chuckakers 426 #1 January 22, 2009 http://www.nypost.com/seven/01222009/news/politics/carolines_kaput_151351.htm From the party that wants to jack your taxes up. These people are shameless.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #2 January 22, 2009 Huh? Did you read the article? She withdrew anyway, so who cares? You're reaching a bit with this one. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #3 January 22, 2009 I think you missed the point which is - hipocrisywww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #4 January 22, 2009 >I think you missed the point which is - hipocrisy ?? So if she had stayed on as a candidate, that would indicate that she _wasn't_ a hypocrite? Can you explain your slam more clearly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #5 January 22, 2009 I'm not slamming anyone and I don't necessarily agree with Chuck's point. She's a Kennedy and her closet to skelleton ratio (or closet loading) probably resembles 10 pounds of potatos in a 5 pound bag. Either way Chuck's point is pretty obvious. She belongs to the democratic party which loves to tax people yet she has "tax issues."www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #6 January 22, 2009 >She's a Kennedy and her closet to skelleton ratio (or closet loading) >probably resembles 10 pounds of potatos in a 5 pound bag. Probably true! Although it's probably more like 10 gallons of scotch in a 1 gallon jug. >She belongs to the democratic party which loves to tax people yet >she has "tax issues." Right. And the article suggests that they are no longer supporting her as a replacement because of her tax issues. Were they still supporting her, that would be somewhat hypocritical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #7 January 22, 2009 Quote Huh? Did you read the article? She withdrew anyway, so who cares? You're reaching a bit with this one. I doubt that a "tax problem" means she overpaid. As for the nanny, that's probably an immigration issue or a payroll tax issue (can you say "cash economy?"), or both. I could care less about the marraige or drug issues. But I guess it's ok if a Kennedy breaks the law....as long as she withdraws when it's discovered. Yeah, that's it. Withdraw and it never happened.Not reaching. I find it pretty fucked up that a mega-wealthy trust fund baby from the Democrat party - the party that likes to take from earners to give to non-earners - has seemingly not been so forthcoming with her own tax obligation. Doesn't she want to help the poor, the homeless, the blah, blah, blah? She and her Democrat co-hearts sure want us to! And yes folks, it was just days ago that we discovered that Timothy Geitner - the guy that will run the freakin' IRS under Obama - failed to pay $34,000 in taxes. Until he got nominated for Treasury Secretary, that is.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #8 January 22, 2009 >But I guess it's ok if a Kennedy breaks the law....as long as she >withdraws when it's discovered. Who said it was OK? > I find it pretty fucked up that a mega-wealthy trust fund baby from the >Democrat party - the party that likes to take from earners to give to >non-earners - has seemingly not been so forthcoming with her own tax >obligation. News flash! Rich people often cheat on taxes. >Doesn't she want to help the poor, the homeless, the blah, blah, blah? What does that have to do with anything? The only issue is if she broke the law, in which case she'll be prosecuted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #9 January 22, 2009 Quote >She's a Kennedy and her closet to skelleton ratio (or closet loading) >probably resembles 10 pounds of potatos in a 5 pound bag. Probably true! Although it's probably more like 10 gallons of scotch in a 1 gallon jug. >She belongs to the democratic party which loves to tax people yet >she has "tax issues." Right. And the article suggests that they are no longer supporting her as a replacement because of her tax issues. Were they still supporting her, that would be somewhat hypocritical. I didn't say the Democrat party was hypocritical. My point was that she is. The Dems are shunning her because these issues make people poison to the party. Oh wait, Timithy Geitner - a tax evader and Democrat - is our new Treasury Secretary. Guess I was wrong.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 January 22, 2009 Quote from the Democrat party I know you would hate to look silly but its..... Clicky Then again.. as you were BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #11 January 22, 2009 Quote >But I guess it's ok if a Kennedy breaks the law....as long as she >withdraws when it's discovered. Who said it was OK? > I find it pretty fucked up that a mega-wealthy trust fund baby from the >Democrat party - the party that likes to take from earners to give to >non-earners - has seemingly not been so forthcoming with her own tax >obligation. News flash! Rich people often cheat on taxes. >Doesn't she want to help the poor, the homeless, the blah, blah, blah? What does that have to do with anything? The only issue is if she broke the law, in which case she'll be prosecuted. Man, you just don't get it. Or maybe you refuse to admit you do. This is a woman who, through party affiliation as well as many personal statements, preaches about helping the poor and needy. And how do her and her party help them? WITH TAXES PAID BY US! So isn't it maybe just a little hypocritical that Ms. Kennedy fails to pony up her taxes? Another "let them eat cake" moment brought to you by the people who want to save the world, just not on their dime.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #12 January 22, 2009 >My point was that she is. ?? So your point is that an author is a hypocrite because she may have cheated on her taxes? You may be under the illusion that she's a democratic politician who has voted to raise taxes. She's not. She's an author who also raises private money for public schools. Oh, and she's also an honorary chair of the American Ballet Theatre. So unless you have been living under the burden of the crushing dues demanded from you by the American Ballet Theatre Group Membership, I can't see much of a point there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #13 January 22, 2009 >This is a woman who, through party affiliation as well as many personal >statements, preaches about helping the poor and needy. And how do her >and her party help them? WITH TAXES PAID BY US! Again, no. She is not a democratic politician. She helps schools by soliciting PRIVATE donations. She does not spend taxpayer money. She does not legislate to raise taxes. She has nothing to do with increasing anyone's taxes. She's an author. >So isn't it maybe just a little hypocritical that Ms. Kennedy fails to pony up >her taxes? Nope. To be a hypocrite you have to espouse that it's a moral imperative that you pay your taxes. Then you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't pay them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #14 January 22, 2009 Quote>My point was that she is. ?? So your point is that an author is a hypocrite because she may have cheated on her taxes? You may be under the illusion that she's a democratic politician who has voted to raise taxes. She's not. She's an author who also raises private money for public schools. Oh, and she's also an honorary chair of the American Ballet Theatre. So unless you have been living under the burden of the crushing dues demanded from you by the American Ballet Theatre Group Membership, I can't see much of a point there. Uh, yeah, I gotta pretty good ideas what her deal is, and I'll give you the fact that she wasn't in the government when she failed to pay taxes. But if this hadn't been discovered, she may well have been. And you can bet which way she would vote when it came time to hand out money. She's a hypocite whether she votes or on this crap or not.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #15 January 22, 2009 Quote >This is a woman who, through party affiliation as well as many personal >statements, preaches about helping the poor and needy. And how do her >and her party help them? WITH TAXES PAID BY US! Again, no. She is not a democratic politician. She helps schools by soliciting PRIVATE donations. She does not spend taxpayer money. She does not legislate to raise taxes. She has nothing to do with increasing anyone's taxes. She's an author. >So isn't it maybe just a little hypocritical that Ms. Kennedy fails to pony up >her taxes? Nope. To be a hypocrite you have to espouse that it's a moral imperative that you pay your taxes. Then you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't pay them. I love libs. They'll keep this shit up all day!Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #16 January 22, 2009 >She's a hypocite whether she votes or on this crap or not. So she's a hypocrite no matter what she does or says because she's a democrat. You could have just posted "democrats suck" and avoided all the irrelevant whining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #17 January 22, 2009 Quote Quote from the Democrat party I know you would hate to look silly but its..... Clicky Then again.. as you were BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hope you're not paying for that comedy. If so, you're gettin' ripped off.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #18 January 22, 2009 Quote>She's a hypocite whether she votes or on this crap or not. So she's a hypocrite no matter what she does or says because she's a democrat. You could have just posted "democrats suck" and avoided all the irrelevant whining. Whining? Nope. I was just pointing out the facts. She believes in taxing earners to give to non-earners - welfare, entitlements, or whatever you want to call it - yet she fails to pay her own taxes. Making it worse, she's LOADED, and can certainly afford to pay her "fair share" (a Dem term). That's hypocritical in anyone's book....except yours, I guess. To be more accurate, I could have just posted "most Democrats suck".Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #19 January 22, 2009 This is a real stretch and the source isn't all that reliable of a news source. She indeed did become an option because of her family, but the Dems quickly ditched her when she demonstrated her lack of education and communication skills. This was the Dems version of Palin, but at least they had the knowledge to boot her to the curb instead of spinning things up. Now, you could have made a better point mentioning Giethner and use something like the WSJ instead: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123254915519002447.html Also, your lead in about taxes should have had more too it as well. It sounds too much like you are repeating a conservative talk radio ranting point. Just saying. For instance, making a complaint that if you apologized about your "tax mistakes" it wouldn't be so graciously overlooked._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 January 22, 2009 Quote It sounds too much like you are repeating a conservative talk radio ranting point. DUH Where do you think most of this crap has flowed from for about 15 years now. To see whats on the collective conservative mind.. just listen into Lush Rim Job... a few minuytes later.. there will be a thread about the evil hatefulled leftists Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #21 January 22, 2009 Quote She indeed did become an option because of her family, but the Dems quickly ditched her when she demonstrated her lack of education and communication skills. Actually the source - an insider in the Governor's office - said the Governor nixed her after finding out about these issues. That's where the story came from to begin with. I assume they did notice her lack of education and communications skills, but it was the "embarrassing problems" that caused the Governor to make the decision to turn her away. Did you mention education and communication problems? And to think she's an author.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #22 January 22, 2009 Awesome! I look forward to your thread on Republican hypocrisy with regards to prostitutes, and male escorts. Should be equally as entertaining of a thread Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #23 January 22, 2009 I wopnder if Guckert is hooking Rove up with some hot military guys still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #24 January 22, 2009 Quote I wopnder if Guckert is hooking Rove up with some hot military guys still. Millitary escorts? Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #25 January 22, 2009 http://www.americablog.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
