Cheney booed

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5494902?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49

I'm really surprised nobody here picked this one up yet. It's kinda funny.

But anyway, my question is... why is HE the one wearing the bulletproof vest? Shouldn't everyone else be wearing one?

nah, I bet its steroids

If I didn't have deadlines at work, I'd have gone over to RFK to join in the booing.

Now THAT's funny

The real question should be did the fans boo the Nationals for playing such losy baseball.

They got owned, and then the National's player complaining that RFK stadium was too big to hit home runs in, yet the other team had no problem knocking them out of the park.

I think the Nat's overall suckiness overshadowed anything Cheney did....

It has more to do with the fact that the Mets fucking rawk!

Woulda been more pertinent in the shotgun thread, still... http://media2.audiostreet.net/2FF39FF2F2054513BF34E47894A0352B/Download/dick_is_a_killer.mp3

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/bush.taxes.ap/index.html



Wonder if all the people who boo'd him COMBINED gave that much to help their world? The Hollywood "stars" who make 10 times that much PER PICTURE don't give that much.

Okayyyy If Cheney made over 8 million dollars (Adjusted Gross Income) in 2005 and he fully deducted from his income donations to charities (YEAH RIGHT) of over 6 million dollars. This left him just under 2 million dollars income and he paid nearly 28% of that as taxes.

PROBLEM IS: The max deduction you can take in a given year for charitable donations is FIFTY PERCENT of your AGI. You can carry over (and keep carrying over) excess, but the most it can affect your deduction is by lowering your income by 50%. This means Cheney underpaid by at least $800K.

Unless there is some incredible LOOPHOLE here that I am not aware of, Cheney is thumbing his nose at the IRS.

Anyone think I've missed some tax rule here that Cheney has applied, speak up now...

Kendra, do you think Cheney and the White House would release to the public his tax records if he was "thumbing his nose" at the IRS?

When you donate proceeds from stock options, which is where the bulk of his annual income came from, I'm fairly certain that is not taxable because you never actually had the money in-hand -- you transfer the stock to the charity, the charity sells it and takes the income.

My wife and I donated to charity using stock in 2004 and I think that's the way it worked, though I didn't handle our taxes that year and left it to my taxman to take care of.

It doesn't matter whether you did or didn't. The point is that this right up the Republicans' alley. Being against most measures that deal with redistribution of wealth, for the protection of priviledges, and for cheap labor - even "slavish" labor of the kind supplied from illegal immigrants - many spend their lives fattening up their bellies without any care in the world, then they trim some of the fat and throw it to the masses and expect a warm "thank you" and a pat on their back.

I'd hardly call 78% of his income "trimming off the fat".

When was the last time you saw a liberal Hollywood "star" pushing charities, saying WE need to give more, WE need to do more, and then turn around and give 78% of THEIR salary away?

78% of a superrich person's 12-month-only earnings is "trimming off the fat big time."

That's numero uno.

Numero dos. I wouldn't expect liberals to be big on charities. As I said, that's a Republican shtick. Liberals fight for a decent education for everyone, decent opportunities, decent standards of living. For everyone. Emphasis on "everyone." Not just the priviledged few. Had they succeeded in their efforts, there would not be much of a need for charity - at least in the US. There's not much need for charity in the rest of the developed world.

But the US is not "the rest of the developed world." Here, priviledged numskulls, aka Republicans, have had a big say on how things should be run. And these priviledged numskulls have historically fought to protect their own narrow interests - their wealth, their properties, their schools, their religion, their morality. Emphasis, of course, on "their." Finding themselves locked out of all the good things, some people get left behind, forgotten, and in need of "their" charity.

Dick goes for the headshot, though.

His income, as well as those so-called Hollywood "stars" are irrelevant. He's still a giant douche.

I second that

Thirded.

(Frequent douching leads to imbalance in the ecosystem of your body... which makes the comment even more apropos, I think...)

So if I agree with you politically, I don't have to feel guilt about not giving money to charity? That's an interesting idea. Good luck with that.
Wait, so liberals have never been in power in this country, then? Wow, I guess I just dreamed the Carter Administration. Boy oh boy, he sure did a great job running the country, creating your utopia while shepherding us through periods of unmatched economic growth. After that experience I don't know why liberals haven't been in charge more.
In my experience, liberals, moderates, and conservatives all give money to charities. Your political philosophy doesn't necessarily impact whether you give money, but rather which charity receives your hard-earned funds.

In a social democratic utopia, there's no need for charity. The perfect social net takes care of people's needs, mishaps, etc. But such a utopia does not really exist. And it certainly does not exist in the US - courtesy of the Republicans. Hence the need for charity. That's all I'm saying. Yes, both conservatives and liberals give to charities. And you're right in that your political philosophy most likely determines which charity ends up with your funds.

And I'm saying that making that determination is making a very simplistic black-and-white view of American politics that is really not reflective of the real world. There are a wide varieties of views in both political parties in the United States, so to say that anything is "because of" either party is really making, at best, a surface analysis based on individual biases. At worst, such an anylsis is intentionally misleading - especially when you're writing about something as vague as a "social utopia", whatever that is. (Perhaps you mean socialist?)

Making broad categorizations pf someone's views, or actions, based on which political party they belong to is really not appropriate in an anlysis of American politics.

The current administration is not "conservative" by any stretch. They have made many, many radical moves, such as the raod to national nabkruptcy. What conservative would cut taxes while raising spending? start a long, long war without asking for ANY sacrifice? (except the lives of the sons of the non-rich)

What they are is grafters, looking to make money for their friends. Bush, Cheney and Rice all have strong oil company ties. Exxon just posted the highest profits of any company in history. We are not spending billions "in Iraq." That money mostly comes home, through "contractors" who won't even tell the GAO what the cahrges are for.

They are robbing us blind. Abramoff is the tip of the iceberg.

It is not about philosophy or politics, it is about stealing the wealth of the nation. How did Rummy and Cheney both get to be multi-millionaires after careers in government?

It would just seem like cheap criminals, if thousands and thousands of innocent women and children weren't dying in their cynical game.

How do you know? How do you know what the "Hollywood Stars" give and don't give? And why is it important? Cheney is a scum-sucking lying pig. Oh, sorry, he's a scum-sucking lying pig that gives to charity. That'll comfort the families of all those who've died in the Iraq War. It'll comfort the families of the people who've been kidnapped and tortured, oops I meant "detained" and "interrogated."