Palin cheats on her taxes?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1. Clinton used tax payer money to meet with the pope!!!one!@!!eleven!!11!!!  i can;'t believe it.  

2. Obama used federally tax exempt money to pray at the Western wall in Jerusalem.  

I can't believe these people.

Really?  That's it?  Possible back taxes and spending $600 legally to go talk at a church.  

I'm about non-religious as you can get, but this is just petty.  There are much more important issues and more troubling signs of her zealous nature than this crap.  The separation of church and state does not prohibit the spending of public money for a governor to speak at a church - on my list of concerns that is way, way down there.  

The obsession with Sarah Palin is just amazing.

This all went bad starting with

quote:In typical news-dump fashion, the McCain campaign...

.  Unbiased reporting if I have ever seen it.  Everyone in Washington does such a news dump.   The Friday news dump is very well known and done by all.

People in Washington have news they don't want scrutinized and try to hide it. GASP.  Show me the headline where Huffington has a similar headline for someone on the left...  "News."  []

Of course politicians are free to charge taxpayers for attending religious services, as long as that attendance was part of their job.  Palin charged taxpayers to attend her hometown church, for herself and her family.  

I never said that her tax evasion was such a big deal.  I don't think it was intentional.  Nor do I think the per diems for religious purposes is a huge issue--I said it concerned me more than owing back taxes.  It's simply another of many, many reasons that show she has no business running for VP.

PS--my source was not Huffingtonpost--it was the AP wire.  I wouldn't use Huffingtonpost as a source.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer.  You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism.  You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak.  Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer.  You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism.  You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak.  Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.

You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me.  Well played.  You must work for the Obama campaign.

I have a great idea.  If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.  

Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
 

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer.  You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism.  You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak.  Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.

You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me.  Well played.  You must work for the Obama campaign.

I have a great idea.  If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.  

Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
 

I'm betting you don't know what Ad Hominem means either.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer.  You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism.  You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak.  Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF.  It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.


She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.

I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge.  When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?

Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights."  How dare I.



[xx(]

Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer.  You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism.  You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak.  Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.

You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me.  Well played.  You must work for the Obama campaign.

I have a great idea.  If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.  

Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
 

I'm betting you don't know what Ad Hominem means either.

Read your previous post, it's riddled with them.  Unless you consider telling someone that they "have no clue" is a substantive response.  I guess in liberal la-la land that's considered "substance"...

Here, read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But I guess if we all had to interpret everything through the pmcalk Reality-to-Bull**** translator, you're probably right.

As I told you before, if you don't like what I post, put me on ignore.  Just let me know if you need help finding the button.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

OMFG. DU3D!!! Totally PWn3Ded...ur so kewl!!!

The only thing more pathetic than pmcalk's failure to see irony in her own post is the e-pimp that thinks someone go PWNED by it...

[RecycleMichael]

I'm gonna side with Hoss and pmcalk on this one...you didn't show the best understanding of some of the fundamentals of the court case, yet felt compelled to act like you were the expert.

When shown ignorant, you brought in cat-fight pictures and the phrase "slaughter children". Then you proceed to encourage them to ignore you.

When proven wrong, you lose credibility.

Wasn't this thread about Palin cheating on her taxes?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I'm gonna side with Hoss and pmcalk on this one...you didn't show the best understanding of some of the fundamentals of the court case, yet felt compelled to act like you were the expert.

When shown ignorant, you brought in cat-fight pictures and the phrase "slaughter children". Then you proceed to encourage them to ignore you.

When proven wrong, you lose credibility.

Wasn't this thread about Palin cheating on her taxes?

Wow, you're going to side with the other libs?  Color me surprised.

I think you're a bit confused. My response to PM was in response to her complaint about me using ad hominems while simultaeously doing the same.  

The catfight picture had nothing to do with a discussion on abortion, it was related to pmcalk's obsession with Palin. As for my "slaughter children" comment I stand by that statement whether doing so infringes her "right to privacy" or not.  The dissent in RvW clearly thought the "right to privacy"
angle was nonsense as did numerous scholars.  Although, I don't think I argued my complaint very clearly, which is my fault.

As for Palin and her taxes, she must be using Charlie Rangel's CPA...