stoned cockatoo
New Member
I hope that bitch get fucked by her own horse.
Her insides pulverized by a giant horse wang
Her insides pulverized by a giant horse wang
Dressage is so bad ass
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Why, for taking a damn $50 tax deduction or because the rest of the lefties are haters and you want to fit in? LMAO
stoned cockatoo
New Member
No because I have family member who represents the country most years at a world championship level and has to bust there ass to fund raise enough money each year to get there. No help from the government. Maybe if my family were high up greedy cock suckers we would all get 1st class flights and 5 star accommodation paid for every year.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
$50?
LOL!
multiply that $50 by 1,540 and you'll arrive at the $77,000 deduction she received for her dancing horse (let's not mention flying to the olympics with her dancing horse on the taxpayer dime).
that's enough to feed nearly 50 people on food stamps for a year. instead, we spent it on a multi millionaire's dancing horse.
god bless america.
Sorry pal, you are flat out wrong, lets see some proof, back up that accusation with some reliable data.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Nothing like trailer park conservatives defending a bitch and her half million dollar horse. 
Are you projecting your frustrations because you have no proof either?Nothing like trailer park conservatives defending a bitch and her half million dollar horse.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Beenthere, the tax deduction has been widely reported on. Google is FFS, it's in his tax return that HE released.
Buck,
You see the interviews with Ann over the last week? A few weeks ago she was a huge plus for Mitt. I think that's now over. Every time she's asked about taxes she either comes off as an elitist cunt "you people have seen all you're going to see" or actually makes the tax question worse "the more info we release the more ammo the other side has".
Buck,
You see the interviews with Ann over the last week? A few weeks ago she was a huge plus for Mitt. I think that's now over. Every time she's asked about taxes she either comes off as an elitist cunt "you people have seen all you're going to see" or actually makes the tax question worse "the more info we release the more ammo the other side has".
canndo
Well-Known Member
so, did anyone watch mitt's dancing horse bring shame to america in the olympics?
you'd think they'd try a little harder since we're going to pick up the $77,000.00 tab on that horse once they sell it, in addition to covering the travel expenses for that half ton philly and her dancing horse.
My god that is hideous, this has got to be pshopped...... right?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Beenthere, where have you been? not getting around the news much? the 77k is a valid number. Though I am not exactly sure that it was deducted.
canndo
Well-Known Member
If you are asking if the horse was flown at tax payer's expense - well I don't know about that.
But I am using you to make a point again Beenthere (hope you don't mind). Conservatives are quite often kept in the dark, they don't even see the same evidence that the rest of us to and so they are more easily manipulated into believing what the machine wishes them to believe. We find this over and over again, they demand proof of things that the rest of us have seen and has become legitimate general knowlege. This serves two purposes, it has conservatives believe that the rest of the world is delusional and it insulates them from reality. See how this works? Beenthere hasn't seen any pictures of this slip of paper with the 77k on it, he has not seen the particulars of Romney's single tax return, he knows nothing of it... because nothing in it casts a good light on the candidate he was assigned to defend.
Am I right Beenthere? or did you indeed see that 77k figure and are asking some other question all together?
Where not talking about the expense being a valid number sparky, were talking about whether or not it was a tax deduction, which I might add fell on it's face, been around much? LOL
In fact, you are so wrong it's comical my friend. LOL
canndo
Well-Known Member
As I said, I didn't see the paper as being a tax return and I didn't know if it was actually a deduction.
canndo
Well-Known Member
But you did see the figure, did you not?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it can all be deducted later once he sells the horse for a profit. it would make no sense for a multi millionaire to meticulously track $77,000.00 worth of expenses to take advantage of a $50 tax break or whatever beennowhere is arguing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
*we're
*its
selective reading FTW!
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/06/tobin-the-.html
Although it is not clear what expenses make up the $77,731 figure on the Romney’s return, assuming the figure is correct, the Romney’s effectively received no tax benefit from the activity. They will only recoup these expenses if the Rafalca activity returns a profit.
considering that romney and co. will dope up horses to make a profit if they have to, it's fair to say that a horse that danced in the olympics will turn a profit and they will get all their money back on that deduction.