People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

There are 20 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.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3492 Feb 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Anheuser-Busch accused of watering down several brands...
Liberals accused of watering down constitution......film at eleven.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3493 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
What an idiot what is wrong with you man? Clinton's bombing was agreed upon by the UN Bush's reckless destruction of Baghdad and killing of hundreds of thousands was not (coalition of the willing)...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3494 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals accused of watering down constitution......film at eleven.
Anheuser-Busch accused of watering down several brands...

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3495 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals accused of watering down constitution......film at eleven.
Au Contraire / Dumbo is a prime example why gas stations should not be allowed to sell defective condoms!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3496 Feb 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Anheuser-Busch accused of watering down several brands...
http://www.pantagraph.com/business/lawsuits-a...

"Josh Boxer, an associate attorney with the Mills Law Firm in San Rafael, Calif., which is the lead law firm, said the litigation relies on statements by former A-B plant workers who support the plaintiff’s claims.

The plaintiffs, however, did not independently test the alcohol content in the beer to confirm whether this was indeed true, Boxer said."

Baseless, BS.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#3497 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot what is wrong with you man? Clinton's bombing was agreed upon by the UN Bush's reckless destruction of Baghdad and killing of hundreds of thousands was not (coalition of the willing)...
Who gave the UN the right to kill people?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3498 Feb 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Who gave the UN the right to kill people?
You feel better now child?
Brown Girl in the Ring

UK

#3499 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Au Contraire / Dumbo is a prime example why gas stations should not be allowed to sell defective condoms!
...and further supports the case for abortion rights.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3500 Feb 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pantagraph.com/business/lawsuits-a...
"Josh Boxer, an associate attorney with the Mills Law Firm in San Rafael, Calif., which is the lead law firm, said the litigation relies on statements by former A-B plant workers who support the plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiffs, however, did not independently test the alcohol content in the beer to confirm whether this was indeed true, Boxer said."
Baseless, BS.
Firstly, you are not a court and don't get to decide.

Secondly and more obviously, it was a throwaway line from CNN used to mock au Jimbo's constant use of irrelevant reply posts.

You're welcome.:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3501 Feb 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Who gave the UN the right to kill people?
The U.N. is an international organization whose decisions are made by member nations. It has no more or less in the way of "rights" than those members decide it has.

FYI

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3502 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot what is wrong with you man? Clinton's bombing was agreed upon by the UN Bush's reckless destruction of Baghdad and killing of hundreds of thousands was not (coalition of the willing)...
hint: the UN doesn't control the military of the United States or the office of President.........much to Obama's dismay.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3503 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot what is wrong with you man? Clinton's bombing was agreed upon by the UN Bush's reckless destruction of Baghdad and killing of hundreds of thousands was not (coalition of the willing)...
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.

And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?

You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3504 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.
And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?
You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
Entirely false and pure rightwing fantasy land ...
Frank

Oakland, CA

#3505 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.
And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?
You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
Yeah right – just like the rest of the wingnuz lies.
1. President Obama is soft on terrorism/won't protect the country/is a Muslim sympathizer. From the time Obama took office, he has had to contend with a Republican campaign to portray him as weak on national security. The attacks really took off after the unsuccessful attempt by the "underwear bomber" on Christmas Day 2009, as the Republicans engaged in what Steve Benen brilliantly described as a "collective display of pants-wetting."
But the record shows that Obama has been more aggressive than his predecessor was in targeting and killing terrorist group leaders, including authorizing more drone attacks. But the last couple of weeks really made the Republican scare tactics look downright silly. First, NATO bombed Muammar Gaddafi's home, killing his son. Then, putting nearly 10 long years of frustration to bed, Obama authorized a daring and well-planned operation to kill Osama bin Laden at his retreat in the suburbs of Islamabad.(Remember, George W. Bush didn't prioritize catching or killing bin Laden.)
And while terrorists may be able to strike in the United States no matter what precautions are taken by the president, it is telling that the greatest domestic terrorist attack of the last 100 years took place on Bush's watch (despite being given a memo in August 2001 entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"), but, to date, under Obama, no foreign attacks have been successful on U.S. soil.
2. President Obama wants to raise your taxes. These attacks were works of pure fiction, given that Obama campaigned that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 per year, and would cut taxes on most families below that range. And what did he do? Exactly what he promised. In fact, he went beyond his campaign promise, agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy. The result? The Bureau of Economic Analysis just found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958. Despite the fear mongering tactics of Republicans who promised the American people Obama wanted raise their taxes, he has been a tax-cutting president.
4. President Obama is a socialist trying to nationalize industries, as evidenced by the automobile bailout. When, shortly after taking office, Obama decided to bail out Chrysler and General Motors to avoid two million lost jobs at a time when the country was already reeling from high unemployment, he was met with criticism from Republicans. Sen. Richard Shelby, a month before Obama took office, said that attempts to help the auto companies were "only delaying their funeral." But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral home. By 2010, with the auto makers prospering and getting ready to go public again, the WSJ declared the bailout a success.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3506 Feb 27, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Entirely false and pure rightwing fantasy land ...
Entirely a lie on your part. Prove it wrong if you can. You can even use you vulcan mind meld with your Gerbil or call a friend.
AnnAgain

Oakland, CA

#3507 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.
And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?
You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
Hey buddy, what you are doing, and badly at that, is nothing more than “republican pants-wetting” keep it up!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3508 Feb 27, 2013
AnnAgain wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey buddy, what you are doing, and badly at that, is nothing more than “republican pants-wetting” keep it up!
Agreed. Which is why I will not bother posting to this right wing lunatic any longer.

I have no qualms debating intelligently with persons of opposing points of view. This guy is just off the deep end.

When I confronted him with the sad reality, with links, that his state has the highest proportion of uninsured - 25% of Texans - his retort was they did not NEED it!

When shown his state also has the highest proportion of minimum, wage workers, his retort - you get paid what you're worth, so get off your lazy ass!

I guess under his premise, not many workers in his state are worthy of more than minimum wage.

This guy simply wastes a lot of oxygen - with never a sgred of proof. But, gotta give him credit for continually trying.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3509 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.
And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?
You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
I completely understand, wingnuz troglodytes don't want to hear the facts because they don't want their illusions, their separate reality, destroyed! There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who (desperately) want to believe. Iraq had no missiles that can reach anywhere accurately, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one – not even a well trained army to speak of!!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3510 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well son.

It's still better than what you've presented... which really is nothing but your opinion and questions you want OTHERS to answer to support YOUR claims.

Nothing got blown out of the water except that Kay lied. And he was handpicked by bushie because he didn't want to believe the UN inspector.

Whatever you claim as "fact" regarding Plame is still your opinion. But apparently you feel the longer you repeat it, the more factual it becomes for others. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3511 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.
lol! Why? Are you now claiming that's what Clinton did son?

wow.....

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 House passes concealed carry bill; Hassan plans... Apr 29 Truth and Facts 4
Democrats: Get A $2,000 Tax Credit For Turning ... Apr 29 Truth and Facts 19
News Sheriff, lawyer dispute whether 73-year-old dep... Apr 29 Truth and Facts 49
Kahr CW40 PROBLEM (Dec '08) Apr 17 OlFed 48
News Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) Apr 15 AMERICA 12,178
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Apr 13 swedenforever 112
News Who's calling the shots in Canada? Apr 10 Truth and Facts 2
More from around the web