Big Holder Scandal -NY Times

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's not what I said though. I said that it's a pretty thing when someone whose ideology encourages companies to set up offshore po boxes to avoid taxes all together, whines about one tax cheat, no matter who he is.

You know, I am starting to think you need a fut up your butt Cawacko!

It is not "cheating" on taxes to play by the rules set forth. Companies who incorporate elsewhere for tax reasons are LEGALLY allowed to do so. If our tax policies are encouraging corporations to headquarter outside of the country, then we should be questioning WHY it is that we feel the need to try to tax paper.

 

[Cancel7]

Obviously if this were a vetting process for a Bush appointee, then it would be an issue to you. This was a highly controversial pardon. A pardon of a fugitive. A pardon of someone that ripped off the American taxpayer. So yes, they are going to discuss it whether you think it is a primary issue or not. They are going to delve into it because it is a question of character.

As I stated, I agree with you that it is not as big of an issue as others you have brought up. But there is two months to go before Obama takes office. They are going to dissect his appointments. Especially if the areas where they think they can create readership due to controversy.

So get off your high fucking horse and actually pay attention to what others are saying. Then perhaps you can actually participate in the conversation.

The Times is a left wing paper. Pretending it is not will not change that fact.

What a load of crap SF. Don't they have a men's room where you work?

The nY times is left wing, god when are you cons going to give it up? you are talking about the paper who allowed Dick Cheney to source on backgroun false front page stories about uranium, and then go on Meet The Press to say "as the ny times reported this morning" If the Ny Times were a left wing paper, we might not be in Iraq. As it is, the left wing ny times, not only fully supported the invasion, but allowed itself to be used as a propoganda tool.

and your romantic attachment to a ten year old tax cheat notwithstanding? It's a meaningless story which has zero chance of ever affecting anyone's life, true or not true. Doesn't matter.

Why isn't the times talking about anything that does matter? Because there is no liberal media.

And even though your meaningless predictions of all the stories to come in the msm about sentencing disparity and drug laws, are very comforting, I'll wait to see one of them!

 

[Cancel7]

It is not "cheating" on taxes to play by the rules set forth. Companies who incorporate elsewhere for tax reasons are LEGALLY allowed to do so. If our tax policies are encouraging corporations to headquarter outside of the country, then we should be questioning WHY it is that we feel the need to try to tax paper.

Question why? Yeah?

Sweet! Hey, can we maybe have a debate about it on the internet?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What a load of crap SF. Don't they have a men's room where you work?

The nY times is left wing, god when are you cons going to give it up? you are talking about the paper who allowed Dick Cheney to source on backgroun false front page stories about uranium, and then go on Meet The Press to say "as the ny times reported this morning" If the Ny Times were a left wing paper, we might not be in Iraq. As it is, the left wing ny times, not only fully supported the invasion, but allowed itself to be used as a propoganda tool.

and your romantic attachment to a ten year old tax cheat notwithstanding? It's a meaningless story which has zero chance of ever affecting anyone's life, true or not true. Doesn't matter.

Why isn't the times talking about anything that does matter? Because there is no liberal media.

And even though your meaningless predictions of all the stories to come in the msm about sentencing disparity and drug laws, are very comforting, I'll wait to see one of them!

LOL... right darla... the Times is really just a corporate shill. I never said they were on the left 100% of the time, but you are being quite ignorant in your pretending that they are anything other than left wing trash.

I have no 'romantic attachment' to the Rich story. You brought it up. You tried to pretend that it was no big deal. Which is YOUR OPINION. Many people on both sides of the aisle were pissed when Clinton pardoned Rich. Holder played a part in that. Because of that, they are going to question his involvement. As I said, everyone of Obamas appointees are going to be vetted by the papers.

But no, you simply want to pretend that the Times will never cover any other issues because they dared to bring up something that was certainly NOT a highlight of the Clinton admin.

As for the 'true or not true'... their is no uncertainty on the issue. That is why Rich continues to hide in Switzerland... even after the pardon. As for the $50 million, yeah... it is a small drop in the bucket compared to our overall financial problems. But when kids are starving.... ask them how much food the $50 million would provide.

and AGAIN... as I stated multiple times (and you ignored) ... yes, there are more important issues than Rich. But this was a gimme in terms of it coming up at some point as it pissed off both sides of the aisle.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Question why? Yeah?

Sweet! Hey, can we maybe have a debate about it on the internet?

that would depend on your ability to actually comprehend what a 'debate' entails. A debate is not where everyone agrees with exactly what YOU think.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL... right darla... the Times is really just a corporate shill. I never said they were on the left 100% of the time, but you are being quite ignorant in your pretending that they are anything other than left wing trash.

I have no 'romantic attachment' to the Rich story. You brought it up. You tried to pretend that it was no big deal. Which is YOUR OPINION. Many people on both sides of the aisle were pissed when Clinton pardoned Rich. Holder played a part in that. Because of that, they are going to question his involvement. As I said, everyone of Obamas appointees are going to be vetted by the papers.

But no, you simply want to pretend that the Times will never cover any other issues because they dared to bring up something that was certainly NOT a highlight of the Clinton admin.

As for the 'true or not true'... their is no uncertainty on the issue. That is why Rich continues to hide in Switzerland... even after the pardon. As for the $50 million, yeah... it is a small drop in the bucket compared to our overall financial problems. But when kids are starving.... ask them how much food the $50 million would provide.

and AGAIN... as I stated multiple times (and you ignored) ... yes, there are more important issues than Rich. But this was a gimme in terms of it coming up at some point as it pissed off both sides of the aisle.

I know lots of people that say the same thing, but most of them don't believe it. You actually believe it. Wow. True nutter stuff.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know lots of people that say the same thing, but most of them don't believe it. You actually believe it. Wow. True nutter stuff.

yes, the lefts worship of the Times is true nutter stuff. Anyone who brings up the extreme bias of the Times is immediately set upon by you nutters.

 

[Cancel7]

that would depend on your ability to actually comprehend what a 'debate' entails. A debate is not where everyone agrees with exactly what YOU think.

I was being sarcastic, because, apparently unbeknownst to you, there has been a big debate about that "legal' tax cheating for years now.

 

[Cancel7]

LOL... right darla... the Times is really just a corporate shill. I never said they were on the left 100% of the time, but you are being quite ignorant in your pretending that they are anything other than left wing trash.

I have no 'romantic attachment' to the Rich story. You brought it up. You tried to pretend that it was no big deal. Which is YOUR OPINION. Many people on both sides of the aisle were pissed when Clinton pardoned Rich. Holder played a part in that. Because of that, they are going to question his involvement. As I said, everyone of Obamas appointees are going to be vetted by the papers.

But no, you simply want to pretend that the Times will never cover any other issues because they dared to bring up something that was certainly NOT a highlight of the Clinton admin.

As for the 'true or not true'... their is no uncertainty on the issue. That is why Rich continues to hide in Switzerland... even after the pardon. As for the $50 million, yeah... it is a small drop in the bucket compared to our overall financial problems. But when kids are starving.... ask them how much food the $50 million would provide.

and AGAIN... as I stated multiple times (and you ignored) ... yes, there are more important issues than Rich. But this was a gimme in terms of it coming up at some point as it pissed off both sides of the aisle.

-It's a ten year old story, with no present-day repercussions for our country, or our citizens.

-The right wing's working of the refs, has never been so obvious in their demonization of the times, which is nothing more than a mainstream news outlet, with sometimes interesting reporting on a variety of issues and all kinds of politicians. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean that stomping your feet and getting redfaced until I believe it is going to work.

-I would be careful if I were you in bringing up how many starving kids 50 million dollars could feed. Should I get the current nut for Iraq, again?

-Let me know when the Times does a front page story, any story, about Holder's positions on drug sentencing. We'll talk then, you know, when you actually have a leg to stand on?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was being sarcastic, because, apparently unbeknownst to you, there has been a big debate about that "legal' tax cheating for years now.

1) there is no law that states a corporation that starts its business in the US has to remain in the US. Thus, again, it is not 'cheating' on taxes to leave any more than it would be for you to move to another country, become a citizen and pay whatever their tax rates are.

2) yes, there has been an ongoing debate as to why corporations incorporate in other countries. Again, it is due to the fact that in the US, too many people think that taxing the 'evil pieces of paper' must be done. You do not need to tax the paper. You can tax the gains of the OWNERS of the company.... whether it be gains in the form of income or capital gains from the sale of ownership positions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

-It's a ten year old story, with no present-day repercussions for our country, or our citizens.

-The right wing's working of the refs, has never been so obvious in their demonization of the times, which is nothing more than a mainstream news outlet, with sometimes interesting reporting on a variety of issues and all kinds of politicians. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean that stomping your feet and getting redfaced until I believe it is going to work.

-I would be careful if I were you in bringing up how many starving kids 50 million dollars could feed. Should I get the current nut for Iraq, again?

-Let me know when the Times does a front page story, any story, about Holder's positions on drug sentencing. We'll talk then, you know, when you actually have a leg to stand on?

- so, are you suggesting that we no longer need a vetting process for political appointments? Because again, this is all this is.

- you are quite obviously brainwashed with regards to the times. To pretend it doesn't have a hard liberal bias is nothing short of being dishonest. It would be like someone from the right claiming Fox was just a news organization.

- again, as I stated, $50 million is a small amount in comparison to other larger amounts. But that does NOT change the fact that Rich has $50 (in 1980's dollars) that could have been and STILL could be used to feed those poor kids. YES, I know that other monies that have been wasted could also have been used for this purpose. But pretending that this waste 'doesn't matter' just because it isn't as bad as what Bush did is nothing short of pathetic.

- Sorry, but I do not read that trash, so you shall have to keep us up to date on whether or not they cover it.

 

[Cancel7]

- so, are you suggesting that we no longer need a vetting process for political appointments? Because again, this is all this is. No, I'm not suggesting anything. I have made it very easy for you, by making complete statements. Now, I know you might not be used to this, but you should be able to catch on. When I state: Why doesn't the times report on a "blemish" that Holder has that is actually important, like this stance on drug sentencing" I do not mean "we should do away with the vetting process". I'm really sorry you have such problems comprehending a woman who simply states what she means. Hmmm. Ok, let's start from the beginning, before you really get yourself into some shit SF. No means no! No does mean, my lips say no, but my eyes say yes. Ok? Let's practice with that, and soon you'll be allowed out and about to mix with people, and then we can move on to more complicated sentences.

- you are quite obviously brainwashed with regards to the times. To pretend it doesn't have a hard liberal bias is nothing short of being dishonest. It would be like someone from the right claiming Fox was just a news organization. I notice you offer no evidence for this, whereas I have offered some off the top of my head evidence for my position. (and i can get more). You on the other hand, are simply correct, because you say so, and often. In other words, if you say something often enough, people believe it. This is otherwise known as propoganda; see also, Bush. Thanks for proving my point about the right wing noise machine working the refs.

- again, as I stated, $50 million is a small amount in comparison to other larger amounts. But that does NOT change the fact that Rich has $50 (in 1980's dollars) that could have been and STILL could be used to feed those poor kids. YES, I know that other monies that have been wasted could also have been used for this purpose. But pretending that this waste 'doesn't matter' just because it isn't as bad as what Bush did is nothing short of pathetic. It mattered ten years ago. No one died, and it's not a continuing situation. It doesn't matter now. Move on.

- Sorry, but I do not read that trash, so you shall have to keep us up to date on whether or not they cover it. I see. So you are stating, as fact, that the NY Times will cover Holder's positions on drug sentencing, and calling me "ignorant for pretending otherwise", but you never read the paper, have no idea what they do or do not report on, and you are an authority anyway? Ah, yes, a man, it slipped my mind. Of course you are an authority, if not the authority, on the Ny Times' editorial and reporting content, you man, you!

.