4 ms·

It is bizarre to me that the author is cutting down Stack and at the same exact time defending his message (but not his actions). So you really think you'd be

It is bizarre to me that the author is cutting down Stack and at the same exact time defending his message (but not his actions). So you really think you'd be writing this piece if he didn't take dire actions, Aaron Greenspan? I have said it before, but there is a certain point where things are not terrorism or insane but instead revolt and rebellion. I, for one, understand his actions (although I, myself, would not choose to die over money). Perhaps he understood that only making a dumb, cruel decision would give his message weight to appear on major news sites. We do not know. What exactly should a man that has tried to financially change things, politically change things, and fallen back on trying to avoid getting in trouble do? In any case, I do not like the IRS and it's veil of mystery. I use tax software because it takes me tons of time to do the paper form by hand and figure out what forms I even need to submit (it still took me around 2 hours to get everything in order to do my taxes and complete them with the software - just personal taxes and no state taxes). What does it say when the IRS Commissioner can't do his own taxes yet this guy was financially penalized for using an accountant to try and get his records right?

thinkcomp 17y ago
Yes. I've been writing about taxes for a long time, actually. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_142518.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_... What you're supposed to do is bring problems to light through the press and/or lobbying Congress (the lobbying process is not just reserved for corporations) and/or filing lawsuits. When and where appropriate, I've done all three. What you're not supposed to do is physically harm those you disagree with. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship ruled by thugs.
- invisible 17y ago
  You briefly scuffed on the subject of the IRS having a bad system for a single form in that article. You're telling me that this recent article you wrote was being prepared prior to Stack's violent decision? I did not think so. He brought the topics to light by forcing them into the light in a crude manner. Harming government employees is probably as close as you can get to making a strong point without committing a huge atrocity (unless you consider picketing "strong"). Unfortunately, we have done tons of physical harm in the past to get our way, Mr. Greenspan. See the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. It sometimes requires ugly situations to fix ugly problems. So you're going to really claim that the entire history of our United States is based on a dictatorship ruled by thugs? Edit: I did not mean to imply you did not have an interest in tax reform, simply that you (among many others in the news industry) are touching on the subject when the interest has peaked due to Stack's actions. You may have wrote something similar in 5 months or 5 years, but it is easy to say that the message would not resonate as much.
  - thinkcomp 17y ago
    See also (dated February 1, 2007): http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 I disagree that violence is the best answer to problems that are themselves non-violent in nature, such as tax problems, and I'll leave it at that. Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system?
    - invisible 17y ago
      I do not think violence is the best answer to non-violent problems, but unfortunately history has proven that the general populous has trouble equating the importance of issues without violence. I believe the ideology comes from "if it's not important enough to fight for, it's not important." Although I do not appreciate your condescending tone (who are you to me besides a name anyway?) my name is Mark Caudill, if you'd prefer to use my name. I have done very little towards solving tax problems and I do not intend to put forth considerable effort. I am not a politician nor do I have the time to become one. It has been said that it's not a very rewarding career to those that wish they could improve the world. I also do not post articles as a journalist on the Huffington Post about how a mad man did something horrible and then go on to say that his message was pretty smart.
    - DenisM 17y ago
      Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system? invisible's point is that you would not cover the issue as extensively had it not been for the Stack's actions, therefore those actions were not entirely pointless as they created more awareness of the problem. Your reply amounts to an ad-hom. Kindly refrain.
      - thinkcomp 17y ago
        I disagree. First of all, I never said that anything was pointless. Secondly, Mark criticized my arguments because I had merely "scuffed on the subject of the IRS" in his words. I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Especially when I've offered up my name and background, asking for an anonymous critic's name and background does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and may in fact raise important points in the context of a debate.
- tomjen2 17y ago
  So while we waste our time kissing ass in Washington, who is going to run our businesses? The simplest solution is often the best and IRS are by definition thugs so he would be justified in doing whatever he wanted to them. Too bad he died.

thinkcomp 17y ago

Yes. I've been writing about taxes for a long time, actually. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_142518.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_... What you're supposed to do is bring problems to light through the press and/or lobbying Congress (the lobbying process is not just reserved for corporations) and/or filing lawsuits. When and where appropriate, I've done all three. What you're not supposed to do is physically harm those you disagree with. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship ruled by thugs.

invisible 17y ago
You briefly scuffed on the subject of the IRS having a bad system for a single form in that article. You're telling me that this recent article you wrote was being prepared prior to Stack's violent decision? I did not think so. He brought the topics to light by forcing them into the light in a crude manner. Harming government employees is probably as close as you can get to making a strong point without committing a huge atrocity (unless you consider picketing "strong"). Unfortunately, we have done tons of physical harm in the past to get our way, Mr. Greenspan. See the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. It sometimes requires ugly situations to fix ugly problems. So you're going to really claim that the entire history of our United States is based on a dictatorship ruled by thugs? Edit: I did not mean to imply you did not have an interest in tax reform, simply that you (among many others in the news industry) are touching on the subject when the interest has peaked due to Stack's actions. You may have wrote something similar in 5 months or 5 years, but it is easy to say that the message would not resonate as much.
- thinkcomp 17y ago
  See also (dated February 1, 2007): http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 I disagree that violence is the best answer to problems that are themselves non-violent in nature, such as tax problems, and I'll leave it at that. Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system?
  - invisible 17y ago
    I do not think violence is the best answer to non-violent problems, but unfortunately history has proven that the general populous has trouble equating the importance of issues without violence. I believe the ideology comes from "if it's not important enough to fight for, it's not important." Although I do not appreciate your condescending tone (who are you to me besides a name anyway?) my name is Mark Caudill, if you'd prefer to use my name. I have done very little towards solving tax problems and I do not intend to put forth considerable effort. I am not a politician nor do I have the time to become one. It has been said that it's not a very rewarding career to those that wish they could improve the world. I also do not post articles as a journalist on the Huffington Post about how a mad man did something horrible and then go on to say that his message was pretty smart.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system? invisible's point is that you would not cover the issue as extensively had it not been for the Stack's actions, therefore those actions were not entirely pointless as they created more awareness of the problem. Your reply amounts to an ad-hom. Kindly refrain.
    - thinkcomp 17y ago
      I disagree. First of all, I never said that anything was pointless. Secondly, Mark criticized my arguments because I had merely "scuffed on the subject of the IRS" in his words. I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Especially when I've offered up my name and background, asking for an anonymous critic's name and background does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and may in fact raise important points in the context of a debate.
tomjen2 17y ago
So while we waste our time kissing ass in Washington, who is going to run our businesses? The simplest solution is often the best and IRS are by definition thugs so he would be justified in doing whatever he wanted to them. Too bad he died.