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
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)sasha031
(6,700 posts)more blah blah be afraid , be very very afraid
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Botany
(70,897 posts).... 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.
randome
(34,845 posts)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.)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)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
BainsBane
(53,175 posts)This is part of an effort to harm one of the Obamas.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)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.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Then the NRA removed from website but the damage is done.
Joe Bacon
(5,165 posts)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.
ehrenfeucht games
(139 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Can't fix stupid.
Response to PatrynXX (Reply #7)
Post removed
John2
(2,730 posts)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.
marshall
(6,665 posts)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.
squirefld
(4 posts)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?
Paladin
(28,393 posts)Hekate
(91,650 posts)How is your knowledge so much greater than MSNBC?
sgsmith
(398 posts)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
TomCADem
(17,393 posts)...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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
okaawhatever
(9,480 posts)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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What is needed is for there to never be another Sandy Hook without militarizing our schools and kids.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)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.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)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.
frylock
(34,825 posts)BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
![](/emoticons/hide.gif)
![](/emoticons/tinfoilhat.gif)
![](/emoticons/thumbsdown.gif)
![](/emoticons/popcorn.gif)
samsingh
(17,624 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)obscure the fact that other school children are indeed targets.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)despite all the hyperbolic talk following Sandy Hook, the typical school kid is no more "targetted" than the typical movie goer.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)i.e."Gun Free Zone" signs, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are vulnerable, popular targets for crazed murderers.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Remember:
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.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)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.
samsingh
(17,624 posts)instead of dealing with guns directly.
guns kill people.
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sometimes the targets of family friends or family members or of other kids, but kids usually are not the targets of strange adults.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)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.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)murders. The targeting of one child is reprehensible regardless how common it is. A spouse or family member is very likely to be targeted.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)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.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)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.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)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.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)What a bizarre thought...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The West Wing did an episode about that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,421 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's really pretty simple.
A presidents children could be used against him to try and force decisions against the US.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)ehrenfeucht games
(139 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)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.
indepat
(20,899 posts)sentiment civilly.
another low for the nra
chillfactor
(7,607 posts)the NRA has pulled the ad...too disgusting even for them....
GoCubsGo
(32,149 posts)It's still up there. Apparently, their servers were down because it drew such heavy traffic.
malibea
(179 posts)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"
!
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)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.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)hatrack
(59,685 posts)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 . . .
samsingh
(17,624 posts)atreides1
(16,169 posts)Because in DC you can't carry a weapon, but in Virginia you can...!
mike dub
(541 posts)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.
riqster
(13,986 posts)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.
mike dub
(541 posts)you nailed it, riqster!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,480 posts)... seriously, does this bulletproof vest and dual shoulder holster rig make me look fat?
malibea
(179 posts)Funny!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)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.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Why yes NRA, yes I do want gun free zones for our kids.
jsr
(7,712 posts)They've become a bunch of brain-dead rabid idiots.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)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.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)is, shall we say it politely, not the best.
CBHagman
(17,018 posts)...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?
Psephos
(8,032 posts)How quaint.
Appeals to their professionalism as the source of their competence are no longer accepted as legal tender in this establishment.
XtopherXtopher
(70 posts)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 guardsthe type of intimidating people we want protecting our Presidentwere also highly refined and loathe to indulge in risky behavior, but that is simply not the case.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)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.
Demobrat
(9,159 posts)Not with tax increases, surely.
Journeyman
(15,077 posts)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.
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)And very well said.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)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."
freshwest
(53,661 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...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."
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)a Democrat.
nakocal
(581 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)You know being a minority
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)nan4tjn
(4 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)Cannot STAND these people and suspect there's a large criminal element within.
truthisfreedom
(23,201 posts)I have not visited the site to verify this, but it happened immediately after MSNBC reported on it.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)What good is the NRA to society? They are just lobbyists for gun dealers.
Skittles
(153,914 posts)gawd these NRA folk are PATHETIC
Turbineguy
(37,558 posts)the worst the NRA has to offer.
obama2terms
(563 posts)Yeah like Obama is the first president to EVER have his family protected by the secret service. The NRA needs to get over themselves.
HawkeyeLibkid
(76 posts)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.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)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.
okaawhatever
(9,480 posts)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.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
okaawhatever
(9,480 posts)Can u imagine thier suprise when the world tells them that no, they are the ones violating the constitution?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)samsingh
(17,624 posts)ANYONE who supports this type of advertising is sick and twisted
cstanleytech
(26,477 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Because they used the same talking point when Chelsea Clinton was still in HS, too...
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)either for himself or his family.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #61)
Post removed
Cha
(299,219 posts)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?!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Shouldn't take too long since they, like the Second Amendment, are relics of a bygone era...
liam_laddie
(1,321 posts)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.
okaawhatever
(9,480 posts)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.
malibea
(179 posts)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.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)ad is. They know they are losing. This isn't going to win any points for them.
cap
(7,170 posts)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.
demOcrat11
(57 posts)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.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:50 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
malibea
(179 posts)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!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I was not saying it was logical. I said by that guys logic......
offs......
randome
(34,845 posts)![](/emoticons/hi.gif)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)malibea
(179 posts)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?
truth2power
(8,219 posts)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.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)By drawing attention to them for gun nuts. NRA is illogical, idiotic and horrible.
4lbs
(6,968 posts)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?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)who are fully armed?
sinkingfeeling
(51,680 posts)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.
Tippy
(4,610 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)DaveJ
(5,023 posts)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.
ecstatic
(32,927 posts)Dear NRA thugs,
Leave the President's children out of this, you disgusting, murderous buffoons!
maryellen99
(3,796 posts)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.
Kablooie
(18,673 posts)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.
adigal
(7,581 posts)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.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Total fail, nra!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)sick clueless ad.
mokawanis
(4,455 posts)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.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)aandegoons
(473 posts)I hope they are as proud of themselves now as they were when there were 20 dead babies all over the news.
yellowcanine
(35,733 posts)Comes with the job, numnuts.
daschess1987
(192 posts)No, but they 're obviously at more of a risk of danger.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)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.
NYC Liberal
(20,152 posts)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.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The ad's overt claim is President Obama is an elitist [font color=red] hypocrite.[/font]
First supporting evidence: President Obama's kids get armed security at school, but he is [font color=red] skeptical[/font] 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 [FONT COLOR=RED]THEIR[/FONT] 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.
XRubicon
(2,213 posts)You can't help people who can't see the difference between the Presidents kids and their own.