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.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3150 Feb 21, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text>And who has been the most consistant critic of the patriot act. Ron Paula Republican.
And who renewed the Patriot act. Obama and a Democratic majority Senate.
And show me one post. Just one where I EVER have said I want to controll any Vagina or any other aspect of some ones life? Or are you just a liar?
He is a libertarian, but no matter. We allow people to think for themselves. They don't have to be part of the plantation like you liberals.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3151 Feb 21, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>He is a libertarian, but no matter. We allow people to think for themselves. They don't have to be part of the plantation like you liberals.
Californio is a "liberal?" You're an even bigger moron than I'd imagined.

And no, Ron Paul is a Republican, sorry. He ran for President as a Republican.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3152 Feb 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Californio is a "liberal?" You're an even bigger moron than I'd imagined.
And no, Ron Paul is a Republican, sorry. He ran for President as a Republican.
• Obama warns looming sequester would devastate economy - First …
firstread.nbcnews.com/.../02/...sequester-wou...
Feb 19, 2013 • NBC's Chuck Todd says it may feel as ... Obama’s speech was otherwise spent reiterating ... many Republicans have treated the sequester as a ...
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3153 Feb 21, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. How would you label "Obama's government"?
And, where will the money come from to pay for "Obama's government" (apply any term you feel appropriate)?
How about an answer to the question. All you have to do is identify a source of money to answer the question.
Which part of "Obama's Gov't is getting smaller" do you have trouble with Forrest?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3154 Feb 21, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part of "Obama's Gov't is getting smaller" do you have trouble with Forrest?
The Department of Energy.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3155 Feb 21, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part of "Obama's Gov't is getting smaller" do you have trouble with Forrest?
He's a psycho. His definition of "Obama's government" will shift and change as you try to answer it. I even told him we were borrowing money, and he couldn't even understand that!

Nothing but BS and abuse from that crazy militia-type. A loon.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3156 Feb 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a psycho. His definition of "Obama's government" will shift and change as you try to answer it. I even told him we were borrowing money, and he couldn't even understand that!
Nothing but BS and abuse from that crazy militia-type. A loon.
Still begging for acceptance pookie. You can't be revelant, you're too stupid.
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#3157 Feb 21, 2013
Doctor My Ass wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you have passed background, fingerprint and mental health
checks in order to own those guns, I find you to be a threat to everyone's inalienable right to life.
Funny, Hassan and Dorner both got check marks for all three. How'd that work out?
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#3158 Feb 21, 2013
Doctor My Ass wrote:
<quoted text>
Son, you have no idea just how funny this comment is and what a HUMONGOUS compliment it is for me, so I thank you. To be likened to someone as interesting, intelligent, honest, compassionate, educated, good-hearted and wise as OK is the ultimate flattery, as far as I'm concerned.
How's the weather in HI today, son?

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3159 Feb 21, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text>And who has been the most consistant critic of the patriot act. Ron Paula Republican.
And who renewed the Patriot act. Obama and a Democratic majority Senate.
And show me one post. Just one where I EVER have said I want to controll any Vagina or any other aspect of some ones life? Or are you just a liar?
Yes, he is just a liar.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3160 Feb 21, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part of "Obama's Gov't is getting smaller" do you have trouble with Forrest?
Got any details? Because it's my understanding Obama has added federal employees, not cut anything.
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#3161 Feb 21, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Did you ever see the old National Geographic specials they would air about explorers finding some hidden tribe of people? The chief would always be wearing some kind of cheesy hat that he was given, or an old t shirt with stains all over it. The chief thought it was a great honor to wear a hat that said "Damn Seagulls". The rest of the civilized world thought it was quaint that the chief was so naive. Sort of like Obama and the Israeli medal.
&pl aynext=1&list=PL42579AC66F 77856F&feature=results_vid eo

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3162 Feb 21, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Got any details? Because it's my understanding Obama has added federal employees, not cut anything.
I'll help you out since you enjoy remaining ignorant;

When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he appalled some Democrats by saying Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president.

Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government

Notions on high and low finance.
.
Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/...

"Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie."

http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-ob...
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#3163 Feb 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Blatant lies. Mr. Clinton tried to work with Newt-boy, who chose instead to bring down the government temporarily because he didn't get his way. It ricocheted on him just a little, read about it sometime.
Obama's bent over backward, much to the annoyance of real leftists like me, but has repeatedly been rebuffed, defied, and treated with contempt by 'bagger Republicans and their clueless leaders like McConnell and Boehner.
As usual, the rightie has it on backward...:)
"real leftists like me"

Recognizing you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3164 Feb 21, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Put in place a tax reform that is designed to enhance revenue in as painless a way as possible along with simplifying the tax code. Eliminate senseless deductions for example. Why should a giant corporation have it's luxury box at Giants stadium subsidized? 2) SSI. Phase in an reduced benefit for weathy retirees. For SSI disability stronger screening of applicants, consider slowly phasing in changing COLA calculations and increasing penalty for a voluntary early retirement 3) The military can afford to chip in. We have dozens of redundant bases in Western Europe and in Japan. Bases built to defend against Soviet aggression. Last I looked we won the Cold War. So what is it worth to us to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union? 4) Get used to the idea that it will take time .
"Put in place a tax reform that is designed to enhance revenue in as painless a way as possible along with simplifying the tax code."
I can't identify a source of money in this statement. Perhaps you can identify for us the source of money that will be "as painless a way as possible" to tax.
"...simplifying the tax code."
I don't see a source of money in that statement. Perhaps if you identified what would be taxed in the simplified tax code, that would identify a source of money to pay for Obama's government.
"Eliminate senseless deductions for example."
This is closer than any other statement, but it still doesn't identify a source of money. You would have to actually identify the deductions to eliminate to identify the source of money. What deductions would you eliminate? Without that information, the statement says nothing.
"Why should a giant corporation have it's luxury box at Giants stadium subsidized?"
Don't you mean to say "deducted"? Subsidized is to pay for, like we paid for the GSA's trip to Vegas. Deducted is allowing a business expense by to be counted when computing net expenditure, like, for example, a public relations firm renting a stadium to charge an entrance fee for everyone to see some politician.
But, this is the first example anyone has put forward actually identifying a source of money.
It would help if you included some hard numbers, for example, saying something like "tax the rich" who only have 1.67 trillion dollars in earnings if you taxed them at 100 percent to pay for the current deficit. That would be a source of money identified. Taking 100 percent of th earnings of the so-called "rich" and putting them on welfare would close the deficit... for one year, of course. Then, the next year, that source wouldn't exist anymore and we'd be right back where we started from, and without the revenue of these people we had before the government took everything from them.
"2) SSI. Phase in an reduced benefit for weathy retirees."
You have to define "wealthy".
"For SSI disability stronger screening of applicants...."
I've always been suspicious of the dramatic increase in disability approval since Obama took office. I agree.
Also, I like this idea:
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
And, stop taking all the money out of Social Security to use on everything the government can think of, and paying Social Security out of the general fund. Make it a stand-alone program, like the tax collected specifically for Social Security intends it to be.
You've come closer than anyone else in answering the question. Please excuse that when I saw the reference to Jack Kemp, it looked like the usual diversionary dodge I'm so used to seeing.
I really don't listen to what a politician says. They are notorious for lying. I watch what they do. That is who they are. Can you cite some things Jack Kemp did?
Thanks.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3165 Feb 21, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll help you out since you enjoy remaining ignorant;
When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he appalled some Democrats by saying Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president.
Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government
Notions on high and low finance.
.
Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/...
"Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie."
http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-ob...
How did you calculate that "reduction in government"?

Here are the real numbers to reference:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

It looks like there was a steady increase in government the entire time Obama has been in office, after the dramatic increase after the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3166 Feb 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a psycho. His definition of "Obama's government" will shift and change as you try to answer it. I even told him we were borrowing money, and he couldn't even understand that!
Nothing but BS and abuse from that crazy militia-type. A loon.
Borrowing from whom? That is the source of money.
If I ask my kids where they will get the money from to go on a weekend trip, and they just said "I'm going to borrow it", there's no way in hell I'd let them go. I'm going to want to know from whom. In other words, what's the source of the money.
And, if I don't like the source, I'm going to say no.
That is where the House of Representatives comes into the picture.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3167 Feb 21, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll help you out since you enjoy remaining ignorant;
When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he appalled some Democrats by saying Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president.
Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government
Notions on high and low finance.
.
Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/...
"Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie."
http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-ob...
Rude trolls do not help anything.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3168 Feb 21, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll help you out since you enjoy remaining ignorant;
When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he appalled some Democrats by saying Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president.
Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government
Notions on high and low finance.
.
Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/...
"Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie."
http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-ob...
perhaps it's you that is ignorant or just dishonest, like all Obama supporters on here:

Here are the real numbers to reference:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

You do know that Obama is a notorious liar, don't you?

“have seen the years,”

Since: Mar 10

and the slow parade of fears"

#3169 Feb 21, 2013
urfailure wrote:
Not interested.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 2 min Dalai Lama 1,288
News Trump takes aim at Obama's efforts to curb glob... 5 min Cordwainer Trout 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 28 min Chris Rather 1,509,498
News North Korea blasts Trump for being too much lik... 1 hr jonjedi 74
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 1 hr Tm Cln 7,581
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr JRB 239,518
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Mothra 63,572
More from around the web