DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 More people saying Exxon payed $0 in taxes to the USAhttp://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/exxon-...electric-forbes Even by your preternaturally low standards of credibility, Mother Jones is a stretch.
drnykterstein Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Even by your preternaturally low standards of credibility, Mother Jones is a stretch. Yes, yes, I know. For when you are too stupid to understand the data: "Your news organization is sucky liberal dumbheads". We did that earlier in the thread. Try arguing with the message sometime, don't shoot the messenger.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Yes, yes, I know. For when you are too stupid to understand the data: "Your news organization is sucky liberal dumbheads".We did that earlier in the thread. Try arguing with the message sometime, don't shoot the messenger. You read half-ass editoral pieces from axe-grinding hack web sites, I read the actual unadulterated financial statements filed with the SEC. We did that in an earlier thread, too...when you took wikileaks' twitter feed as gospel. You might want to...oh, I don't know, maybe identify a single actual fact before you accuse someone else of not understanding them.
Magox Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Yes, yes, I know. For when you are too stupid to understand the data: "Your news organization is sucky liberal dumbheads".We did that earlier in the thread. Try arguing with the message sometime, don't shoot the messenger.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Isn't he precious? I can't read one of his posts without imagining him dumping a bowl of oatmeal on his head.
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Yes, yes, I know. For when you are too stupid to understand the data: "Your news organization is sucky liberal dumbheads".We did that earlier in the thread. Try arguing with the message sometime, don't shoot the messenger. From the same story, now revised, what Exxon says. It is incorrect to say that ExxonMobil did not pay any U.S. income tax in 2009. In fact, we expect a significant U.S. federal income tax liability for 2009, although our tax return will not be filed until later this year. Our tax installments overpaid our 2008 U.S. federal income taxes and we used that excess in part to pay our 2009 estimated taxes. The amount stated in our 10-K filing with the SEC, which Chris [Christopher Helman, who originally reported on this story for Forbes] told me he based his story on, includes expenses or credits recorded during 2009, and can represent items from previous years or expectations for subsequent years. It is not our actual tax bill.
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Isn't he precious? I can't read one of his posts without imagining him dumping a bowl of oatmeal on his head. How I picture the family, complete with T-shirt and underwear wearing parents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KmPBCSbRgY Just a feeling but I don't think that's going to be the last banana he gets close to.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 From the same story, now revised, what Exxon says. So you're yet another one of those people who can't argue the facts?
meazza Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 How I picture the family, complete with T-shirt and underwear wearing parents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KmPBCSbRgY Just a feeling but I don't think that's going to be the last banana he gets close to. You have to admit the kids got rhythm.
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 So you're yet another one of those people who can't argue the facts? I'm neutral on this. I cannot be bothered to care about Exxon's tax bill for 2009 and I am equally sure that conner is wrong on general principle. Proving conner wrong every time he speaks requires a Herculean effort I can't muster. I am happier that we tackle the job as a village.
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 You have to admit the kids got rhythm. Those hoho/Dorito/sausage fingers can snap like a MFer. The parental figure walking by in the background in underwear and a Tshirt completes the picture though. I find disturbing on par with the worst media story of 2009 besides Exxon's tax bill.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Proving conner wrong every time he speaks requires a Herculean effort I can't muster. Really? I find it rather simple. Three-quarters of the time, you just have to link to whatever he's misunderstanding. And half the time he's already provided the link.
Booster4324 Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Really? I find it rather simple. Three-quarters of the time, you just have to link to whatever he's misunderstanding. And half the time he's already provided the link.
Chef Jim Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 No? I've been working all day. Why what are you alluding to? Glad to see Chef Jim is openly admitting he's a troll now. Better to be a troll than a !@#$ing idiot.
meazza Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Better to be a troll than a !@#$ing idiot. In the case of Conner, he's both.
KD in CA Posted April 16, 2010 Author Posted April 16, 2010 More people saying Exxon payed $0 in taxes to the USAhttp://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/exxon-...electric-forbes A Mother Jones link?? I guess that's "more people who are too !@#$ stupid to read a financial statement". You've apparently got lots of company.
drnykterstein Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 A Mother Jones link?? I guess that's "more people who are too !@#$ stupid to read a financial statement". You've apparently got lots of company. That is not their real tax bill or real financial statement. They apparently are refusing to disclose the real data. But you get on with you bad self, all knowing of **** and what not. Knowing how to read it is irrelevant (even though they did read it correctly - and you are made of retard)
meazza Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 That is not their real tax bill or real financial statement. They apparently are refusing to disclose the real data. But you get on with you bad self, all knowing of **** and what not. Knowing how to read it is irrelevant (even though they did read it correctly - and you are made of retard) Really? A publicly traded firm refuses to disclose their real financial statements to the public? Are you for real?
IDBillzFan Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 How I picture the family, complete with T-shirt and underwear wearing parents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KmPBCSbRgY Just a feeling but I don't think that's going to be the last banana he gets close to. Unfortunately, instead of singing into the banana, the kid looks like maybe he should try eating one once in a while...and preferably not one that has been deep fried and dipped in chocolate.
keepthefaith Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Really? A publicly traded firm refuses to disclose their real financial statements to the public? Are you for real? You beat me to the punch. Hysterical.
Recommended Posts