HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NRA's New Ad Calls Obama ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:06 PM

 

NRA's New Ad Calls Obama "Elitist Hypocrite" For Having Secret Service Protection For His Children

Source: The Huffington Post

A video released by the National Rifle Association on Tuesday sharply criticizes President Obama for his skepticism about placing armed guards in schools, calling the president an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing the Secret Service to protect his daughters.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the ad asks. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"

The ad continues: "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-video-obama_n_2483118.html

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-video-obama_n_2483118.html

154 replies, 15113 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 154 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA's New Ad Calls Obama "Elitist Hypocrite" For Having Secret Service Protection For His Children (Original post)
BVictor1 Jan 2013 OP
MichiganVote Jan 2013 #1
sasha031 Jan 2013 #2
onehandle Jan 2013 #3
Botany Jan 2013 #4
randome Jan 2013 #97
Enrique Jan 2013 #5
BainsBane Jan 2013 #6
wordpix Jan 2013 #30
Sunlei Jan 2013 #36
Joe Bacon Jan 2013 #50
ehrenfeucht games Jan 2013 #139
PatrynXX Jan 2013 #7
humblebum Jan 2013 #10
John2 Jan 2013 #15
marshall Jan 2013 #78
squirefld Jan 2013 #125
Paladin Jan 2013 #131
Hekate Jan 2013 #136
sgsmith Jan 2013 #143
TomCADem Jan 2013 #26
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #32
Scuba Jan 2013 #71
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #31
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #43
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #44
tpsbmam Jan 2013 #126
duffyduff Jan 2013 #153
frylock Jan 2013 #42
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #47
samsingh Jan 2013 #54
humblebum Jan 2013 #84
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #102
humblebum Jan 2013 #107
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #113
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #140
samsingh Jan 2013 #121
Blandocyte Jan 2013 #86
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #62
humblebum Jan 2013 #70
SemperEadem Jan 2013 #73
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #147
SemperEadem Jan 2013 #72
humblebum Jan 2013 #100
SemperEadem Jan 2013 #118
madokie Jan 2013 #74
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #14
Recursion Jan 2013 #75
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #106
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2013 #116
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #82
Recursion Jan 2013 #108
ehrenfeucht games Jan 2013 #138
defacto7 Jan 2013 #152
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #8
indepat Jan 2013 #19
samsingh Jan 2013 #55
chillfactor Jan 2013 #9
GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #45
malibea Jan 2013 #90
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #11
freshwest Jan 2013 #148
hatrack Jan 2013 #12
samsingh Jan 2013 #56
atreides1 Jan 2013 #87
mike dub Jan 2013 #13
riqster Jan 2013 #17
mike dub Jan 2013 #21
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #89
malibea Jan 2013 #93
freshwest Jan 2013 #149
amandabeech Jan 2013 #24
Ash_F Jan 2013 #16
jsr Jan 2013 #18
nobodyspecial Jan 2013 #20
wordpix Jan 2013 #25
CBHagman Jan 2013 #29
Psephos Jan 2013 #51
XtopherXtopher Jan 2013 #66
Psephos Jan 2013 #133
Demobrat Jan 2013 #128
Journeyman Jan 2013 #22
Sinistrous Jan 2013 #41
OnionPatch Jan 2013 #144
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #109
truth2power Jan 2013 #124
freshwest Jan 2013 #151
BlueJazz Jan 2013 #23
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #33
nakocal Jan 2013 #37
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #49
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #58
nan4tjn Jan 2013 #63
wordpix Jan 2013 #27
truthisfreedom Jan 2013 #28
Sunlei Jan 2013 #34
Skittles Jan 2013 #35
Turbineguy Jan 2013 #38
obama2terms Jan 2013 #39
HawkeyeLibkid Jan 2013 #40
DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #46
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #48
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #59
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #111
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #123
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #127
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #146
ellisonz Jan 2013 #52
samsingh Jan 2013 #53
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #57
Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #154
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #60
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #61
nan4tjn Jan 2013 #64
Cha Jan 2013 #65
KansDem Jan 2013 #67
liam_laddie Jan 2013 #68
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #69
malibea Jan 2013 #94
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #76
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #77
cap Jan 2013 #79
demOcrat11 Jan 2013 #80
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #81
malibea Jan 2013 #88
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #96
randome Jan 2013 #98
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #83
malibea Jan 2013 #85
truth2power Jan 2013 #91
Jennicut Jan 2013 #92
4lbs Jan 2013 #95
The Second Stone Jan 2013 #99
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #101
Tippy Jan 2013 #103
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #145
Nay Jan 2013 #104
wordpix Jan 2013 #137
Nay Jan 2013 #142
DaveJ Jan 2013 #105
ecstatic Jan 2013 #110
maryellen99 Jan 2013 #112
Kablooie Jan 2013 #114
adigal Jan 2013 #115
City Lights Jan 2013 #117
DCBob Jan 2013 #119
mokawanis Jan 2013 #120
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #122
aandegoons Jan 2013 #129
yellowcanine Jan 2013 #130
daschess1987 Jan 2013 #132
mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #134
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #135
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #141
XRubicon Jan 2013 #150

Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:07 PM

1. What a bunch of sick fucks. Might as well pay $ to the church perverts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:09 PM

2. just saw it on Piers he said it was pathetic, couldn't agree more

more blah blah be afraid , be very very afraid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:10 PM

3. The End Is Nigh, Gun Fucks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:10 PM

4. you go with that commercial guys .....

.... I mean it, run that mother fucker 24/7.

Good Job NRA

I just heard that the NRA has already pulled this ad on MSNBC.

Good God in Butter do they even have focus groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:52 AM

97. Focus groups?

Yeah, a bunch of gnarly, white men sitting in a semi-circle, cleaning their rods for one another's enjoyment. THAT'S their focus group! They were good with this ad. (Not meaning to belittle gun-owning DUers, BTW.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:11 PM

5. he needs to call them out as LIARS

he needs to use the word "LIARS".

Obama administration pondering plan to put armed police officers in public schools

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-armed-cops-schools-article-1.1238142#ixzz2I6XLg69w

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:12 PM

6. I can't help but thinking

This is part of an effort to harm one of the Obamas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:26 PM

30. agree - "stand and fight" is scarey NRA code for

get your guns and do harm. I certainly hope the SS and FBI is taking note about this ad. It is time we have a little infiltration/investigation of this group that relies on such intimidation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:48 PM

36. agree, the NRA try to rile-up their whackiest armed nutters. probably spammed millions of emails.

Then the NRA removed from website but the damage is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:25 AM

50. Precisely.

The NRA wants to encourage a nut to go after the President the same way Bill O'Reily urged someone to go after Dr. Tiller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:58 PM

139. Using their guns to bully and intimidate. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:12 PM

7. to put there idiotic question bluntly. uh Yes they are more important. They are targets.

Can't fix stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #7)


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:34 PM

15. Excuse me,

 

you can't distinguish Secret Service protection for the Family of the President of the United States in this country's long traditional history? What country have you been living in? There is no secret service protection for you or any other ordinary citizen in this country. That has been the tradition for every President throughout this country's history. President Obama is no different. Once again, the rightwing extremists puts a foot in their mouths and expose what they are really about. They are putting this country at the boiling point and people are getting fed up with their shenanigans and race baiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:07 AM

78. Those guards are separate from secret service

Throw in SS and the number would rise. The truth is many private schools and even some public schools hire armed guards. Sidwell had them before the Obamas sent their daughters there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:02 PM

125. Sidwell has their own security force

 

It doesn't matter if the President's daughters are there or not. Sidwell has an 11 member, ARMED, Security Force on a permanent basis. The Secret Service is another layer of protection for only two students. But David Gregory who mocked Wayne La pierre for his suggestion that schools be armed, has his children in Sidwell and under the protection of the SCHOOLS SECURITY FORCE, not Secret Service. How many others are there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to squirefld (Reply #125)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:31 PM

131. How Come You Know So Many Details Of The School's Security? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to squirefld (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:43 PM

136. I heard today that Sidwell security is NOT armed

How is your knowledge so much greater than MSNBC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #136)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:30 PM

143. Sidwell certainly has police officers under employment

 

Do the search yourself. Go to Sidwells web site. Find the Directories label. Search for Security and you'll find 11 people listed as employees, with the majority having the title "Police Officer". Do you think a Police Officer isn't armed?

https://www.sidwell.edu/directories/index.aspx?FirstName=&LastName=&DepartmentTypeID=78&DivisionID=&sortBy=LastName&LinkID=&DirectoryModuleID=341&pageaction=VPFaculty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:01 PM

26. Seriously? Last year, they had to evacuate their school...

...because of threat. The Secret Service is deals with hundreds of threats to the President and his family. I think we should all be glad that we do not have to face the unique threats they face on a daily basis. Now, if you want to argue that the President kids are not targets subject to subtantial and unique threats, be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:30 PM

32. No kidding. How many threats does the POTUS get per day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:29 AM

71. About 1,000 threats per month per a Secret Service announcement last fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:29 PM

31. Other kids aren't the children of the POTUS.


I see no reason not to have SS protection for his children or immediate family.
To not have SS protection is inviting a tragedy when somebody wants to teach PBO a lesson, or hold his kids hostage.

You can't say that about every school or child attending them.

Sandy Brook was a tragedy that needs to be addressed by smarter gun legislation and standing up to the gun lobby. The gun nutters are exploiting it, and the argument to arm guards and have them at the ready at every school is lunacy. It's a great idea if you are a security company (see Blackwater) and watch your profits soar as you soak each school district for security fees, but it is a bad idea in possibly every other way.

The amount of $$ it would take to arm/train/and keep employed guards at each school is mind boggling. It would be better if guns of mass destruction weren't allowed in the hands of those that can't handle them, don't respect them, have psychological issues, a family member with psychological issues or want to use them in a untoward manner.

This is not about PBO's children, but it is about how to deal with this tragedy sanely and not exploit it to make more money.

The ad is disgusting and insulting.

So back at you. Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:05 AM

43. Really all the kids from government families have some form of security. That's why

they all go to the same one or two high security schools. Kids of foreign governments, our fbi dir, cia, nsa, and on all need security. They're considered high value targets. Sad but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:08 AM

44. Yep.


What is needed is for there to never be another Sandy Hook without militarizing our schools and kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

126. Not true. I WAS a kid from a high-level government family and didn't have special security

Actually, in one job Dad had, we did start out with individual security guards (not sure what their official designation was). We begged & pleaded to be rid of them and got our way. And we did just fine that way for the 8 years he had that job. Now kids of friends are kids of high-level government families and don't have any special security and not all of their schools are high security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:25 AM

153. That's why those kids are there, NOT because it is a "better" school

than those "terrible" public schools. Bill and Hillary Clinton put Chelsea at Sidwell Friends for that reason (and to keep the media out). Chelsea attended public school in Arkansas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:04 AM

42. bwahahahahaha!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:15 AM

47. ............








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:37 AM

54. get real - the President's children need protection as he is fighting terrorists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:17 AM

84. No one has implied that the President's children don't need protection. That does not

 

obscure the fact that other school children are indeed targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:03 AM

102. Get real ...

despite all the hyperbolic talk following Sandy Hook, the typical school kid is no more "targetted" than the typical movie goer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #102)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:12 AM

107. And who said they were. But as a vulnerable, generally undefended location and advertised as such,

 

i.e."Gun Free Zone" signs, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are vulnerable, popular targets for crazed murderers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #107)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:38 AM

113. You did ...

Remember:

That does not obscure the fact that other school children are indeed targets.


There is a huge difference between being "vulnerable" and "tagetted." We are all vulernable in any open space; very few of us, child or otherwise, are targetted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:01 PM

140. I knew it. I knew it wasn't only religion.

It's never only one issue, is it. It's always ALL of them.

Can't be accused of lack of consistency, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

121. so i guess you're saying we should expand the secret service to include all children

instead of dealing with guns directly.

guns kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:32 AM

86. The kids who got shot in schools needed protection, too

if we're "getting real." There's no denying, now, that they needed protection.

The NRA ad does nothing to put forth an idea for protecting ALL kids in this ad; it's just trying to drive a wedge and manipulate opinion. All kids deserve protection, and if we had the $, we'd provide it. Putting the spotlight on those kids tax payers pay to protect does nothing but highlight a distracting issue.

Ads like this make me all the more vocal about the idea of trying a total gun ban on for size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:40 AM

62. Normally not the targets of strangers.

Sometimes the targets of family friends or family members or of other kids, but kids usually are not the targets of strange adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:13 AM

70. "Sometimes the targets of family friends or family members or of other kids" - then yes, other

 

kids ARE targets. Newtown, Columbine. And how many other school shootings in the US? Then there was Anders Brevik in Norway. Seems to me that school children are often targets. This entire discussion was precipitated by a mass-murder in a school and yet school children are NOT targets? The evidence is crystal clear. They are indeed very vulnerable targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:38 AM

73. anyone outside of their home is a vulnerable target to an unknown assailant

should we each have an armed guard assigned to us? What about the Newtown shooter's mother?? She didn't have an armed guard guarding her in her home while she slept; or the woman who strapped sidearms to her to provoke other parents when she attended her kid's soccer games and was shot dead by her husband in a murder suicide? Her husband was a parole officer--he sure didn't protect her--he killed her.

Threats to the president and his family on a daily basis far exceed threats to the average Joe's children by a factor of 1000. Tragedies do happen and they are unfortunate; however, advancing the notion of putting armed guards every 10 feet without any talk about how they're going to be adequately compensated for their time--because no one works for free--is stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:26 AM

147. Others are more likely to be targeted, although children seem to be targeted for the rare mass

murders. The targeting of one child is reprehensible regardless how common it is. A spouse or family member is very likely to be targeted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:30 AM

72. non sequitur

by and large, no.

Every president in modern history has had secret service protection for his children. Just because the gun debate is on the front burner doesn't change the fact that every president has secret service protection for his children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #72)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:56 AM

100. i would say that your non sequitur is itself a non sequitur argument.

 

When we already have armed guards at banks, college campuses, museums, sporting events, and in some grade schools, it is a reasonable argument to extend such protection to school children.

It is quite obvious that the most likely places to be hit by psychotic persons with guns, or terrorists, are places left undefended and advertised as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:34 PM

118. here's the thing, though...

my post wasn't removed by a jury becuase it was so offensive on its face...

the conversation was that every president in modern history has had secret service protection for their children and that has nothing to do with joe average's kid... it has to do with the fact that he's a high placed target and this country has many enemies. That can't be said about joe average. That is the hurdle your arguments will never clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:25 AM

74. YOU need to get real

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:31 PM

14. The President's children are *not* any more important than any other child.

What a bizarre thought...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:36 AM

75. Other children can't be used to blackmail the man with the button

The West Wing did an episode about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:08 AM

106. Amazing isn't it ...

So I guess in some minds, the POTUS is not more important than the average Bus-driver. Better ... absolutely not; but certainly more important to the functioning of our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:07 PM

116. Here. Let President Josiah Bartlet explain it for the idiots:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:05 AM

82. Actually they are

It's really pretty simple.

A presidents children could be used against him to try and force decisions against the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:15 AM

108. Exactly. The children of anyone who controls nuclear missiles are very important to all of us (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:57 PM

138. To put it even more bluntly, it is terrorists like the NRA who are making them targets. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:01 AM

152. Agreed.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:15 PM

8. My Response: The NRA wants to be the terrorists best friend.

Protecting the First Family is a National Security matter.
Do you want have a President whose children are being held hostage make decisions for the USA?
NRA wants to be the terrorists best friend: its not enough that they enable domestic terrorists,
now they want to enable foreign terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:39 PM

19. Would refer to the NRA as traitorous bastards if I could find a way to express that

sentiment civilly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:40 AM

55. agreed

another low for the nra

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:16 PM

9. just saw on Lawrence O'Donnell..

the NRA has pulled the ad...too disgusting even for them....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:11 AM

45. He corrected that later.

It's still up there. Apparently, their servers were down because it drew such heavy traffic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:55 AM

90. It is known as "PRESSURE"!

Some people would call it PRESSURE! Whatever it is, it worked. They got a little carried away-better known and referred to as FEAR! These idiots went with the first thing that came to mind. Foolish indeed, they are doing nothing except making themselves more "persona non grata" !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:27 PM

11. I love how they had to insert a jab about taxes on the rich

What does that have to do with guns? Nothing, but it should tell you a lot about whose interests the NRA is working for and they sure as hell are not working for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:35 AM

148. Koch > ALEC > SYG > Guns 'adopted' to 'wanted homes'> Megabucks off misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:28 PM

12. Then why was the "press conference" at which Wayne Barkingmad spoke swept for guns?

Why couldn't God-fearin' 'Murcans pack heat at the big NRA Solution-Fest 2012?

Somehow, what's good enough for us just wasn't good enough for Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. Only a secured zone without guns and with plenty of security was good enough for them . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:41 AM

56. crazy wayne lives in a phantasy land world populated and supported by other lunatics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:34 AM

87. Why was that "press conference" held in DC?

Because in DC you can't carry a weapon, but in Virginia you can...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:28 PM

13. Please, I saw Chelsea Clinton with friends in the mid-90's...

in a restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland.

I started wondering why four big men (who looked like they hadn't smiled in public for quite awhile) with lil earpieces in their ears had two tables-for-two near the entrance to the place.

I figured it out, and assumed that they were packin' enough heat to neutralized any threat.

White presidents' children are afforded secret service protection, too. I'm sure the what's-their-names shrub's-twins had details too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike dub (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:38 PM

17. They did and do.

Had brunch at a Hilton in Nawleanz once, and there were several bulky individuals not far from Jenna Bush, who was two tables over from us. Normal stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:43 PM

21. "bulky individuals"...

you nailed it, riqster!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:51 AM

89. Bulky!!??!11! Who you calling "Bulky"?

... seriously, does this bulletproof vest and dual shoulder holster rig make me look fat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:01 AM

93. That's funny!

Funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #89)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:40 AM

149. Oh, no! Just bulked up. We know you've been working out, dude!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike dub (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:46 PM

24. I saw Chelsea at a local figure skating competition.

She arrived in a Mercedes sedan that rode very, very low, and it wasn't just the three burly guys in there with her.

One stayed with the car, and the other two were watching all the participants and spectators very, very closely.

They tried to fit in--they wore polo shirts and khakis--but they were far, far neater than the other skating dads.

I assumed that they were carrying weapons, but I couldn't figure out where.

Chelsea seemed oblivious to them at that point. She was just there to watch a friend skate. She seemed to be by herself, though. No other friends around her. I wanted to go up to her and say, "You can sit with me and my other older lady friends, if you want. We'll explain what's going on to you." But I thought, maybe not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:34 PM

16. Last line " ...gun free zones for ours[re:kids] "

Why yes NRA, yes I do want gun free zones for our kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:38 PM

18. The NRA is a public menace

They've become a bunch of brain-dead rabid idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:41 PM

20. I am sure the Secret Service agents are better trained and better shots

than any low-budget rent-a-cops they would put in schools. Seriously, how much would they pay these people? And what about the school's that want to arm custodians. Yeah, I'm sure they'll be just like Secret Service protection for Joe Blow's kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:53 PM

25. you're right. At the inner city public school where I teach, the security

is, shall we say it politely, not the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:20 PM

29. On top of that, police and guards at the Holocaust Museum and even the U.S. Capitol...

...have been shot and killed by gunmen. If the people trained to provide the security are vulnerable, what does that say about claims from Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and the NRA that arming teachers and principals will sort everything out?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:28 AM

51. You're talking about the same SS that got busted whoring and scamming in Colombia?

How quaint.

Appeals to their professionalism as the source of their competence are no longer accepted as legal tender in this establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Psephos (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:24 AM

66. i don't know what life is like in your neck of the woods,

but in major cities like mine, what a person does in his or her private time does not reflect on said person's work. a person's work reflects well on them, whether they engage in dangerous hobbies or not.

i wish we could live in a world where tough, street-smart guardsóthe type of intimidating people we want protecting our Presidentówere also highly refined and loathe to indulge in risky behavior, but that is simply not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XtopherXtopher (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:08 AM

133. As I said, how quaint.

The idea that some impenetrable wall exists between a person's private character and public character is unscientific and empirically unsupported. As well as hilarious. It's amazing how often this nostrum - by which no one actually lives their personal life - is trotted out to protect the politically powerful by earnest proles.

I got a kick out of your "major city" statement, too. As if the size of the city in which one lives has bearing on the realities of human behavior, or somehow gives one's opinions more authority. Snobbery in its unalloyed form.

I have no regard for credentials in a world that has been wrecked by credentialed cretins, and much regard for the history of a person's actions.

I don't respect authority unless and until authority proves itself respectable. I start from a position of skepticism.

Sheep follow the herder. That is their nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

128. HOW would they pay these people?

Not with tax increases, surely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:44 PM

22. His children are no more important then mine, but they are more at risk than mine. . .

and their being in jeopardy would place greater strains on the fabric of society than would threats to my children's safety.

As parents, neither of us loves or cherishes his children more than any other. But those who would wish ill to the State or Society have greater interest in harming the President's children than attacking mine. We who recognize the fragility of our mutual condition see a greater need to protect the family of the head of state, since their well-being affects us all.

If the wealthy and powerful choose to protect their children in a manner the majority of us cannot afford, that's their decision and they do it because they fear certain elements to which the rest of us are probably not at risk. But again, that's their decision.

Elected officials, however, at least above a certain grade, are encouraged to engage certain protections for their family because it is a benefit to our society for these people to remain safe and well.

My concern for the welfare of the President's children is no greater than my concern for any other citizen's children. My concern for the welfare of the State, on the other hand, which could be impacted by threat's to the President's children, informs my decision to desire sufficient protection for these children so as to make all of us safer by extension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:57 PM

41. Precisely !

And very well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sinistrous (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:52 PM

144. But sad that anyone would even need this explained to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:20 AM

109. With all due respect ...

Everything you have written points to "Yes, the POTUS' children are more important than your (and my) children", when viewed from the "bigger picture" than the personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:30 PM

124. Journeyman, this is very astute take on the issue that I've not seen articulated

in just this way on the numerous NRA ad threads here.

I think you should make it an OP. The whole purpose of that ad is to appeal to the more dim-witted of the American populace, who can't tell the difference between protection of the president's family and protection for the average citizen.

It's not that Sasha and Malia are better, or more worthy of being loved by their parents than any other children. They aren't. It's, as you've stated, that concern for the welfare of the State mandates that the President's family not be at risk of being taken hostage for some nefarious purpose that might endanger the entire country because of decisions that would need to be made.

As you've said "their <Sasha and Malia's> well-being affects us all."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #124)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:47 AM

151. Agree - he's speaking to something few people have been able to express.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:45 PM

23. Amazing that in the 8 years Bush was President, I never saw a single derogatory...

...ad or campaign against him....no matter WHAT he did.

If Obama trips on a sidewalk crack the next day you'll read about how the President "Tries to break his mother's back."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:34 PM

33. Psssst. It's because Obama is, you know...


a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:50 PM

37. no, he is black

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nakocal (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:20 AM

49. Perhaps it is because he is left handed

You know being a minority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:54 AM

58. Sinister even n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:00 AM

63. You weren't paying attention

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:19 PM

27. this group is so despicable, I hope their members leave in droves

Cannot STAND these people and suspect there's a large criminal element within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:19 PM

28. I was watching MSNBC tonight and they announced that it had been removed from the NRA website.

I have not visited the site to verify this, but it happened immediately after MSNBC reported on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:37 PM

34. NRA promotes their new 'school guards' for profit business to rape your state and federal money

What good is the NRA to society? They are just lobbyists for gun dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:43 PM

35. President needs protection from NRA kooks

gawd these NRA folk are PATHETIC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:53 PM

38. He has to protect his children from

the worst the NRA has to offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:54 PM

39. How stupid especially to bring young girls into this!

Yeah like Obama is the first president to EVER have his family protected by the secret service. The NRA needs to get over themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:55 PM

40. Newsflash

We shouldn't give a flying fuck what the NRA thinks, says, or does. They pander to a majority of Americans, which would be 0.01% of our overall population. They also are not actually speaking for that 0.01% best interest, as they are a lobby for gun makers. It sucks when idiots realize that the NRA is taking there dues and not doing a damn thing for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:13 AM

46. It's. A. Private. School.

The school has served its patrons for well over 100 years. Politicians, artists, authors, athletes, and their children have walked its hallways. This isn't some rundown public school in the hood or a little schoolhouse on the prairie, it's a fucking goldmine for anyone looking for a high-value soft target. Terrorists and extortionists would *love* to get their hands on these kids. As it's a private school, it can afford through its premiums to pay for tight security. So unless the NRA is willing to divert every last fucking penny it makes (and would still fall well-short) to pay for similar security in the public school system, they really need to shut the fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:15 AM

48. I was trolling through some 2A websites looking for info on Yeager

when he got his crazy on. (The-if this goes one inch further i'm gonna start k.>>> people guy.), well there were messages between militia type folks and it was just scary. One guy was saying he already had the talk with his wife and that he was prepared to di for his country. Another was saying kinda the same thing, saying any legislator that voted for gun control would be on "the list". This guy was saying wait until Tuesday, but it's time to act. I mean. Just insanity. Now out of 10 people maybe one or two were like that, but still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:43 AM

59. It is just sad AND creepy at the same time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:34 AM

111. A part of me ...

really wishes that these militia guys enact their fantasy, as I believe that it would expose to them and the country that they constitute a very, very small minority. Further, I believe the horror of their action, and resultant response, will draw this country closer together, as talk of political violence to affect political change would be rejected.

But that said, it would be tragic that blood would be spilled, even that of the nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #111)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:25 PM

123. Yes. Keeping things small and insular doesn't allow for outside information.

Can u imagine thier suprise when the world tells them that no, they are the ones violating the constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #123)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:28 PM

127. It won't be the world ...

But rather, the U.S.M.C., the true patriots and defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

But sadly, any action will be met with cries of Posse Commitatus and, in their minds, validate their cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:24 AM

146. I hope everything they have is being monitored. Warrant or not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:33 AM

52. Par for the course

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:36 AM

53. truly revolting and sick - the essence of the nra on open display

ANYONE who supports this type of advertising is sick and twisted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:44 AM

57. Just when you thought the NRA couldnt sink any lower they find a way to do so. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:36 PM

154. It's actually just an old, re-warmed tactic

Because they used the same talking point when Chelsea Clinton was still in HS, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:53 AM

60. Wow. Maybe, just maybe, because he and his family all

receive about a thousand death threats a minute in this country FROM THIS MAN'S BUDDIES?

He needs to STFU about Malia and Sasha - pretty nervy to suggest basically that they should go without SS protection. Because we all know exactly what would happen to them within days with all these trigger-happy, racist, motherfucking terrorists running around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:38 AM

61. Maybe if we had better gun regulations, our President would not need armed Secret Service

either for himself or his family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #61)


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:14 AM

65. Presidents have their families protected as well because there's so many

gawd damn brainwashed idiots with guns in the United States of America wanting to take down a President. A lot of stupid ignorant assholes who make ads like this so the brainwashed can suck it up and go hell yeah.. who does he think he is?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:39 AM

67. Hey, Wayne! Don't you have some slaves' quarters to inspect?

Shouldn't take too long since they, like the Second Amendment, are relics of a bygone era...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:01 AM

68. The depth of ignorance is beyond belief!

Perhaps the NRA and its supporters don't realize that the Secret Service is REQUIRED to protect, among many others, the President's family. I don't think it's optional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:58 AM

69. On top of the appalling message. They called him "Mr." Obama. He is President

Obama. I am so sick and tired of this stuff. the complete and utter disregard for this country. No wonder Reagan basically told them to f off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:16 AM

94. It is their way of showing the President "No Respect"

You can't do anything about most idiots and these are the "cream of the crop" idiots. It is the best way that they can think to show the President of the United States " NO RESPECT". But know that the only people that this truly has any affect on are the stupid idiots that say it.

But guess what, we don't respect them either. I bet there are more of us that don't respect them than the other way around. End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:42 AM

76. The NRA goes all in on crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:57 AM

77. Boy talk about reaching. This ad is the worst ad I ever saw. Desperation that is what this

 

ad is. They know they are losing. This isn't going to win any points for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:49 AM

79. So the NRA is going to clean up its racists, right?

You know, the ones that are openly calling for death threats on the Internet. Death threats that are not limited to him but to his wife and children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:49 AM

80. The nra is so petty

Seriously after watching that I guess I really didnt know that the nra really is a lobby group that stands for nothing. The President didnt do anything besides stand up for the majorty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:03 AM

81. His logic should be that we should all have secret service then, since the Pres does

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

in fact the secret service agents should have secret service agent!!!!

Adding for the humor impaired: This was said tongue in cheek

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:47 AM

88. You call that LOGIC?

I think that you have mislabeled what you call LOGIC! LOGIC is the antithesis and opposite of STUPID! I don't think it is logical for WE ALL to have secret service. First question out of the box: who's gonna pay for it?

Most Americans don't even want to pay income taxes-income that they enjoy by the way. And now Congress (a bunch of deadbeats if there ever were any!) doesn't even want to pay its OWN bills that they have already CHARGED (the debt limit bullspit). As Bill Clinton would say, give me a break!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malibea (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:49 AM

96. ummmm please reread the post

I was not saying it was logical. I said by that guys logic......

offs......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:53 AM

98. We got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:16 AM

83. Someone has to protect them from NRA loonies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:27 AM

85. Are the President's kids more important than yours?

Stupid question! They are the President's kids, you idiot! This is whether the President is black or white or green- or is there a difference to YOU?

Didn't Nixon, Eisenhower, The Bushes et al, receive the same "protection" for their children? What's the big deal here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:57 AM

91. If I were a member or supporter of the NRA, I'd be highly offended by this ad because

it sends a clear message that the organization's supporters are too bone-stupid to figure out that "one is not like the other" in this situation.

It depends on a turn of phrase to make people think, if only for a nanosecond, that the President's children attend a school where ALL the students are protected by armed guards.

What a mendacious piece of crap! Surely those hacks at the NRA could do better than this to make their case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:59 AM

92. By doing this they basically upped the need for even more security for Sasha and Malia

By drawing attention to them for gun nuts. NRA is illogical, idiotic and horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:31 AM

95. Other kids aren't known worldwide because the media shows their pictures hundreds of times a year.

Why didn't the NRA run ads against Dubya for having his kids protected by Secret Service?

or Bill Clinton?

or Carter?

or Ford?

or Kennedy?


Hmmm..... what could it be about this President that colors their thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:54 AM

99. How about the NRA opens their conventions to members of the public

who are fully armed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:02 AM

101. Think it's time to put the NRA on the official terrorist group watch list. And,

of course, the decision to have Secret Service protect the president's family was made by Obama and was never something that was done for past presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #101)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:06 AM

103. NRA should have been on that list many years ago...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #101)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:19 AM

145. Yes, I hope they are under extensive FBI monitoring. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:07 AM

104. There are no words for this level of stupidity. Idiocracy, anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:20 PM

137. I think you've coined a good one. May I borrow it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:24 PM

142. Of course!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:07 AM

105. What a viscous circle

Americans are in danger because of guns, so the NRA says we need more guns to protect us.

They won't stop until everyplace has armed guards. Theaters, schools, grocery stores, workplaces. They have a sick warped vision. Their ideology is a threat to the well being of this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:23 AM

110. just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower

Dear NRA thugs,

Leave the President's children out of this, you disgusting, murderous buffoons!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #110)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:37 AM

112. Am I the only one who has seen this on FB the past 4 years?

you know the ones that the RW nutjobs and "concerned Americans" post about "government overspeding"? one of the first things they mention is that the President's security cost too much and that the Secret Service needs to be cut...these people are who this ad is targeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:59 AM

114. This is the best argument they can make?

Wow.
They are really reaching.

It just shows how weak their defense is if this is a strong enough argument to make a commercial about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:59 AM

115. False equivalence, also

How can anyone compare a few highly trained Secret Service agents to teachers having guns, or wahoos around the school having guns? I am a teacher, and trust me, we would miss and end up hurting more kids. I don't think you can fix this level of stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:10 PM

117. They are desperate.

Total fail, nra!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:37 PM

119. not "more important" but at a much higher risk.

sick clueless ad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:49 PM

120. The rabid mutts on the lunatic fringe of the far right will love the ad

There's a lot of James Yeager types out there who will jump and down and repeat every talking point in that ad. My redneck asshole of a nephew posted a statement on FB the other day that the fact that President Obama is protected by armed guards absolutely means that everyone should be allowed to own and carry in public any weapon they choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

122. These fuckers have no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:04 PM

129. I wonder how many gungeoners paid for this ad.

I hope they are as proud of themselves now as they were when there were 20 dead babies all over the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:12 PM

130. Uh - the President can't choose or not choose Secret Service protection.

Comes with the job, numnuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:34 PM

132. "Are the president's kids more important than yours?"

No, but they 're obviously at more of a risk of danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daschess1987 (Reply #132)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:55 AM

134. Right. It doesn't seem like a big mental leap

to reach the conclusion that this presidents family, or Bush and his family, or Clinton and his family...face more threats from lunatics and "evildoers" that do ordinary citizens. Of course facts like those are more likely to be addressed in a history channel documentary about the secret service than in a ridiculous commercial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 AM

135. The president cannot, by law, refuse Secret Service protection for himself

or his family. He does not have a choice in the matter.

This is in part because the implications of the kidnapping of the president or one of his family members are much more far-reaching than the kidnap of pretty much anyone else. If the president's child is kidnapped, it is not just a personal issue; it would affect the entire country. The president is the most powerful man in the world. Kidnapping a family member would open the door to blackmail and demands that a distraught and desperate man might well give into to save his kid.

Sure it's a TV show, but check out "The West Wing" episodes where Bartlet's daughter is kidnapped for an idea of the very real potential consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:14 PM

141. I'm going to break down the ad a little, more for my sake than anyone else's.

The ad's overt claim is President Obama is an elitist hypocrite.

First supporting evidence: President Obama's kids get armed security at school, but he is skeptical about having the same for "our" children.

Second supporting evidence: President Obama demands (surprised that word in not in red) the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

In my opinion, the first supporting evidence is weak for two or three reasons: 1) the President is looking into have armed guards of some sort at schools, 2) the children of high-profile people are significantly greater targets than other children, and possibly 3) the school may have had armed guards long before the President's kids attended.

In my opinion, the second supporting evidence is even weaker. It isn't fleshed out, and we are left to assume the point. I think their point is the President demands fairness on the issue of taxes, but not on security for our children. I think this is a really poor argument because taxes and armed guards at schools are two very different subjects. "The wealthy" have paid much higher taxes in the past when we didn't generally have armed guards at public schools. As far as I know, the two have never been connected in this way before, I don't see a compelling reason to so now.

The overall presentation is poor, in my opinion, but it may be good for the targeted audience.
-The spooky voice is silly.
-Pause the video at 0:15 and what you will see is even sillier, in my opinion.
-Pause the video at 0:23 and you will see the words "PROTECTION FOR THEIR KIDS," and on both sides of those words will an assortment of some hardcore-looking weapons, except for the pistol. I wonder what those guns are, and how many of them are actually carried by the guards at the school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:41 AM

150. Why should the President have armed guards and not me?



You can't help people who can't see the difference between the Presidents kids and their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread