The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Vagabond on January 18, 2013, 12:11:39 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022211908
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 AM
vanbean (966 posts)
Are the president's kids more important than yours?"
Tuesday night before the President Obama was scheduled to unveil a legislative package attacking gun violence, the National Rifle Association launched a video attacking Obama and citing his children.
The 35-second video criticizes Obama's opposition to more armed guards in schools, while noting that his daughters receive Secret Service protection.
Are they wrong? The president's kids are surrounded by a cordon of men with guns. Which you claim makes them less safe, I might add.
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the narrator says. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."
Can you stand a fair question?
http://www.digtriad.com/news/watercooler/article/263798/176/NRA-Ad-Uses-Presidents-Children
This is the best the NRA has? What group of knuckle-draggers can they hope to convince with this crap? I'm so old I can remember when the NRA was respectable. But this? How stupid do you have to be to qualify for ignorance these days? Sometimes we are just so lost to find any understanding of the citizens among us who can nod their heads to such putrid drivel. Anyone who can now join or belong to the NRA today should not be allowed to own so much as a squirt gun.
Guess not. Now on to the rest of the Howling Freaks.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:22 AM
Comrade_McKenzie (1,948 posts)
2. The answer is yes. Normal kids aren't on the hitlist of every nutjob in America. nt
Yes they are. They might not no their names or care who they kill. You think Ryan Lanza didn't know he was killing kids? Just because he didn't know their names didn't mean they weren't on his hitlist.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:29 AM
okaawhatever (163 posts)
3. All kids need Creesie!!! (Man on Fire). We need to let ALL kids know they're
our first priority. Having something happen to our first family puts every child in this country in fear. It's a big fu(*ing neon sign that says, "we can get to them with all their protection, we can get to you". That is why every member of top gov families are "high value" targets. It's like most attacks of mass "disruption". It's about the chaos, uncertainty, and fear it puts in the minds of a country.
Another one that thinks government officials kids are better than them.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:05 AM
Recursion (21,219 posts)
8. Well, first off, my kid can't be used to blackmail a man with access to nuclear weapons
I mean, even granting the blatant falsehood (Obama has in fact proposed increased security including guards on school campuses), it's a simple fact that the children of the President are people we all have an interest in protecting.
No, but now that you mention it, I have your kids and I'm holding them hostage. If you want them back, you're going to take that moving truck and park it by the building I tell you too. If you don't, I'll kill them. Don't think it hasn't happened, DUmmie? A lot of good people in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced to be suicide bombers just like that.
Response to Recursion (Reply #8)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:11 AM
1983law (36 posts)
9. Sorry
My kids are more important to me than any other parent's child. Period.
Why are you sorry about it?
Response to 1983law (Reply #9)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:54 AM
gollygee (11,485 posts)
22. The president's kids are also in more danger than yours
They could be targeted simply for being his kids. It's a likely scenario.
Your kids are important to you, and my kids are important to me, but our kids don't have a parent who is President and all that goes along with that.
No, your kids could be targeted for no other reason than they happened into the wrong "gun-free zone" on the wrong day. Guess which scenario is more likely.
Response to 1983law (Reply #9)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:06 AM
loyalsister (6,467 posts)
32. Of course...
They are no where near as vulnerable as the first daughters, however.
The president's kids are no more important than mine. Not even the slightest tiniest bit.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:54 AM
Warpy (66,544 posts)
16. Dear NRA
The President's children are under more direct threat than any child of mine would ever be, mostly from your ignorant, violent membership.
I would not trade places for all the armed guards in the world.
**** you very much,
Warpy
Really? What is the crime rate amongst members of the NRA? Come here and back up your BS.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:58 AM
surrealAmerican (7,047 posts)
23. It's not a question of who's more important.
It's a question of who's at more risk. Why would anybody want their children to be trailed by armed guards if it wasn't absolutely necessary anyway?
How do you know mine aren't?
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:00 AM
liberal N proud (42,543 posts)
30. The Obama girls security is not the Presidents choice
As a matter of national security the Secret Service is directed to protect all members of the First Family.
The NRA asking that questions is just reprehensible.
Yes it is. Guess who is the boss of the Secret Service. If you said president, pat yourself on the head. All of those guns are around his daughters because that's the way he wants it.
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:21 PM
LanternWaste (15,486 posts)
36. I imagine the relevant question would be "are your kids more important to someone looking...
I imagine the relevant question would be "are your kids more important to someone looking to blackmail the administration to release overseas political prisoners, or to remove ground troops from such and such region, or to recognize the legitimacy of a terrorist cell?"
In that case, I'm compelled to answer, "yes... his children are more important in that very relevant context."
So, what you're really saying is that you leftist idiots are more of a threat than I'll ever be.
Anyway, just sickening. They attack the NRA for having the exact same view many of their democrat heroes have espoused. If guns are good enough to protect the president's kids, then they are good enough to protect mine.
-
These cretins will lick the boots of their oppressors and damn the people who try and keep them free...
Some people need a king, what else can be said?
-
deutsey (16,286 posts)
28. The real question is: "Are the president's kids in more danger than yours?" n/t
I'll play. "Regular" kids killed in schools vs. a D.C. politician's kids. Wanna play with numbers? I think it's pretty Damn safe to say those "regular" kids, you know, the kids of the proles, are more in danger, you ****stick. Don't tell me that we can't use the same protection to protect our kids as that dipshit in the White House. If gun free zones worked, get rid of the armed guards at Sidney Friends, moron. :bird:
-
Response to vanbean (Original post)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:22 AM
Comrade_McKenzie (1,948 posts)
2. The answer is yes. Normal kids aren't on the hitlist of every nutjob in America. nt
Really? How many school shootings have there ever been in this country? Next, how many attempts have there ever been to shoot a sitting President's kids while they were at school?
-
Well now, the DUmpmonkiees are REALLY flinging poo today.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/3/3/3/3/3/1/POO-87643586007.jpeg)
-
"Daddy?"
"What did I tell you about calling me 'daddy'?"
"Oh yeah... Leslie?"
"Yes?"
"Do you love me?"
"Yes."
"Do you love me most of all?"
"Well, you're my favorite daughter."
"I'm your only daughter...am I the most 'portant person?"
"No, little one. President Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia, are more important than you."
"Do you love them more than me?"
"Yes, because they are the glorious loinfruit of our Dear Leader."
"Oh... If President Obama's daughters and I were all in the water, and there were sharks in the water, would you save me?"
"I would, after I saved Malia and Sasha first. And, you know, if the sharks had left."
"What do I have to do to be your favorite, Daddy... I mean, Leslie?"
"Nothing, honey. You'll never be more important to me than President Obama's daughters."
-
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Don't anyone tell bammy but he grad from HarVard, good report, I read it...
-
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 AM
vanbean (966 posts)
Are the president's kids more important than yours?"
No. Next?
-
The jug-eared Kenyan has kids? Is he married? Is the marriage/kids connection important in his culture?
I must pay more attention.
-
The jug-eared Kenyan has kids? Is he married? Is the marriage/kids connection important in his culture?
I must pay more attention.
The dummies were talking about children?!?! I thought they were talking about goats!!!
:tongue: :tongue:
-
The jug-eared Kenyan has kids? Is he married? Is the marriage/kids connection important in his culture?
I must pay more attention.
Why yes, he has little Mahalia and Shemalia, though there are strong rumors that he had a stand-in at the crucial moments.
-
Children of Presidents who have been killed in school shootings-0
Children of Average Citizens who have been killed in school shootings-hundreds.
Statistically speaking, the children of Joe Peasant are at much more risk of being shot to death in school than the President's kids.
-
Had a friend that went to Sidwell with Chelsea Clinton. She said yes there were several agents there with her and they all had firearms. They wore them in shoulder holsters and every once in a while one would catch a glimpse of a gun. Apparently some of the parents, Sidwell being a Quaker school, were not too happy about it.
-
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 AM
vanbean (966 posts)
Are the president's kids more important than yours?"
No. Now shut the **** up.
-
I wonder, if Obama's daughters will grow up to be welfare queens?
-
I wonder, if Obama's daughters will grow up to be welfare queens?
s
They are all on welfare now