Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
i think this is a good thing. i was worried about what would happen because of this 10 year rule samsingh Jan 2013 #1
I think its good as well. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #4
Excellent!!! RKP5637 Jan 2013 #2
Good gollygee Jan 2013 #3
I know Cheney is still getting protection... Did this get extended to VPs? hlthe2b Jan 2013 #5
Under the law that went into effect under Clinton they get 10 years liberal N proud Jan 2013 #12
Good. graham4anything Jan 2013 #6
I have no problem with that still_one Jan 2013 #7
I thought they already had that? Recursion Jan 2013 #8
They did, it got turned off during the Clinton administration, and now it's back on. jeff47 Jan 2013 #10
Obama should have signed for himself, and not for Chimp. Crazy Combo Jan 2013 #9
Hardly! Daemonaquila Jan 2013 #49
I support this bluestateguy Jan 2013 #11
Gawd, it would suck to be W's SS man wouldn't it? benld74 Jan 2013 #13
Obama's Secret Service Detail Will Be In Harms Way A Lot More Than W's. Paladin Jan 2013 #14
Bad idea. Really bad idea. SheilaT Jan 2013 #15
Because of that dipshit who yesterday said he's gonna kill some people... sadbear Jan 2013 #16
So let's go take away all the guns instead. SheilaT Jan 2013 #17
Eh, what? Scurrilous Jan 2013 #18
Whaa whaa whaaaaaaaa? What other president has ever had to give up Secret Service protection? EOTE Jan 2013 #20
Oh. I thought there had been a ten year limit on secret service protection. SheilaT Jan 2013 #26
There was, but it never had a chance to go into effect. EOTE Jan 2013 #35
It used to be for life until 1997. Jennicut Jan 2013 #36
The OP says Nixon gave up his. former9thward Jan 2013 #27
He didn't have to. He voluntarily gave it up so he could hire his own protection. NT EOTE Jan 2013 #34
Maybe we should do a means test. former9thward Jan 2013 #42
Absolutely. This is the right answer. n/t pa28 Jan 2013 #53
That was my question, too--the only one I know who gave it up did it voluntarily. MADem Jan 2013 #38
What are you talking about? ProSense Jan 2013 #25
All? GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #32
If I read this correctly, all Presidents since 1901 have been afforded a lifetime off SS detail. NCTraveler Jan 2013 #46
How is this a bad thing? Deranged people have been trying to kill this black man ever since he Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #19
Those who believe this is a bad thing (at least at DU) are in a very small minority. NT EOTE Jan 2013 #22
Hello, fellow Marylander. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #24
Hello to you as well. Go Ravens! EOTE Jan 2013 #41
Good. Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #21
I don't have a problem with this at all. I thought it was odd when they changed it. n/t BeeBee Jan 2013 #23
Not that odd if you look back at the times. GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #30
Excellent! WI_DEM Jan 2013 #28
Chimpy will need lifetime protection. lpbk2713 Jan 2013 #29
I thought they wanted to cut spending - they are already rich and can pay for their own 2Design Jan 2013 #31
I would have hated to have seen any of our ex-presidents assassinated. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #33
It's a new world, and I agree--we should "revert back" to providing lifetime security. MADem Jan 2013 #37
I think this is a good thing Marrah_G Jan 2013 #39
Unfortunately it's a necessity in this modern world lunatica Jan 2013 #40
I think this is needed in today's world. I do not think the threats to him and others are going to jwirr Jan 2013 #43
I have no problem with this, regardless of which former president it happens to be n/t markpkessinger Jan 2013 #44
I imagine there is a lot of desk work involved, sorting the real threats from the blowhard threats. hunter Jan 2013 #45
HR347 makes it a federal crime to protest where secret service are present. No protesting Bush! Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #47
This is a good thing. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #48
It never should have been changed Blasphemer Jan 2013 #50
GOOD, I always felt this law was passed for the specific purpose of making it easier for kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51
I support this 100%. NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #52
Unfortunately, Pres. Obama's gonna need that protection. backscatter712 Jan 2013 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama signs law giving hi...»Reply #23