People do not need assault weapons: d...

People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

There are 4995 comments on the Reuters story from Jan 17, 2013, titled People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary. In it, Reuters reports that:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3470 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what we know:
Robert Novak says some unidentified member of the administration leaked this secret information to him. For some reason, Robert Novak won't identify who this person is.
Then, Robert Novak, knowing that this was secret information, let it out to the general public.
The obvious conclusion is, Robert Novak knowingly and intentionally outed Valerie Plame.
Should Robert Novak be sent to prison for treason?
bushie lied son. To Americans. To the UN. To the troops.

He lied to get his way.

You just refuse to look at the facts.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3471 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Very interesting....
I noticed that you didn't once mention Valerie Plame, who was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq.
Since the discussion is about what intelligence we had on Iraq, why wouldn't you mention the person in charge of the intelligence we had on Iraq?
Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA Joint Task Forde on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was responsible for all intelligence given to the president on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was outed by Robert Novak.
But, you mentioning Germany is very interesting.
Now, just why would you think German intelligence was related to Valerie Plame being the head of the CIA Joint Task Force on Iraq?
(I know the answer to this question, dufus. Do you?)
Let's see if I understand this....

... you're ignoring the facts in favor of your opinion?!?!?!

wow.....
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3472 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Why didn't Obama change it during his first two years.........oh yeah, he's one of the rich.
And he also said he should be taxed at a higher rate.

Well gee, since he's one of the rich according to you, we should go ahead an tax them!

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#3473 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Why? The tax code already favors business and the rich.
If your asking why an overhaul of the tax code the reasons are simple.

Our tax code does indeed favor business and the rich but this does not mean it favors the USA.

We need a tax code that taxes American business that makes profit overseas and a small amnesty period for business so they have an incentive to repatriate money that is overseas back to the USA for investment here.

Another thing that would help the working class and stimulate the economy is simply not taxing earners who make $ 30,000.00 or less.

This would have the effect of raising the minimum wage but would cost business nothing.

We should also have a flat tax with no deductions .

Say a fat cat makes five million a year and he is under a flat tax of 20 percent , no deductions he pays one million in taxes.

An earner making one hundred thousand would pay twenty thousand.

But the guy working for 8.00 to 12.00 dollars an hour with no overtime would pay no tax but would be spending all of his money in the private sector not wasting it on supporting government jobs.

Another important thing is the elimination of depreciation for business which allows business to spend money today but shelter future profit from tax buy using depreciation as an expense.

The biggest problem is government is going to screw this up by not paying their bills with cash but as Obama and previous administrations have done is borrow money and increasing the money supply with the fed buy treasury bills so the dollar being worth less and less the small earner cannot keep up with prices.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3474 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell? What's the obsession with animal sex you clearly are on the wrong forum - yesickmoron
Since that's the only part of the post you can think of, let me remove that quip so you can think about the core argument within the post.

Does the person speaking have the responsibility of maintaining the classification they know to exist?
Does the person speaking have the right to dissimenate private information they acquired through some illegal means (the government issuing private information on individuals is illegal) knowing it to be private information?

Did Robert Novak commit treason when he outed Valerie Plame?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3475 Feb 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>If your asking why an overhaul of the tax code the reasons are simple.
Our tax code does indeed favor business and the rich but this does not mean it favors the USA.
We need a tax code that taxes American business that makes profit overseas and a small amnesty period for business so they have an incentive to repatriate money that is overseas back to the USA for investment here.
Another thing that would help the working class and stimulate the economy is simply not taxing earners who make $ 30,000.00 or less.
This would have the effect of raising the minimum wage but would cost business nothing.
We should also have a flat tax with no deductions .
Say a fat cat makes five million a year and he is under a flat tax of 20 percent , no deductions he pays one million in taxes.
An earner making one hundred thousand would pay twenty thousand.
But the guy working for 8.00 to 12.00 dollars an hour with no overtime would pay no tax but would be spending all of his money in the private sector not wasting it on supporting government jobs.
Another important thing is the elimination of depreciation for business which allows business to spend money today but shelter future profit from tax buy using depreciation as an expense.
The biggest problem is government is going to screw this up by not paying their bills with cash but as Obama and previous administrations have done is borrow money and increasing the money supply with the fed buy treasury bills so the dollar being worth less and less the small earner cannot keep up with prices.
Interesting options. But I'm pretty sure businesses won't stand for it... especially the elimination of deductions. It's those deductions that turn the tax code on it's head and makes it a sliding scale the more you make.

I don't think the government's biggest problem is not paying it's bills. Rather, tt's more like taking surpluses and using them as a "free piggy bank."

I certainly think if we put Congress on a sliding salary based on the surpluses, they would be better money managers since it's their own skin that would be in the game.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3476 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Let's see if I understand this....
... you're ignoring the facts in favor of your opinion?!?!?!
wow.....
Let's state some facts again, since you need to read them again:

I noticed that you didn't once mention Valerie Plame, who was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq.
Since the discussion is about what intelligence we had on Iraq, why wouldn't you mention the person in charge of the intelligence we had on Iraq?
Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA Joint Task Forde on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was responsible for all intelligence given to the president on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was outed by Robert Novak.
But, you mentioning Germany is very interesting.

Now, just why would you think German intelligence was related to Valerie Plame being the head of the CIA Joint Task Force on Iraq?
(I know the answer to this question, dufus. Do you?)

Now, how about addressing the facts. The fact is, Valerie Plame was head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq. People in Germany don't give intelligence to the president. The head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq give intelligence to the president. If intelligence comes from Germany on Iraq, it goes through the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3477 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>bushie lied son. To Americans. To the UN. To the troops.
He lied to get his way.
You just refuse to look at the facts.
Bush had the exact same intelligence Clinton had when Clinton used to bomb Saddam Hussein every other week, son.

The fact is, Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq. That's the intelligence Bush had.
Look at the facts, son.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3478 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that's the only part of the post you can think of, let me remove that quip so you can think about the core argument within the post.
Does the person speaking have the responsibility of maintaining the classification they know to exist?
Does the person speaking have the right to dissimenate private information they acquired through some illegal means (the government issuing private information on individuals is illegal) knowing it to be private information?
Did Robert Novak commit treason when he outed Valerie Plame?
You keep bouncing off the point. bushie's own boy lied for his boss...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/03/u...

"The inspector's final report

When chief weapons inspector David Kay bluntly told the senate there were, in fact, no WMDs, he forced a humiliating U-turn in Washington and London. Now, in his first newspaper interview, he tells Julian Borger that the president must admit he got it wrong

Share 0
inShare0
Email

Julian Borger
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 March 2004

When David Kay walked into the US Senate in late January, the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had become entangled in a thick forest of evasions, euphemisms and elisions. George Bush's administration and Tony Blair's government insisted that some evidence of weapons had been found by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which Kay had led for seven months, and that much more would be uncovered. At the same time, some US officials were market testing a new line - that the administration had never claimed there were Iraqi weapons stockpiles in the first place, just weapons programmes.

Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28, and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal...."
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3479 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's state some facts again, since you need to read them again:
I noticed that you didn't once mention Valerie Plame, who was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq.
Since the discussion is about what intelligence we had on Iraq, why wouldn't you mention the person in charge of the intelligence we had on Iraq?
Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA Joint Task Forde on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was responsible for all intelligence given to the president on Iraq.
Valerie Plame was outed by Robert Novak.
But, you mentioning Germany is very interesting.
Now, just why would you think German intelligence was related to Valerie Plame being the head of the CIA Joint Task Force on Iraq?
(I know the answer to this question, dufus. Do you?)
Now, how about addressing the facts. The fact is, Valerie Plame was head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq. People in Germany don't give intelligence to the president. The head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq give intelligence to the president. If intelligence comes from Germany on Iraq, it goes through the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq.
You're free to state YOUR facts as you see them, son.

As an American (which I assume you are), it's your right.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#3480 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the person speaking have the responsibility of maintaining the classification they know to exist?
Does the person speaking have the right to dissimenate private information they acquired through some illegal means (the government issuing private information on individuals is illegal) knowing it to be private information?
As a hypothetical example, if your wife, who is allowed to refuse to testify against you in court, assumes she has privacy, and mutters to herself about you confessing to her you have sex with animals, and a reporter is eavesdropping on her and recording her mutterings, do they have the right to make your confession to having sex with animals public?
A didn't believe that Novak had done anything criminal. He knew what he was doing and why he was doing it but that isn't the crime. The criminal party here was the person who told him of Plamme.
I would think the only exception might be a civil suit, should a reporter print a story that he knows will result in unwarranted, personal, physical or financial damage and the story if written in a fashion that overtly encourages this abuse.
As a hypothetical, your the defendant in a necrophilia trial. There have been publicly known and reported bomb threats made against your funeral parlor. The the reporter dares the person who made the bomb threat to follow through, and your business is bombed. Irregardless of the outcome of the trial the reporter is liable.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3481 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush had the exact same intelligence Clinton had when Clinton used to bomb Saddam Hussein every other week, son.
The fact is, Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq. That's the intelligence Bush had.
Look at the facts, son.
Son, bushie is a big boy and can make his own decisions based on his own intel.

Don't defer to the previous administration. Because if you do, I can also point out the USS Cole and the intel Clinton gave bush, who did nothing with them.

Not even for the survivor's families.

What you're calling "fact" is your opinion.

I've shown you wants in the the public domain.

But you're free to continue to guess and ask questions without showing anything. That seems to be your way.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3482 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You keep bouncing off the point. bushie's own boy lied for his boss...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/03/u...
"The inspector's final report
When chief weapons inspector David Kay bluntly told the senate there were, in fact, no WMDs, he forced a humiliating U-turn in Washington and London. Now, in his first newspaper interview, he tells Julian Borger that the president must admit he got it wrong
Share 0
inShare0
Email
Julian Borger
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 March 2004
When David Kay walked into the US Senate in late January, the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had become entangled in a thick forest of evasions, euphemisms and elisions. George Bush's administration and Tony Blair's government insisted that some evidence of weapons had been found by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which Kay had led for seven months, and that much more would be uncovered. At the same time, some US officials were market testing a new line - that the administration had never claimed there were Iraqi weapons stockpiles in the first place, just weapons programmes.
Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28, and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal...."
Let's just start with the last sentence in you rpost:

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal...."

Looks like your ship of bullshit party line mantra gets blown out of the water by your own boy, doesn't it, son?

The facts still remain, Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force for Iraq. Valerie Plame was responsible for all intelligence given to the president.
Coincidentally, there wasn't any difference between the intelligence Bush used and the intelligence Clinton used to bomb Saddam Hussein every other week.

Now, can you tell us why intelligence from Germany was significant in this matter? You referenced intelligence from Germany. Why did we need intelligence from Germany?

To find the answer to that question, search these two topics:

"Bill Clinton CIA human rights purge"

"Saddam Hussein UN oil for food"

After you educate yourself on these two matters, you should be able to put together the story, son.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3484 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh! American oil product exports are climbing higher and higher ... and so, apparently, is wingnuz stupidity!
It could be climbing even higher........that's the point. Even exports create jobs moron.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3485 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Son, bushie is a big boy and can make his own decisions based on his own intel.
Don't defer to the previous administration. Because if you do, I can also point out the USS Cole and the intel Clinton gave bush, who did nothing with them.
Not even for the survivor's families.
What you're calling "fact" is your opinion.
I've shown you wants in the the public domain.
But you're free to continue to guess and ask questions without showing anything. That seems to be your way.
Oh my, now Bush was supposed to fly to Iraq and gather his own intellegence. Son, call your doctor and have him go over those side effects on your perscriptions again.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3486 Feb 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Son, bushie is a big boy and can make his own decisions based on his own intel.
Don't defer to the previous administration. Because if you do, I can also point out the USS Cole and the intel Clinton gave bush, who did nothing with them.
Not even for the survivor's families.
What you're calling "fact" is your opinion.
I've shown you wants in the the public domain.
But you're free to continue to guess and ask questions without showing anything. That seems to be your way.
There was no difference between the intelligence Bush had and the intelligence Clinton used to bomb Saddam Hussein every other week.

To learn what our actual intelligence capabilities were at the time Clinton left office, search "Bill Clinton CIA human rights purge" to learn how Clinton gutted the CIA. Then, search "FBI charter Clinton foreign intelligence" to learn how Clinton was adopting the Soviet KGB model for our intelligence, combining both foreign intelligence and domestic federal police within the same agency. Then, search "Saddam Hussein UN oil for food" to learn who was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's infrastructure for war.

Coincidentally, it was those same countries rebuilding Saddam Hussien's infrastructure for war and sellling him weapons systems in violation of UN sanctions, and being paid with money Saddam Hussein stole from the UN's oil-for-food scam that were giving Clinton and Bush the intelligence that would keep the 18 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein active, while they were paid with money stolen from the UN's oil for food scam that would only remain active as long as the 18 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein remained active.

Bush put a stop to that bullshit, didn't he, son?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3487 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Oh my, now Bush was supposed to fly to Iraq and gather his own intellegence. Son, call your doctor and have him go over those side effects on your perscriptions again.
Never mind that that's EXACTLY what you'd have demanded that Obama be doing had he been President at the time. And exactly what you've demanded that he should have done in regard to Benghazi.

Typical Rightie hypocrisy...

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3488 Feb 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Never mind that that's EXACTLY what you'd have demanded that Obama be doing had he been President at the time. And exactly what you've demanded that he should have done in regard to Benghazi.
Typical Rightie hypocrisy...
Left criticizes Michelle O for Oscar appearance...
conservative crapola

Reading, PA

#3489 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
Again? Running out of ideas, pookster?

aujimfraud cry-a-thon: Day 113.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3490 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Left criticizes Michelle O for Oscar appearance...
Anheuser-Busch accused of watering down several brands...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Charleston Gazette-Mail Spreads Lies About West... 1 hr cryinshame 2
News 'We can't be intimidated' 3 hr Truth and Facts 129
News 'It's a matter of liberty. We should be ashamed... Wed Jagermann 3
News Obama Won't Be Pushing Second Amendment Rollbac... Mon Truth and Facts 107
Facing possible ban, more Americans are buying ... Aug 30 Truth and Facts 7
News Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) Aug 30 Swedenforever 7
News Why the U.S. is No. 1 -- in mass shootings Aug 28 Truth and Facts 7
More from around the web