Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Recent Eric Hogue Posting on Crosswalk...http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/erichogue/?adate=8/14/2005

Cindy Sheehan has stated that she will NOT pay her taxes because President Bush 'killed' her son, Casey...

Today, the fine work of numerous Freepers has determined that Cindy Sheehan has owed 'back taxes' in a lien against her property starting in 1998. Here is her Solano County report and delinquency. Here are some more public records proving her tax debt.

Seems that Sheehan is using the body of her dead son for her political soap box in Crawford, Texas, and she is using his death as a 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to her refusal to pay her taxes. Nice!

Maybe someone should discuss her 501-c3 status for her non-profit organization. Isn't she being supported in Texas by her organization's tax free donations...and the funneling of funds from the fine folks at Move'on?

Time to remove their tax exempt status, wouldn't you think?

What a sham she is; there is no mother here, just another political hack, using the death of her adult son for her financial advantage.

And her son died when, Apr 4, 2004, you say....six years after she began to renege on her taxes?? And suddenly she's not paying taxes because Bush murdered her son? What's wrong with this picture?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 14,629 • Replies: 402

No top replies

To me this seems like another political hatchet job for someone who speaking against the president and is gaining traction. I am not denying it's true but the pattern here is unmistakeable.

0 Replies

I read her husband has filed for divorce. I guess he is tired of seeing his sons death being used as a tool by the nutjobs on the left. Can't say as I blame him.

0 Replies

I get the feeling you hang around water coolers a lot during business hours.

0 Replies

The lack of compassion from the "compassionate conservatives" is staggering.

Here's her quote:

"My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

So, get your story straight, slkshock. It has nothing to do with taxes from six years ago. So, don't try to turn it inot something it's not. She isn't claiming to not pay '98 due to her sons death.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

So, get your story straight, slkshock. It has nothing to do with taxes from six years ago. So, don't try to turn it inot something it's not. She isn't claiming to not pay '98 due to her sons death.

Perhaps not squinney, but it shows she has a history of not paying taxes and this time she just happened to have a reason that the American public could see. If it wasn't for this reason then she would create some other reason for not paying.

0 Replies

And unpaid parking tickets. I bet she has lots of those. Well who can even believe what a person like that says! She must be a complete loony. Whew, thank goodness. I can go back to licking the president's feet now that I know that.

Hail to the chief....doo-do-doo doo-doo doo-do-doo...

0 Replies

What's the problem Freeduck? Is Sheehan above criticism? She placed herself on the public stage, now we get to throw tomatoes at her.

0 Replies

McG, you know as well as I that it is unfair to be critical of those who are anti-Bush. Especially a protester who has lost a son to Bush's little war. How dare you? Have you no compassion? And really, must you throw tomatoes at her? Why not some other veggie? Do you so despise tomatoes that you would use them to attack a protester? What about using something like a plum? What good are they for?

I'm done ranting now. What was the question again?

0 Replies

Free Duck, I am not attacking her for not paying taxes I am just saying that to use her sons death as a reason is disgraceful and as I indicated, due to her past refusal to pay taxes or parking tickets it shows a pattern which had absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or the unfortunate death of Sheehan's son.

And nobody wants you to lick the President's feet that is a job reserved for Dickie and Donnie (Cheney and Rumsfeld)

0 Replies

I volunteered to lick Laura's feet, but was turned down.

Seriously though, I think her statement about not paying her taxes is telling. Kinda takes the sincerity of her protest down a notch or two. But if the not paying taxes thing works for her, then I will also refuse to pay until the government stops using my taxes to fund those things I am against. Seems only fair.

0 Replies

Her protest is not primarily about taxes. It is about losing a son and not being able to confront the president personally about it.

And I don't think she is "exploiting" the death of her son, either. If you can't raise a flap about your son being killed, what can you raise a flap about?

0 Replies

I'll back you 100% Coastal Rat.

Maybe if everyone...

0 Replies

I addressed the issue of her marriage elsewhere and won't waste time explaining to you guys who are too lazy to seek out the terms of the divorce on your own.

I must say, with the wind blowing as it has for the past decade or so, I have developed a left lean...and I'm beginning to think that the delivery of this message is a bit loony.
Her actual message is legitimate...she believes she lost a son in an unjust war and she hopes to take her gripes to the head honcho--I always do that when my Big Mac gets f*cked up....go straight to the manager.

Hey why do veterans have to pay taxes anyway?

0 Replies

Picture of Cindy Sheehan with Bush when they met:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/bushkissing.jpg

"Enlarged image of President Bush, center, kissing Cindy Sheehan among family members in 2004. Left to right: Janey, Carly, Patrick, President Bush, Cindy and Andy at Ft. Lewis in Washington State."

SOURCE

That picture has been removed from the Sheehan family photo website, but the cached image remains.

0 Replies

Hey...there's me....that's me on the right!!!!

...no wait...where's my glasses.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I addressed the issue of her marriage elsewhere and won't waste time explaining to you guys who are too lazy to seek out the terms of the divorce on your own.

I must say, with the wind blowing as it has for the past decade or so, I have developed a left lean...and I'm beginning to think that the delivery of this message is a bit loony.
Her actual message is legitimate...she believes she lost a son in an unjust war and she hopes to take her gripes to the head honcho--I always do that when my Big Mac gets f*cked up....go straight to the manager.

Hey why do veterans have to pay taxes anyway?

You are correct Candid. She believes her message is legit and nobody is disputing her right to get that message out. The thrust of the back and forth going on here is whether or not her reasons for protesting are quite what she claims.

She put herself in the public eye, maybe inadvertantly, but she did so. She probably did not fully expect this to mushroom into what it has become, but it has. And as such, she has opened herself up to question her real motivation and for criticism of her protest.

As far as her divorce goes, she has addressed that so unless hubby contradicts her, it is a non-issue as far as her protest goes. Besides, who really cares if the divorce proceedings are related to her protest. I couldn't care less why she is divorcing.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
I addressed the issue of her marriage elsewhere and won't waste time explaining to you guys who are too lazy to seek out the terms of the divorce on your own.

I must say, with the wind blowing as it has for the past decade or so, I have developed a left lean...and I'm beginning to think that the delivery of this message is a bit loony.
Her actual message is legitimate...she believes she lost a son in an unjust war and she hopes to take her gripes to the head honcho--I always do that when my Big Mac gets f*cked up....go straight to the manager.

Hey why do veterans have to pay taxes anyway?

You are correct Candid. She believes her message is legit and nobody is disputing her right to get that message out. The thrust of the back and forth going on here is whether or not her reasons for protesting are quite what she claims.

She put herself in the public eye, maybe inadvertantly, but she did so. She probably did not fully expect this to mushroom into what it has become, but it has. And as such, she has opened herself up to question her real motivation and for criticism of her protest.

As far as her divorce goes, she has addressed that so unless hubby contradicts her, it is a non-issue as far as her protest goes. Besides, who really cares if the divorce proceedings are related to her protest. I couldn't care less why she is divorcing.

Several members here have alluded to the divorce like it's relevant to her protest, but would likely conclude that shirking her taxes is not at all related and therefore bogus.

You're correct in that assertion: there's no way she'd have predicted the circus that it has become. But that's not to say she doesn't like it.

I think it's fine to stage a protes and it's fine to have the "corporate" support....but this has now become such a partisan issue, and I think the issue is no longer her dead son, it's whether or not Bush chooses to meet with her.
Which misses the point.
We already knew he's an armchair conflict resolutionist...a pussy who needs a script and a handful of Rove's, Rumsfelds, Cheney's and heavy handed senior administrators to take swings at the fastballs that may get hurled his way.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

And nobody wants you to lick the President's feet that is a job reserved for Dickie and Donnie (Cheney and Rumsfeld)

That would explain the sour looks on their faces.

0 Replies

I think I am in trouble as I find myself somewhat in agreement again with someone from the "I hate Bush" side. Smile

I agree that the issue with her is no longer her son, but Bush's refusal to meet with her. But here is where I bet we would diverge Candidone. I find it rather pompous for her to believe that she has a right to walk up and demand to see the president. Sure, Bush could meet with her, but then what does he do when every other parent whose child dies in military service (not just in Iraq, mind you) demands to meet with him?

The president has met with her. So now she wants to meet with him again, for what purpose? To get an explaination from him? Does she think he will tell her more than he has told the rest of the country?

I think whether she realizes it or intended it, she is being used by those who have been against this war from day one to make headlines. And that indeed is the shame of it all.

0 Replies

Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know