouts that followed.

That is not a ‘tramp stamp’ on Wembley – he’s got two stripes! Two stripes is a corporal, last I checked. Corporal Wembley!

It’s only terrorism if brown people do it!

Remember how, in the immediate aftermath of Oklahoma City, the Cons all assumed that Evil A-rabs Did It? Guys like Limbaugh and his ilk were all about stringin’ ‘em up and asking questions later — if at all.

Then, when it was discovered that Nice White Arch-Conservatives did it, suddenly the Cons (and the media they’d either bought, cajoled or outright cowed into submission) went all New Age touchy-feely on us. Suddenly, understanding the motives of the bombers became important. Suddenly, pretending these clowns had legitimate grievances became important. (My own personal favorite: “It was revenge on Bill Clinton for Waco.” Which, of course, a) involved defending a guy who raped little girls and engaged in gun battles with other Texas cult leaders, and b) ignoring the fact that the government side of the standoff was managed from start to finish by Bush holdovers Larry Potts and Bill Sessions; because of Republican attacks on Clinton’s first two AG nominees, there was effectively no Attorney General for the first three months of Clinton’s first term — Janet Reno had only been in office a few days before Koresh torched his own compound in mid-April of 1993.)

From the Cavuto interview:

Brown…there’s such a logjam in Washington. And people want us to do better. They want us to help solve the problems that are affecting Americans in a very real way.

Isn’t the Republican mantra that Government can’t solve our problems? Statements like this, especially when made on Faux News, need to be emphatically played up when these morons obstruct everything.

Urging violence against the government can’t have any bad effects can it? Like sending out postcards giving the address of a doctor who performs abortions and labelling the doctor’s work as ‘”heart-stoppers.”

It goes on to say: “Living up to their motto, ‘No fetus can beat us,’ these guys are the experts at turning mothers of live babies into mothers of dead babies.”‘
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30003

Just reading the recent bearers of signs urging violence deny the existence of suicide teabaggers. In comments here; http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/02/congressman-lloyd-doggett-aust.html

Slightly OT (sorry) but I have been wondering why the faculty member shooting colleagues at U. of Alabama seems to have gotten so little media attention compared to Va. Tech and other campus shootings.

Yeah, it kind of breaks down like this:

Angry homicidal white guy: voter.

Angry homicidal brown guy: terrorist.

The important thing is to make the whole sad episode a cartoon about bad guys doing bad things. The non-empathic wing of the nearly liberal factions who believe that they understand the representation of all righteous acts. Once we know we’re dealing with a cardboard cutout that is the embodiment of evil then attempts to explain or understand how to avoid future problems are fairly simple.

Determine identifying criteria, select appropriate candidates and preempt. Simple, short, sweet. Understanding motives are only appropriate for those we know have behaviors with which we approve. Trying to figure out what makes people do things is for weak minded relativists. Silly do-gooders all.

On the actual topic of Brown saying that this is simply about paying taxes and Rs hate taxes too, well that is just as dumb as should be expected. Imagining that this was simply about taxes is still another stupid cartoon.

First, this guy is a criminal. He killed people. Whatever motivated him was irrelevant. He deliberately took these actions and murdered people.
The most important right we have (and thereby the most important responsibility of government) is the right to our lives, the protection from violence. This guy was angry about alot of things that many people are angry about. He felt like he was being used by a government that was not representing or protecting him. That’s not justification for murder.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/only-21-say-us-government-has-consent.html

And before someone goes spouting off about my username, read what I just wrote. I’m a libertarian.

Also, the picture on this post, real nice. You must be way smarter than the rest of us to think that your ideas are more important that someone else’s freedom of speech.

This makes my blood run cold (again): when my left wing makes even bigger distinctions between THEIR bad guys and OUR bad guys than the right wing does.

Two bodies? That’s terrible. Political, though? For us? For them? WHY?

Why is this guy so spitting putrid that no words are contemptuous enough to describe him, but the Fort Hood killer (13 bodies–but who’s counting?) is “understandably perturbed” at being “forced to serve in a war he doesn’t believe in,” a war that “pits him against his own brothers”? That’s so twisted, heartless, cold, bent, blind and slogany, it kills the soul. It’s teabaggery in reverse.

Far as I’m concerned, there’s nowhere to turn except away from ALL of this. Nobody who thinks about this stuff all day long seems capable of honesty, only snarling and lining up on separate sides of the rooms to yell back and forth. Not to think. Just to call up the same “approved” thoughts and yell them at the other side some more.

You are aware that the picture is related to Brown attempting to benefit from this tragedy I assume?

It’s what passes for an accomplishment. The psycho pilot actually accomplished an act.

Congress has not.

How long will it take the truthers to demand that Obama come clean about planting the bombs in the building himself. Clearly no small plane could do that much damage. It must be a government plot. /s

Why does Scott Brown want to give terrorists a hug?

Ur right! Thank God for the Libertarians! Let the Unseen Hand sign on! Unleash the Thompson Twins from the crabbed, feeble grasp of the (former) Tennessee Titan! Let Jeri speak Unbound, in the tongue of Dagny Taggart!

Free Speech Roolz.

Everybody has their theories, most seem to fit our personal perspectives. So here’s mine.

I think this guy, now in early fifties discovers he has no pension, no insurance and a new family. He likely had little or no health insurance. He has to buy on the open market and rates begin to go out the roof at about age 50

He comes from that class of dot com and soft ware Rand libertarians who bought into all that “freedom” of private contracting. “The people can manage their own money better than the government.” “Don’t want no government interfering with my health care.” They have also been programmed to believe “social security will never be there for us.” yet as a private contractor he has been expected to pay the full SS tax, employer and employee ends,

He didn’t manage his money and taxes as poorly as the bankers ran away with his pension, and the health care industry cost a lot more than he imagined, And the tax bills kept coming at almost the beloved “flat rate.”

As a responsible man who refused to rely on the nanny he believed he could use the democratic process of addressing his grievances to his elected representatives. I heard somewhere he spent some $1000 in letters and other attempts to contact his representatives. But they only respond to their money sources.

He was a betrayed libertarian who bought all this garbage of so called freedom to let the market work and become a multimillionaire if you just work hared and do the right things.

There may be a lot of those showing up as they reach his age range with no pensions health care and no more than a day job.

Pray most are more able to maintain sanity and get t heir rights and needs addressed.

Is the air force guy in Colorado piloting a predator who kills Afghan civilians a criminal? Were our founding fathers criminals for opposing the crown? How angry does your government have to make you before you take arms against a sea of troubles? The guy had problems including a nasty argument with his wife the night before, but I don’t know enough about him to conclude he was a right wing nut job. It would be nice to be able to address our problems peacefully and rationally, but that doesn’t seem to be working right now. What then? How do we make the world safe for anarchists?

How do we make the world safe

for/from

anarchists?

Part of the explanation is not quite what you might expect unless you are a person that used to make good money as a contract programmer. His economic situation is much more common than you might guess unless you work in the field. Why he choose this kind of violent act is a bit harder to understand.

Regardless of Stack’s politics, which seem to have been an inchoate blend of left and right wing anti-government & anti-business insanity, the Teabaggers of the right have wholeheartedly embraced him and made him one of their own. This was an act of domestic terrorism and was fed in large part by the rightwing teaparty rhetoric.

Shooting college professors out of season is a misdemeanor in Alabama. The hunting season is in July and August to reduce the likelyhood of a stray bullet hitting a coed.

Wise words, as usual, TS. This guy was more right than left (voted Republican, donated to Ron Paul), but was esssentially a libertarian. So am I, in many ways. Like me, he bought into the great American mythology of the talented, hard-working individual who could go his own way and succeed on merit. At the end, he was forced to conclude that his biggest error was in not being connected with the right people. Too late in life to go back and have a do-over.

There will be many more like him, I have no doubt. Not me, tho, cuz at times of great stress and rage, I step back, contemplate the big picture, and get philosophical rather than homicidal.

I’m an anarchist. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as they don’t damage others or the planet. The only thing standing in the way is a really nasty economic system.

. Why he choose this kind of violent act is a bit harder to understand.

Yes and likely can never be understood outside his personal life history. In his distorted reason it made sense. My guess is how he perceived and handled shame. Still no excuse.

We can agree that there is proof enough that there is a percentage in the population who will under certain circumstances turn to violence. And where the economics are chaotic and on the farce unfair; more of these occur.

Well, if the guy had referred to some plan as “f*&*ing retarded”, we could all agree that he was a despicable, consciousless coward, who deserves universal condemnation. However, his flying an airplane into a building with hopes of taking out large numbers of people of all persuasions apparently triggers empathy and self recognition among a number of commentors. It’s worrisome.

In 140 characters or less: the key difference between a libertarian and an anarchist when it comes to government? Discuss. No, I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely curious and we seem to have reps from both camps in the studio with us today…

I’ll bite. A libertarian believes in maximizing his freedom of choice and action to the greeatest degree possible without directly infringing on the liberty and rights of others. An anarchist doesn’t subscribe to the words following “possible.”

Yes. I agree completely there are and will be many more, including one of my beloveds whom I worry about daily..

A bit of a different era but I also thought I was a lot better off than it has turned out. Most of my pension was stagnant for the 10 yr after retirement then half of it went away last year. Outliving the money has become no longer a joke.

Fortunately most have better coping skills than this man and some even as good as yours.

In my view the first step is to be able to acknowledge having been mislead and the next is, as you describe reflect and . connect with others I would think your writing skills in particular help to keep with that.

This is not about feeling bad for this guy or defending his violence. This is about trying to determine root causes and figuring out how to avoid similar situations in the future. More worrisome to me is a person that sees a red flag and decides to turn the problem into a simple case of evil. If this guy had a pattern of violent behavior, such as Bundy, it would be easier to say that there are no lessons to be gained. Trying to figure out why people do things is not in any way the same as agreeing with them. Spending time writing disclaimers on each comment becomes redundant.

All sorts of people that are concerned about mitigating aberrant behavior are trying to figure out whether this is a canary in a coal mine or just a unique moment in time. A larger group wants to shake their fist at the face of evil. I find people that don’t want to learn how to avoid problems, whether small or large, worrisome. Takes all kinds.

This nasty economic system is the core of libertarianism.. All the rest is window dressing.

I ‘m not sure. I think the libertarians await the return of the gold standard, whereas the anarchists want to hunt and gather without taboos.

Anarchists are egalitarian in that everyone can do as they please provided they do no harm. Libertarians are not egalitarian. They like class structures especially when they’re on top. Anything goes if you don’t get caught.

My comment was from an “if the shoe fits…” standpoint. I’ve seen this string and an earlier one on FDL which had a considerable number of, what seemed to me to be, sympathetic comments.

Certainly Randism if not libertarianism.
I’d say that an American libertarian generally believes that freedom from government interference protects markets and allows them, along with those that work in them, to succeed. An anarchist simply thinks that businesses are little different from governments and they both inhibit freedom of expression.

Ron Paul is more or less a libertarian and Ted Kaczynski was an anarchist. For Paul, the separation between church and state doesn’t quite mesh with libertarian views.

Is the air force guy in Colorado piloting a predator who kills Afghan civilians a criminal?

Yes. Killing people for a living doesn’t change the morality of it. It’s wrong. Self defense is the only justification I accept for it. I view military action that is not defensive as criminal.

Were our founding fathers criminals for opposing the crown? How angry does your government have to make you before you take arms against a sea of troubles?

The colonists did alot of civil protests (refusal to pay taxes, petitions, etc) before resorting to force. And it’s pretty clear that was at the point the British were mobilizing their military. I’m not generally in favor of first strikes.

I don’t see Ted Kaczynski as an anarchist, although labels are difficult. The difference between a terrorist and a patriot usually depends on whether your side wins or loses.

The guy didn’t pay his taxes for several years and the IRS was after him. How does that make him a victim of big government? Answer: it doesn’t. He was a nutjob. It wasn’t big government that caused his problems, it was his own nutjobbiness.

It’s pretty clear from this act, and I think all good conservatives can sign on to this, that Obama has been far, far too lenient on nutjobs. I think he needs to round them all up and send them to Gitmo. They clearly pose real danger to the national security.

Anarchists are egalitarian in that everyone can do as they please provided they do no harm. Libertarians are not egalitarian. They like class structures especially when they’re on top. Anything goes if you don’t get caught.

I would say you’re off by a bit there. Libertarians believe you can do anything you want as long as you don’t violate someone’s rights. An anarchist does not subscribe to the rule of law. In essence, all governments maintain a monopoly on the use of force (this is what the rule of law is. Use of force on individuals).

Since I may be one of those that you might have determined that from I felt a need to respond on the issue.

As I said before, a lot of what could be referred to as empathy is not about justifying or accepting actions. In this guy’s case I read about a someone who writes in a way that taken at face value sounds a lot like quite a few people I know. At this point I don’t think I understand the clear markers that make his acts instantly identifiable as leading to violence. I’m also not exactly clear how flying a plane into a building, because someone believes the organization is corrupt is wildly different from a host of other kinds of suicidal violence that we continue to see rising within our culture. A culture that sees all problems as being addressable with disproportionate aggression.

“Yeah, it kind of breaks down like this:

Angry homicidal white guy: voter.

Angry homicidal brown guy: terrorist.”

Sorry to say that about sums it up. We won’t be getting a 24/7 focus in the media on this guy, just because…..

It’s pretty hard to find many good examples of anarchist that have been in the public eye, as determined by the MSM, since that too is part of the things they often rail against. Kaczynski was my first choice because most of us have read about him and his Lincoln, Montana cabin.

Well, the writing skills, to the extent that I have them, come with the territory of surviving law school and functioning as a litigator. But even before law, and continuing to the present, I had a clear view of myself as being very insignificant in relation to the cosmos. That makes it easier to believe that the important things come from inside, and that I am responsible for any choices I make and therefore, ulitmately, for most if not all that happens to me.

Stack, and others like him, seem unable to view the world in anything but a self-referential perspective.

“That makes it easier to believe that the important things come from inside, and that I am responsible for any choices I make and therefore, ulitmately, for most if not all that happens to me.”

Allow yourself to be disabused of your conceit:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

Stack, and others like him, seem unable to view the world in anything but a self-referential perspective

.

bingo!

Stack realized he was one of the sheeple, you apparently don’t.

Sorry, fuckno, but you missed the mark. My work for 20 years has been studying, trading and predicting the markets. People like me were aware of Born and the entire debate re deregulation, and adjusted to it. Thus, I called the market top in 2000, the bottom in 2002, the top in 2007, the bottom in March, 2009, and recently, here in the comments, the top last month at 10,710 on the Dow. The fact that bad actors work to manipulate markets in corrupt ways has always been a part of the game, and good traders know that they must overcome that.

The gullible public who expect to make big easy money without understanding the game, who essentially say to their broker, “Make me rich,” are expecting something for nothing, and are not blameless for what happens to them.

“A man’s got to know his limitations.”—Dirty Harry

That doesn’t in any way excuse all the bad actors. They should be severely punished.

then why don’t you take some of the loot and donate a couple million to the good causes FDL is espousing?!

The self-referential perspective is dominant within current western cultures and, as you suggest, the problems that many Americans are currently having is that they have spent much of their lives seeing themselves in the role of being the center-of-the-movie-universe. Uniquely able to cope because the playing field favors their particular kind of hard work. That belief will be sorely tested in the next few years unless the current path changes. Unless the government steps in to once again clearly show that justice is blind and the law is the law, I would expect other acts of apparently random violence.

This is one of the key areas that I disagree with many libertarians. I think that only a disciplined government of unambiguous laws can cure the problems brought on by tilting the game board so that all of the pieces fall into corporate laps. The fact that our current economic woes were mostly brought on by a lack of oversight and failed government regulation being a major sticking point with respect to a solution.

Assuming facts not in evidence. Making the predictions correctly doesn’t necessarily mean one gets all the loot. Many extraneous factors and events can get in the way of that, and in my case, they did.

My point is, that markets are a very complicated place, and not for amateurs or part-timers. But the investing industry spends billions a year to convince the public that winning is easy and a sure thing, and the govt does its part to suck naive money into risky markets as well, as by keeping interest rates so low that one is forced into the market because there is no yield in bank accounts, etc..

My personal history was heavily influenced by a car wreck, family tragedies, a house fire, and clients who did not keep faith with me.

Remember how, in the immediate aftermath of Oklahoma City, the Cons all assumed that Evil A-rabs Did It?

Some of ‘em still think that.

Mostly agree, except that I don’t think libertarianism is in any way inconsistent with wanting to see fair laws fairly applied.

Angry homicidal white guy: voter. unless Muslim, then terrorist.

Let’s not lose sight of the important thing here, which is that Massachusetts voters can probably expect another two years of Senator Fuck Your HCR, Ted making solomonic pronouncements of this nature, and totally rethinking their torrid love affair with his truck. Not that that should be an excuse for the Dems to nominate someone who doesn’t bother to fucking campaign, we understand.

TERRORISM VS NOT TERRRORISM

The game over word use here is stunning. How racist, how in deep in debt and subject to Right-wing fearmongering – and how much deeper in Israel’s pocket do we have to go before we wake up.

The White House says ‘not terrorism’. But every Palestinian kid who throws a rock can be shot because he’s a ‘terrorist’.
Congressman Dogget(D) of Texas immediately called it ‘domestic terrorism’.
But Congressman McCauol(R) of Texas avoids calling a white man a terrorist by covering the guy’s ass: “not tied to overseas terror organizations”, he says.
Christian Science Monitor says “less into the mold of a terror conspiracy and more neatly into a profile of the solo-flying rebel with a personal beef”.

Just a “personal beef” is it? Really?
A Palestinian father living in Israel, with no previous ties to any terrorist activity, had a personal beef with his Israel employer. He was labeled a terrorist by the employer and without question the Israelis shot him.

Israel and Dick Cheney are asking for it – while Democrats cower.
What exactly are these white men so afraid of?? As a woman, I just don’t get it.

Yea, I heard that this morning. The murder of somebody who was probably just grateful for having a job will likely get lost in the bs. Egocentric true believers, it’s as sad as it is nuts.

Thanks, Steve!

solo-flying rebel with a personal beef

Wow, that takes the cake.

I guess CSM could avoid calling it terrorism if they think there wasn’t a political agenda tied to the act and that it was merely an issue of revenge. But that suicide note… full of politics, he even talked of revolt. If the suicide note is real then it seems to me like a clear act of terrorism.

He was hardly anti-corporatist. He created and declared himself President of two software companies. When independent consultants were brought under the tax codes for independent earnings he got caught out. In his “manifesto” he mentions some effort to incorporate his businesses under the same rules as a religious denomination. Supposedly he and his friends got “professional tax advice” about pulling this off. Why do I smell “tax dodges” and “tax revolt” in all of this?

And did anyone notice this little part of his “manifesto”?

“For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read OUR discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).” [emphasis mine].

This seems quite odd. He didn’t say “this” or “their” but ‘our”. Was he affiliated with this group of tech-recruiters in some way? Because some of the stuff on that Synergistech website sure looks legally very dubious in terms of tax avoidance.

From their FAQ: “Should I accept a project where I get paid under-the-table?”

A: In this era of intense professional desperation, flexible principles, and unequal opportunity employment, it can be tempting to accept an offer to work for un-documented income. After all, we all need to eat.
Out of respect for that desperation, let’s dissect the pros and cons of such an opportunity.

An off-books contract typically involves a company that needs a deliverable but has no money or time to get it done right, and a contractor who needs a gig and is willing to overlook the niceties of having a written contract or clear, achieveable description of the deliverable. The client has complete control over whether you get paid. Without a contract or mutually agreed written description of the deliverable, they don’t have to pay you anything no matter how long (or much) you spend creating what you think they want.

You can’t cite them as a client, because no official relationship exists.

If you desperately need the money and/or don’t want to pay taxes on it, and don’t mind the vulnerability of the above situation, go ahead and accept such a project. (Yes, you still owe taxes on that income, regardless of whether your client documents the payment at year’s end.) Unless you receive full, or at least very substantial, payment up front we can’t see any legitimate advantages to this strategy and can’t advise you to go there.”

Just a nit-pick, because all, of your comments are essentially on point. Stack was clearly pre-disposed to be a tax cheat. And a right-wing tax cheat, as the religious dodge was very popular with right-wingers in the 80′s. Plus, it’s now been reported he was a Republican and a Ron Paul donater.

There is a big difference between small corporations, and those that are large enough to buy politicians and corrupt markets. Nobody I know of is against small, closely held corporations. In common usage, when one declares themselves to be “anti-corporate,” they mean the big corporations, which are the only ones with enough power and influence to even have any effect on the public.

I have a right-wing friend who continually seeks to say he is pro-corporate because his veterinary practice is incorporated, and because I have had to explain to him he was just being grandiose in equating his piddly little business with the likes of GE or Halliburton or Golman Sachs, I felt compelled to draw this distinction here.

Naked Capitalism had a link to this explaination of Joe Stack’s rant about SEC 1706.

Basically, it ended up forcing IT contractors like Stack to use 3rd party companies like Kelley Services. The 3rd party does nothing for the IT contractor but takes a 20-80% cut of his fees.

http://www.noslaves.com/content/joe-stack-suicide-note-what-he-talking-about

I have been locked for years into comtinual debate with a friend who is extremely right-wing politically (he socializes with Ann Coulter occasionally!!) , so I use him as a window into that mindset. Basically, they regard all taxation aside from defense spending to be THEFT. They regard the IRS as an abusive and unconstitutionally intrusive agency. So, it’s easy to understand the rage they feel when a specific IRS provision seems to be directed against their situation specifically, or when they are confused (or can pretend to be confused) by the requirements of a specific provision.

I’ve been fucked over by the iRS repeatedly, so I can understand and empathize with that rage. Fortunately (or not), the only vehicle I have is a Volkswagen lol.

Yeah, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people that fidgit around for the lowest possible tax rate. Personally I think taxes need to be entirely automated and collected at source. The current system encourages people to do too much fidgiting around to dodge taxes…. I think it breeds a corrupt culture.

But back to Mr Stack, the 3rd party middleman that takes a huge cut of his contract fees…. that really does sound like another parasitic cottage industry. I’d prefer having a government agency handle that kind of administration, no direct fee required.

One thing the right definitely has right, if you will, is that the tax code and collection regimen is an absolute abomination. Figuring out what you owe should not be a job in itself.

Tell me about it, I worked overseas for a while and part of the kit they gave me to work out US taxes required me to document:
- which country I was in on each and every single day of the year
- what was I doing in that country each day. work, vacation, public holiday etc..

Plus an onslaught of other crap, half of which you’d have no idea if it applied to you.

And then when you get all the documentation complete, the local courier service refuses to handle tax documents so you have to trust the foreign mail system or lie to the courier service.

I don’t see why the tax process cannot be computerized and collected at source. We’re well into the computer age, we should be able to handle the technical side of it. The political side… well that’s another matter.

Don’t get me started–I have my own horror stories regarding the IRS, some still unresolved. They involve maliciously malpracticing accountants and the accounting and reporting rules for the special “Trader” status I have righteously claimed for twenty years. They’ll probably screw me out of more than $50,000 before it’s all done. And all I’ve ever tried to do is follow all the rules, never played with any tax dodges at all. Aaaarrgghhh!!!!

Important issue re: irs terrorist largely ignored by mainstream media:

Bass player.

The definitional question, the T-word, is not really all that important if it weren’t for all the extralegal machinery that automatically engages when the word applies.

To recap: Yeah they guy was a loon. (He’s a Glibertarian software engineer; I know the type. Oh dear God, do I know the type.) He posted a rambling anti-government manifesto that contains virtually all the teabagger talking points. But he is not really part of any organized attack, he just acted on his own impulses, though very much enabled by the encouragement of the noisy Right.

So IMO, the poor deranged guy was no terrorist, just a guy who’d gone over the edge. But he was pushed–or at least prodded–and therefore Fox News and their minions are, in effect, a terrorist organization.

Hey, where you been? I agree, absolutely. But see PW’s PUAC this a.m. for a “debate” on this subject.
To me, the evidence is clear.

I know you posted this 2 days ago; perhaps by now you have had time to read his “manifesto/suicide note,” which is a template of teaparty complaints. Anti-government was his expressed motivation, his “desperate act” to “get the attention” of the govt. to his grievances.

So, while you may be genuinely withholding opinion in this post, there is sufficent evidence to form the opinion now.

Much of it is computerized. Sorry you were in an anomalous work situation; being rather low-income and salaried, my tax returns take me all of ten minutes to complete, including printing.

Important issue re: irs terrorist largely ignored by mainstream media:

Bass player

Jebus! Thank FSM that I changed instruments!

does this mean we should alert the FBI to check out Huckabee a little more closely?

I disagree. I read his manifesto/suicide note. I wasn’t familiar with the specific tax code provision that set him off but I am familiar with computer coder’s ideosyncracies. I was once booted off a Red Hat Linux discussion group because I insisted we needed to agree on one Linux distribution to make Linux as easy as possible for the general public. They found my view so distasteful and so opposed to individualism, they prevailed on the moderator to unsubscribe me although they could easily delete my posts without reading them. But I digress.

I do not see how you can attribute his anti-government rant to right wing extremists, here of all places where support for the public option, as one example, runs into establishment opposition and where some people talk of pitchforks and torches. People here are upset with the government. I know I am. I can’t stand the bailouts of investment banks and the too big to fail doctrine. I am not ready to fly a plane into a building (actually I can’t fly) but I believe something must be done. Unfortunately no one is interested in what I have in mind.

Government per se is not the problem.

Corporate control of government is (IMHO).

The problem is representative democracy doesn’t work anymore. Not because it has been corrupted, although it has, but because things are too complicated. It worked in simpler times, but its alternative electronic direct democracy, although technically possible today, appeals to no one, neither the people who don’t want the responsibility of deciding nor the people who think the masses are too stupid and uncaring to be interested.

Jane thinks polls are the way to go. She apparently assumes poll results are reliable. They may be or they may not. They are not an alternative to the way things are and they are not the means to take us from where we are to where we have to go.