HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Feds sue anti-war activis...

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:30 PM

Feds sue anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan over back taxes

SACRAMENTO, CA (KXTV) - The federal government has filed a lawsuit to force anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to provide her financial records to the Internal Revenue Service.

An IRS revenue officer said Sheehan refused to answer any questions about her finances after receiving a summons at her Vacaville home.

Sheehan said she's always been up front with the IRS and has no intention of paying her taxes. She says the government has already taken enough from her.

"If they (federal government), can give me my son back, I'll pay my taxes, but that's not going to happen," Sheehan said.


http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/240153/81/Anti-war-activist-

Not the smartest fight to pick.

103 replies, 12930 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 103 replies Author Time Post
Reply Feds sue anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan over back taxes (Original post)
hack89 Feb 2012 OP
sinkingfeeling Feb 2012 #1
Tripod Feb 2012 #88
sinkingfeeling Feb 2012 #95
Tripod Feb 2012 #100
truebrit71 Feb 2012 #2
Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #4
uppityperson Feb 2012 #6
truebrit71 Feb 2012 #9
Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #18
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #19
Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #23
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #28
Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #31
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #36
Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #37
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #38
MADem Feb 2012 #58
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #40
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #41
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #42
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #43
24601 Feb 2012 #44
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #45
Bradical79 Feb 2012 #77
itsrobert Feb 2012 #3
uppityperson Feb 2012 #5
frazzled Feb 2012 #22
uppityperson Feb 2012 #26
frazzled Feb 2012 #27
uppityperson Feb 2012 #73
saras Feb 2012 #46
girl gone mad Feb 2012 #92
bayareaboy Feb 2012 #7
dflprincess Feb 2012 #50
2banon Feb 2012 #53
bayareaboy Feb 2012 #56
IndyJones Feb 2012 #60
SemperEadem Feb 2012 #8
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #10
2pooped2pop Feb 2012 #33
Journeyman Feb 2012 #11
snot Feb 2012 #16
Journeyman Feb 2012 #35
snot Feb 2012 #82
cstanleytech Feb 2012 #12
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #13
fasttense Feb 2012 #20
hack89 Feb 2012 #25
fasttense Feb 2012 #61
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #29
2pooped2pop Feb 2012 #34
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #39
EFerrari Feb 2012 #68
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #71
EFerrari Feb 2012 #79
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #81
EFerrari Feb 2012 #83
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #84
EFerrari Feb 2012 #87
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #91
EFerrari Feb 2012 #65
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #66
EFerrari Feb 2012 #76
snot Feb 2012 #14
saras Feb 2012 #47
snot Feb 2012 #15
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #17
truthisfreedom Feb 2012 #86
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #21
kgnu_fan Feb 2012 #24
JJW Feb 2012 #30
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #32
sdghjtyjty Feb 2012 #48
NICO9000 Feb 2012 #49
2banon Feb 2012 #54
2banon Feb 2012 #51
proud2BlibKansan Feb 2012 #52
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #55
geek tragedy Feb 2012 #90
MADem Feb 2012 #57
IndyJones Feb 2012 #59
DUIC Feb 2012 #62
EFerrari Feb 2012 #64
DUIC Feb 2012 #69
EFerrari Feb 2012 #74
DUIC Feb 2012 #80
girl gone mad Feb 2012 #93
DUIC Feb 2012 #94
LaydeeBug Feb 2012 #96
DUIC Feb 2012 #97
uppityperson Feb 2012 #99
DUIC Feb 2012 #102
uppityperson Feb 2012 #103
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #70
DUIC Feb 2012 #72
Gringostan Feb 2012 #63
Mr_Jefferson_24 Feb 2012 #67
Broderick Feb 2012 #75
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2012 #78
midnight Feb 2012 #85
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2012 #98
geek tragedy Feb 2012 #89
Fearless Feb 2012 #101

Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:31 PM

1. Cindy should quote Santorum that the government can't force you to pay

for something you don't believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:33 AM

88. But they can put you in prison.

700, finally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tripod (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 11:00 AM

95. I don't think she has a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #95)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 02:40 AM

100. I wouldn't want to be her.

"Sweet dreams, and fly tonight"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:32 PM

2. Sorry Cindy, as honourable a position as that may be, you ain't winning that fight...

 

...like they say, only two things in life guaranteed, death and taxes...and you don't get to choose between 'em...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:36 PM

4. Well, that's true enough, but

the idea of waiving taxes for deceased soldiers - for the parents if unmarried or the spouse if married - is noble and a way for this country to express their gratitude, every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:38 PM

6. great minds think alike. My thought also but I limited it to a yr or 2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:51 PM

9. Yeah, I could get behind that idea...

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:24 PM

18. That sounds like a good proposal to me, Old and In the Way.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:27 PM

19. What about their wives, children, and siblings? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:59 PM

23. Not sure what you mean.

I specifically said spouses in my post. I don't think the exemption should carry through, generationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:10 PM

28. Based on what though?

 

It seems like siblings and children can be just as hard hit emotionally as parent if not more. Spouses seem to be the best argument, but they are not paying taxes on the soldiers income at that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:20 PM

31. Are children siblings paying federal taxes?

OK, maybe up to the 18th birthday it would be reasonable if they exceeded the minimum taxable income...but, after that, I think it would be fair to stop it there. Spouses do pay taxes on their own income, though...and I think it's an easy way for the government to recognize a special benefit that acknowledges his/her loss for the deceased service to this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:31 PM

36. But not paying taxes is not a benefit for any type of service?

 

And kids will pay taxes so why aren't they exempt? If there was a draft then maybe it would be a better argument, but there is not.

If a federal agent, or other federal worker dies while on duty, should their spouses also pay no taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:42 PM

37. No on federal workers, possibly for federal agents.

If your job description puts you in a likely position to potentially die in service to your country...I think it's reasonable. Already answered your kids question and I don't see what's relevant about a draft that doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:54 PM

38. Let's just make it so the spouse and the kids don't have to pay taxes on the soldier's income

 

after he dies in combat. That sounds fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:10 AM

58. Well, there is SGLI insurance--it doesn't bring back the deceased, but it's a pretty decent chunk of

change. There's also a smaller "death benefit" that will pay for burial, provide the tombstone/marker, etc.

It's not like people who have lost a loved one in wartime are just tossed to the curb with no resources to transition.

Lots here--follow the links: http://www.vba.va.gov/survivors/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:19 PM

40. Sounds like a good idea to me also.

Perhaps Cindy taking this stand could make it an issue. I can't imagine too many Americans opposing that kind of support for the troops. Maybe after all it's a fight the Government might not want to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:22 PM

41. Until the spouse of a dead soldier becomes CEO of HP or works at Goldman Sachs.

 

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Or remarries a businessman who names him/her CEO so he/she can route both their salaries through him/her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:26 PM

42. Well if someone remarries I think they would no longer have the exemption.

Doesn't it work that way with other benefits available to widows/widowers?

As for becoming a high earning CEO, that too could be considered in the legislation.

But Cindy definitely has a point. They took her son, refused to answer her questions as to why he died, and she cannot get him back. Is there a price on that?

Most other countries do treat their veterans and surviving families much better than they are treated here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

43. Sounds like it just got a lot more complicated.

 

I'm pretty sure her son signed up. I think he was pretty gung-ho about the military in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:02 PM

44. Wife? How about spouse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #44)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:08 PM

45. True. I've edited my post. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:46 PM

77. Not sure she's expecting to win

She's drawing a lot of attention to her anti-war stance and loss of her son again, so I a suspect she knew very well it would come to this eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

3. She needs help

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:37 PM

5. Here's an interesting thought. If your kid gets killed in the military, excuse family from paying

taxes for that yr, including not only the dead military person's family, but his/her parents. I wouldn't cause a lot of problems in the gvt and might be a decent thing to do.

I know, the "kid" is an adult so why should his/her parents get a tax break, but just thinking it would be decent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:59 PM

22. Sounds sort of like a payoff to me

Or a bribe. I think it sounds kind of cheap and disgusting, as if escaping paying your taxes for a year is compensation for the death of a child. As if that would even the balance sheet. Money, money, money: I thought only Republicans think about it all the time.

Sorry, but in a country with a volunteer army, that is not how things work. Death benefits, yes; parents escaping their taxes, no. We're Democrats: we all pay taxes because we believe in contributing to the common good (and to fixing those things we disagree are contributing to the common good through the democratic system).

Did Cindy Sheehan ever think that by withholding her taxes she harms somebody else's child? I bet she didn't.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:05 PM

26. I see it as an addition to those death benefits you mention and agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:08 PM

27. Taxes are taxes that everyone should pay, not a benefit

No, I clearly don't agree with anything you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

73. Your quote " Death benefits, yes". Now you don't agree with this?

Another quote of yours: "Money, money, money: I thought only Republicans think about it all the time. "
You are wrong. The unemployed, the underemployed also think about it all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:24 PM

46. Or did and figured she stops a lot of harm and a trivial amount of good by not paying

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:27 AM

92. How is she harming somebody else's child?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

7. Why not ...


Have Cindy pay the same amount as GE. That would be zero. Besides that they didn't have to give up a son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bayareaboy (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:08 PM

50. If she paid as much as GE she'd get a rebate

I wonder how much money GE made off the war her son died in? All parents or spouses of dead soldiers should get GE's negative tax rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bayareaboy (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:49 PM

53. ding ding ding ding ding..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:47 AM

56. EGGS ZACTLY!


I don't really think that has anything to worry about, actually having to pay back taxes though. She probably does not have much funds and there are still lots of folks who stopped paying during the 1960s.

In fact I will bet that it probably isn't very high on her list, payin back the goverment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bayareaboy (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:38 AM

60. I thought this exact thing, too. I mean, there is something clearly wrong with our system when

a multi million dollar corporation pays less in taxes than the CEO makes each year (or gets a huge refund).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:46 PM

8. this is not going to turn out well

Cindy, figure out a way to pay your back taxes and then fight for a change to the tax laws where parents who lose children in wars can be exempt from paying taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:53 PM

10. I suspect she wants to go to jail to make a statement.

Can't say I fault her. I have no idea what I would do if my only child was killed by right-wing policies. Shudder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:26 PM

33. yes, it's not about her taxes

 

it's about the insult to think she should pay them when they sent her son to die in an illegal war, I'll wager.

Good luck Cindy. I think of you, often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:53 PM

11. An admirable stance, akin to Thoreau's objections in 1848. I feel it will end similarly. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:19 PM

16. How did Thoreau's case end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:29 PM

35. He was carted off to jail . . .

and an Aunt paid his taxes for him the next morning, to avoid scandal to the family name.

But then, he used the occasion as the impetus to write possibly the most explosive political essay of all time, Civil Disobedience, the document that has, so far, set in motion resistance movements from India to the U.S., and countless lands in between.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 10:40 PM

82. Thank you! What a wonderful history!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:55 PM

12. "Not the smartest fight to pick." True enough, look what happend to Wesley Snipes

when he tried to get out of paying his taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:58 PM

13. Mrs Sheehan's son enlisted for the military. When they are in a war zone they get hazardous duty pay

 

which increases their pay. I also think they don't have to pay taxes while they are in a combat zone. They deserve that much from us. I do think we should also pay for the soldiers funeral when they die in combat. The married soldier's family get extended benefits for the rest of the lives or unless they remarry. If the soldier has a family their family members can take advantage of the schooling they offer. I know it helped my sister who went to college. I think the government has done very well by our soldiers in combat. I do wish they would do more for the wounded soldiers who come back as far as health care.

I feel terrible for Mrs Sheehan but I would suggest she pay her taxes or she will lose and be sitting in a jail cell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:42 PM

20. Yes they pay taxes while in a war zone.

 

They just don't pay taxes on hazardous duty pay.

By the way, bush was doing audits of military members taxes when he was in office. I know, I was auditted while I was in the Navy. But the IRS ended up owing me money.

Yes, she will end up in jail but NOT because our laws are fair and equitable. Only in this America can a corporation pay absolutely zero taxes, get a tax subsidy, give up nothing, make billions and encourage war-mongers, while a dead soldier's family pay 35% of everything they work for.

Fight the good fight Cindy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

25. The Combat Zone Exclusion covers base pay, combat pay and reenilistment bonuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 08:36 AM

61. And that is why the IRS ended up owing me money after the audit. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:10 PM

29. I knew something about the break they get during a war zone. By the way they earned every penny of

 

it. I don't begrude the soldier at all. I think the country should pay for the soldier's funeral if he dies in a combat zone. I think give them $10,000 for funeral expenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:28 PM

34. I suspect she will lose

 

but will make enough noise that she will once again bring the illegality of the war to the front.

I wish her well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:17 PM

39. We are out of Iraq. We had a legit purpose in going to Afghanistan. Now that OBL is dead

 

it is time to bring our troops home. All the noise in the world isn't going to bring back her son am sorry to say. I feel terrible for her and many families who have lost loved ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:02 PM

68. It always surprises me when people who believe we are out of Iraq and

that we had a legit purpose for going into Afghanistan, both propositions which are debatable, overlook that we are up to our eyeballs in armed conflicts of choice and all over the world from out thousand or so bases and as if Cindy Sheehan is just some crazy mother who can't get over the death of her son and has nothing to complain about.

We don't need Cindy Sheehan to stop making "noise". We thousands more like her to get off their keisters and make more noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:17 PM

71. I am sorry for her lose. Remember this is an all volunteer military. No one twisted her son to

 

go into the military. I think the young man was a hero for volunteering. Nothing we say or do is going to bring him back, nothing. I don't know what else you want me to say. There are 2 things in this country that everyone will have and that is death and taxes. I don't think it is right that you don't pay your taxes. Sorry. I don't care who the person is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #71)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:48 PM

79. The larger question is do you agree that our tax money should be used

to line the pockets of a corrupt defense industry, which seems to be our biggest export?

That is the question Cindy Sheehan is raising, not what you think of her son's enlistment or if you think she should pay her taxes or not. This is, at bottom, about us not about Casey or Cindy Sheehan.

/punc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 09:10 PM

81. No. But that and a cup of coffee isn't going to make a difference. Not until we have people in the

 

streets like back in the 60s. Not paying taxes doesn't do it for me sorry. Pay your taxes then recruit many of your friends to march into DC and make your points you would then have alot more support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #81)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:11 PM

83. Cindy Sheehan was the first occupier, which I believe was pointed out by Will Pitt.

And she's been out in the streets since Camp Casey even if it's hard for the less active among us to keep up with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:18 PM

84. Good for her. I wish her well. But pay your taxes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:27 AM

87. Her act of conscience is not up for a vote any more than Baez's was or Thoreau's. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:40 AM

91. Good point. I leave you with that for now. I went off to watch Bill Maher on Yahoo.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:48 PM

65. Peace activists not paying taxes has a long tradition in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:50 PM

66. That is an american tradition. Enjoy all the benefits without paying taxes.

 

America is a wonder place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

76. You may be confusing anti-war activists with GE or Goldman Sachs.

Peace Activists make their protest, sometimes serve time and the government usually gets their tax money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:10 PM

14. Sheehan has been prepared from Day One to go to jail for her convictions.

From the speech she gave just before she set up camp outside Bush's ranch:

Another thing that Iím doing is - - my son was killed in 2004, so Iím not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, Iím gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I donít owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I wonít owe you a penny.

And I want them to come after me, because unlike what youíve been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickiní war on trial. And I want to say, ďYou give me my son, and Iíll pay your taxes.Ē

. . . . And Henry David Thoreau he went to prison, he refused to pay his poll tax, and Emerson, I call them HT and RW, and RW came to visit HT and said what are you doing here, buddy? And HT said, why arenít you here? This is the only place for a moral person in an immoral world.

Itís up to us, the people, to break immoral laws, and resist. As soon as the leaders of a country lie to you, they have no authority over you. These maniacs have no authority over us. And they might be able to put our bodies in prison, but they canít put our spirits in prison. . . .

* * * * *

The opposite of good is not evil, itís apathy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:28 PM

47. I think we have a winner.

 

"you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I donít owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I wonít owe you a penny"

If, in fact, the war is illegal, then it is being conducted by an illegitimate government, and they shouldn't get public money - ANYONE'S public money, not just hers, for their illegal activities. And when they get caught, like any other criminal, they should be made to pay it all back - in this case, that's all the war profits for anyone who profited from it. It should ALL go back the the American victims of the war, or back to all Americans.

How ELSE do we get there from here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:18 PM

15. I also find it interesting that they've waited until now to sue her. She stopped paying in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:21 PM

17. Have you stopped to think maybe she is trying to make a point. I think she is. That is fine if

 

she wants to make that an issue. But be prepared for the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:39 PM

86. They waited until we pulled out of Iraq because they wanted to weaken her position politically.

It's that simple. If we were still fighting in Iraq, they'd still be waiting to prosecute her.

I doubt they'll take much more action during an election year. Look for her to be arrested next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:44 PM

21. Blade 4 is going to be awesome. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

24. I support Cindy nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:20 PM

30. Excellent! Go Cindy!

 

Cindy is standing up to the war criminals in DC that killed her son over sexed up intelligence. All true Americans should stop funding (via tax payments) the disgraceful revolving door of corruption in DC that only represents special pay to play interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:21 PM

32. Hmm

I wish she wouldn't make this about taxes. Anti-tax narratives play to the right wing far too easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:56 PM

49. She'd better be ready to go to prison then

I guarantee you the IRS could care less about her son. They'll get their $$ or she'll soon be hanging out with Wesley Snipes in the yard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NICO9000 (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:23 AM

54. The IRS has power over SCOTUS, Congress, and the Executive branch

 

but they can't seem to go after real tax evaders.. hmmm..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:41 PM

51. typical of the Feds, going after low hanging fruit, never mind the real tax evaders

 

go after banksters, wall street fraudsters, big business and their ceo's that do off shore banking, manufacturing in China, India and countries that pay pennies to a dollar on "wages". (read legalized slavery)...

no, let's shut down medicinal dispensaries and growers, arrest owster's and sue anti-war activists instead..

so much easier than actually going after the real criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:45 PM

52. Good for you, Cindy!!

I'm behind you all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:31 AM

55. How many political prisoners does the U.S. currently hold?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:40 AM

90. Refusal to pay taxes is a crime, not dissent. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:05 AM

57. Ah ha "... has no intention of paying her taxes."

She should ask Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson how that worked out for them.

From the headline, I first thought it was a question of a simple dispute over earnings--from book/touring/speaking type stuff, but I see now that she's refusing to pay taxes as a poltiical protest. That kind of tosses any kind of "diminished capacity" argument out the window.

If her residence is hers, and not rented, she won't own that house for long, if that is indeed the case. Those guys will get their money.

I agree--not the smartest fight to pick. It never ends well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:35 AM

59. Hmmm...interesting issue. I see where she's coming from but I don't think she's going to win,

unfortunately.

I think it's a fight worth fighting, though, and if given the opportunity to vote on it, I'd side with her. I agree with her that she's given enough to the country by losing her son. On the other hand, her son made the decision to enter the military and he knew the risks. I'm certainly not opposed to extending that benefit to the spouses and parents of those who are killed in service.

I give her props for really standing up for her beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 09:41 AM

62. Casey Sheehan would be so disapointed in his mother

 

Casey served his country gladly and was proud of his country, paying the ultimate sacrifice. He would now have one more thing to be disapointed in his mother about. What makes Cindy so desperate to be a public spectacle that she does so many things that are contrary to her sons beliefs? Were Casey and Cindy estranged because of his resolve to join the military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:42 PM

64. How disgusting to use Casey Sheehan to attack his mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:04 PM

69. How disgusting of Cindy to use the memory of Casey Sheehan to protest

 

She is a parent that is using her childs death for a purpose that goes against what the child stood for.


ďThatís all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life,Ē Carly Sheehan said. ďHe was a boy scout from age 6 or 7 and an Eagle Scout. It was kind of a natural progression to go into the military from that. He said he was enjoying the military because it was just like the boy scouts but they got guns.Ē


http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/soldier/257123/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #69)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:41 PM

74. No. Unlike yourself, Cindy Sheehan has the right to invoke

her son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 06:46 PM

80. Not according to every other member of the Sheehan family that deplore Cindy's actions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #69)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:37 AM

93. And you're attempting to speak for a dead person.

He was a kid when he died. You have no idea what he would have thought or how he would have felt about his mother's actions. His mother gave birth to him, raised him well and loved him. Who are you to try and denigrate a grieving mother by proclaiming that her dead son would have hated her? This only makes you come across like a complete douchebag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #93)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:59 AM

94. Carly Sheehan, Pat Sheehan, and Andy Sheehan have all spoken out against Cindy's grandstanding

 

The other family members public comments give great insight into how Casey would have felt about his mother using his death as a prop in her stage act. She comes across as a complete douche bag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

96. Carly Sheehan, Pat Sheehan, and Andy Sheehan did not GIVE BIRTH to Casey, who no doubt,

 

through armed services radio, listened to a steady flow of right wing garb each and every day. It wasn't until after Casey's death that we even got the Ed Show on there, so...



edit for typos...3x DAMN!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:30 PM

97. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhttttt

 

Only Cindy could possibly know that Casey meant the exact opposite of what he was saying because of some secret maternal telepathic bond between her and Casey. And Pat, Carly, and Andy were merely dupes only listening to Casey's statements and watching Casey's deeds and foolishly taking those words and deeds at face value.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #94)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 12:28 AM

99. "She comes across as a complete douche bag". Thank you for being so open with your views.

It helps us know you better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #99)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 10:21 AM

102. I like to use the persons argument against themselves in my response

 

I believe it adds that personal touch. It also helps drive the silliness of their argument home.

Thanks for pointing my technique out. Also, thanks for getting in such a rage. It helps us know you better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #102)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 09:44 PM

103. That is "in a rage"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUIC (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:13 PM

70. I imagine you actually believe you...

I imagine you actually believe you have better knowledge of her son than she does herself. Further, I imagine you will even attempt to rationalize your guesses as valid inference based on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:49 PM

72. I imagine that you actually believe ...

 

I imagine that you actually believe that Cindy Sheehan has better knowledge than Pat Sheehan, the father who divorced Cindy for 'irreconcilable differences'. Those differences are based, in large part, on Cindy using Casey as a prop. Or Carly Sheehan, his sister. ... or Andy.


I imagine you even attempt to rationalize' Cindy' minority Sheehan view as valid because based on ....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:32 AM

63. My sympathies to you Cindy

My sympathies to you Cindy; but this is a fight you can not win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:58 PM

67. Why not countersue with a wrongful death civil action against the government...

... alleging their willful prosecution of an illegal war based on known and provable deceptions led to the death of her son.

I don't like jury duty as a rule, but that's one I'd be happy to serve on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:43 PM

75. I fought the IRS many years back

AND LOST BAD.

LOL.

Principle means nothing to them. No, I am not one of "those" that thinks there is no legal responsibility to pay taxes. It was in relation to a tax deduction claimed by two entities wherein I had the legal right, but the legal right gets trumped by the IRS by custodial issues and it becomes a civil matter in my case. At least at that time that was the case. Needless to say, a 1200 tax bill turned into 2000 or more quickly and I refused to pay. Not a wise move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:47 PM

78. Using her dead son to chisel on her taxes. Might be as low as it gets.

Pathetic woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:29 PM

85. K&R. for Cindy. I can't wait till she takes them to court... She has been waiting for this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 04:32 PM

98. And offers that as a defense? Ummm, yeah.

She'd be toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:38 AM

89. She's a wacko LaRouche/Paulbot who thinks taxes are unconstitutional.

 

She'll lose this just like every other anti-tax nutjob has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:21 AM

101. Just pay your damn taxes and employ a teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread