I mean, that's really all Gene is doing: looking around for someone with money, and then taking it from them. Not because it's his money. Not because they don't deserve that money. But simply because he doesn't feel like controlling his spending.

That is what this, and most other of his posts usually turn in to. All this comes down to is taxing successful Americans to pay for Americans who do not want to work. He can post all his fancy numbers, but that's all it comes down to.

That's why it's so funny when he claims he's a Republican. Every one of his posts is nothing but an EXACT duplication of standard DNC talking points.

IslandDog

The Congress, both GOP and Dems, were feed the BS that Bush gave them. Had the entire truth be known about the dander Saddam posed, there would NOT HAVE been a vote in Congress to approve this disaster!

The Congress, both GOP and Dems, were feed the BS that Bush gave them. Had the entire truth be known about the dander Saddam posed, there would NOT HAVE been a vote in Congress to approve this disaster!

Col, there was no bs. They saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. There were no lies, unless you will include the democrats. I love how you CLAIM TO BE A REPUBLICAN but constantly DEFEND AND GIVE PASSES TO THE DEMOCRATS.

I notice once again since Baker is pounding you in your own thread you resort to the usual Iraq rhetoric. I'm sure it's not a good day for you, being that someone you supported was killed in a U.S. airstrike today.

The argument is very simple, we have been under taxed given the level of SPENDING the Congress and Bush have approved and that has produced the deficit we will be paying for over the next several decades!!

You still haven't answered the questions to you.

Are you a socialist?

What percentage of income should successful Americans be taxed?

IslandDog

That is a lie. Bush kept Intel classified that showed Iraq was not the danger he claimed and Congress DID not see all the facts. The Congress was also not provided the military assessment of Saddam's capability which was that he could not attack any country much less the United States.

Better read Zinni's Book and Trainor's Book. Also the statements from the two CIA Section Chiefs that flatly stated Bush Cherry Picked the Intel! The facts are well documented and it was NOT that the Intel was all wrong it was that the Intel Bush released was wrong!

IslandDog

I guess you can not read. I have answered thoes questions Read #58

That is a lie. Bush kept Intel classified that showed Iraq was not the danger he claimed and Congress DID not see all the facts. The Congress was also not provided the military assessment of Saddam's capability which was that he could not attack any country much less the United States.

No col, you are the one not telling the truth. There was no lies, no deception. Get over it.

Better read Zinni's Book and Trainor's Book. Also the statements from the two CIA Section Chiefs that flatly stated Bush Cherry Picked the Intel! The facts are well documented and it was NOT that the Intel was all wrong it was that the Intel Bush released was wrong!

I have read quotes from Zinni that said Iraq was a threat and had WMD's. You know, the quotes you kept ignoring. I love how you think someone who is selling a book to you nutjob liberals think they are completely honest. Your facts are about as accurate as Dan Rathers.

Stop changing the subject because you are being picked apart by Baker.

IslandDog

The lie was that Bush only released the Intel that supported his position while there was a lot of Intel and the military assessment that did not support going to war. YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

Island Dog.

Your quotes from Zinni were several years earlier BEFOR he served as a security consultant where he SAW ALL the Intel and he clearly documents how Bush kept ANYTHING that did not support going to war Classified. The two CIA Section Chiefs said the VERY same thing as does Gen Trainor.

Col, you sound just like the nuts over at the DU. There was no lies. The democrats have been saying Iraq was a threat for years, and that Saddam had WMD's. I guess they were misled by Bush before he was elected.

I notice how you have conveniently changed the subject. Why don't you address Baker's posts instead of your usual anti-American rhetoric about Iraq.

Was this person lying....

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

But let's be fair col.

This quote here is by a democrat. Just tell me yes or no if this person was "deceived" by Bush. Yes or No col. None of your usual bs.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

I guess you can not read. I have answered thoes questions Read #58

Where in that post is the percentage of income that successful Americans should be taxed? Are you afraid to answer?

I'm just laughing when you say you are a Republican. You are nothing of the sort. You are more aligned with socialist democrats. Go look at what they stand for and compare it to your posts.

That is a lie. Bush kept Intel classified that showed Iraq was not the danger he claimed and Congress DID not see all the facts.

You are wrong on this. Even Colin Powell, whose name I've seen you use in defense of this position, has stated unequivocally, long after leaving the State Department, that Congress had access to all the same intel as the administration. You simply want to believe otherwise, therefore you do. You've been bashing Bush forever about never admitting a mistake - I don't believe I've ever seen you seriously answer a question, much less concede a point on which you were shown to be wrong.

IslandDog

All you have to do is look at the tax code prior to 2001. It clearly states the tax rates on the top two income brackets, the rates on Capital Gains and Dividends as well as the Estate Tax rates. That is what I support!!!!!

Daiwa

Have you read the books by Zinni and Trainor? Have you read the statements by the two CIA section Chiefs? These document that both classified Intel as well as the Military Assessment as to Saddam's capabilities that were available to Bush and refute the argument that Saddam was ANY threat. There were a handful of people that had access to that information, including Zinni, but were unable to talk about it because Bush kept it classified. Zinni said he looked as ALL the Intel and Military assessment in 2001 and 2002 when he was a security consultant in the Pentagon. This was just after his retirement. He is quoted in his book that he could not believe what Bush and Rummy were saying about the dander from Iraq given the TOTAL information that he was seeing on a daily basis. The two former CIA section Chiefs, one from Iraq and the other for Europe said the VERY SAME thing. Bush Cherry Picked only the Intel that supported what he wanted to do and buried the Intel that showed Saddam had ZREO capability to be ANY threat to the Unite States.

After over three years in Iraq, all these dreaded weapons can not be found. Bush and Rummy admit they were WRONG!!!!! Powell said the worst thing he did in his career was to give the misleading speech before the U N on Feb 5, 2003. What Bush did is LIE by omission. He released some info that was believed by the Intel Agencies that produced it to be correct. We know that Intel was wrong. However there was a wealth of other Intel and Military assessment about Iraq that showed most of the Intel saying Saddam was a threat was untrue. That is what was kept from Congress and the public. Had all the information that Zinni was seeing been given to Congress, there would not have been a War Resolution passed by Congress!

The reason we use today to justify the Iraq War is to enable the Iraqi People to select their own government. That is NOT the reason Bush gave Congress and the American People for going to war. We were told of the horrible Mushroom Clouds that could result unless we attached immediately. THAT WAS A LIE and Bush knew Saddam had no such capability. Just Saddam wanting such weapons is not a reason to invade Iraq. There are many other dictators that WANT such weapons and some that are a lot further along in acquiring them then Iraq was in early 2003.

All you have to do is look at the tax code prior to 2001. It clearly states the tax rates on the top two income brackets, the rates on Capital Gains and Dividends as well as the Estate Tax rates. That is what I support!!!!!

Col, you are so full of bs. Just answer the question. What percentage of income should a success American be taxed? Just tell me a number. This is why everybody here mocks you. You are asked a question and you go off about tax rates from before 2001. Just answer the question.

Zinni said he looked as ALL the Intel and Military assessment in 2001 and 2002 when he was a security consultant in the Pentagon. This was just after his retirement. He is quoted in his book that he could not believe what Bush and Rummy were saying about the dander from Iraq given the TOTAL information that he was seeing on a daily basis

Quote from Zinn:

Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," . "Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads,"

What does this tell you? That he's a typical democratic hack.

We were told of the horrible Mushroom Clouds that could result unless we attached immediately.

And democrats said it also. Are you going to give them a pass as usual?

The reason we use today to justify the Iraq War is to enable the Iraqi People to select their own government.

When has someone said that's the reason we originally went in?


WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE SUBJECT. IS IT BECAUSE BAKER IS RIPPING YOU A NEW ONE?