pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Strange!! My picture is in your local paper almost weekly and I never hear from you!
what in the cough with hookers section?
Strange!! My picture is in your local paper almost weekly and I never hear from you!
Webrockk, thanks for the post.
Pocket, you said this looks like a politically motivated attack... Perhaps it's the rise of a violent radical "centrist" movement.
Setting fire to house with your own family in it..as reported on fox....
I don't think the poliics was this guys only issue...Just a major one, but we are going to find the deeper issues where more personal...
and the guys own rants and other info seem to suggest he was trying to hide money from the IRS...and something about a how to write off a new buisness expense...a Piano....I have no idea what business...but not many I can think of need a piano.but who knows.
So now we cometo the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash, I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again.
But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
summary: He has tax questions (including a piano) and goes to a professional accountant for help.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to [the accountant] Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
summary: His tax accountant made a mistake by failing to report his wife's unearned income*. The tax accountant did not take responsibility for the mistake during a tax audit.
*note: If you don't know the difference between earned and unearned income, then you can't begin to understand why this guy is so pi$$ed off.
Parts of Stack's rants sound a lot like some of the ones that get posted on internet forums dedicated to politics and religion.
Questions: Is this guy a terrorist, or just a nutcase? Can an American citizen carrying out a suicide attack be a terrorist, or does it have to be an Islamic extremist? Had he been captured, would he have been a criminal, or would he have been an enemy combatant? Could he have been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques", as it has been suggested the "underwear bomber" should have been?
I don't know, maybe you are not old enough to remember when you could just walk into an airline terminal, check in your bags and board the airplane. No security - even when the hijacking craze was popular (circa 1970)
Or before answering machines when you called any number and you got an intelligent human who could answer your questions - right now. Pre-computers, the person who answered the phone had the responsibility and authority to fix your problem, right now. Never needed to make a second call.
The Federal government wasn't involved in everything. Things like water pollution, marriage, abortion, education,etc. - it was all handled at the state level and they passed it down to the county. So you could drive to a government office and talk to the IRS. You didn't have to take a number and wait a long time. The government didn't have a lot of programs, so you simply didn't need to interact with them.
I didn't need car insurance; driver's licenses were paid in cash with the small money in your wallet. No airbags, no seat-belts. If I wanted that stuff it was an option. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHICH STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP ME OUT OF DANGER - AND THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T NEED TO TELL ME. Cigarettes are okay, but I must wear a seat belt... nucking futs.
You went to the doctor (or he came to your house) with a few of the basic medical tools - and gave you a diagnosis. For broken legs, pneumonia, or appendicitis, you could go to the hospital and get patched up. But 90% of the time it was.. take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.
Maybe this is cruel to say, but their was a time for dying as well. My grandfather had cancer - there was no chemo or radiation - it was his time to die and everyone accepted that. My grandmother drove her car into a tree.. and there was no feeding tubes, etc. She was broken beyond repair, and allowed to die.
Now, we are getting to point where we can cure almost everything or replace parts bionically. What is the goal? To keep everybody alive forever? No wonder health care is so expensive. In most other parts of the world people are allowed to die of "natural causes". Most people who are getting older (like me) don't want to be kept alive forever. I don't want to live in a nursing home and play checkers because I have Alzheimer's or some other prolonged illness. Give me the strychnine and get over it. I have lived a great life (except for the times spent on 1-800 numbers on hold). When my time comes to die - for God's sake let me die.
We don't have freedom, we don't have liberty... everything is regulated - from our first day at pre-school to the last, long day we spend at the hospital. Joe Stack was right on - our freedoms, our democracy, are ideals we teach our children are nothing but stories from the past. They no longer exists in America today.
Parts of Stack's rants sound a lot like some of the ones that get posted on internet forums dedicated to politics and religion.
Maybe ranting in print is therapeutic enough to keep the less balanced among us from actually doing something crazy, like flying a plane into the IRS building. It didn't seem to work for him, but then, no one was reading his writing.
Questions: Is this guy a terrorist, or just a nutcase? Can an American citizen carrying out a suicide attack be a terrorist, or does it have to be an Islamic extremist? Had he been captured, would he have been a criminal, or would he have been an enemy combatant? Could he have been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques", as it has been suggested the "underwear bomber" should have been?