The NRA's New Low

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    suggesting armed guards for every school was a bit much from the NRA.....kids should be off limits they are pointing out the hypocrisy of obama...he lives by different rules than the rest of us...

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    Israel = irrelevant to this topic 

     

    Comparisons can only be made when they favor the lefts agendas.

     

    I make a reference to Isreal and armed guards and  it is irrevelant.  Duly noted. 




    You sure you got the right tree, doggie...?

     

    OK then, tell how there is any comparison whatsoever.  Use facts.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    The Obama girls' school is a Quaker school.  There are security guards, as in any private school, but they are not armed.  There are a couple of Secret Service, of course, but at the periphery.

    I didn't say NO threat. You did. Try to keep up.

    Name one way that Israel is relevant to this topic.  I dare you.




    A few unarmed security guards and a couple secret service on the periphery? you are a fool if, you believe that!!

    One thing in common between Israel and the USA you dare?

    the USA and Israel both have killers targeting innocent people! How's that?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

     

    Sorry, but I put my kids ahead of the presidents any day. This is a different day and age, why shouldn't my children be protected? 

     

     


    Utterly beside the point.

    Neither you nor your kids live under the near-constant physical threat the way the president and his kids do.  That's just a plain fact.

     

     

    Israel = irrelevant to this topic

     

     



     

    This is just another sign of the Imperial Presidency.

    Obama sends his kids to private schools while he forces poor children to suffer in rotten public schools just for the sake of retaining support from the teachers' unions. 

    Yes, his children are under threat and they deserve protection

    But there he is EXPLOITING CHILDREN and to peddle his gun edicts,  denying them even some piddling percentage of the protection his children (and all the other politicians and 1%ers get).

    This is typical of moonbat behavior - pay attention to what I say, not what I do.



    And you're being hysterical, as is typical.

    You really expect he or any other president to send their kids to public schools?  That makes no sense.  People who can afford to pay more, do.  Those who can't, don't.

    Gun laws have nothing to do with school choice.

    Why is this so hard for you??

     

    Why don't you see that it's shameful for the NRA has to resort to trying to embarrass POTUS' children just to (poorly) make a point?  That's a nakedly weak argument, and if they had a better argument they should have used it.

     

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The Obama girls' school is a Quaker school.  There are security guards, as in any private school, but they are not armed.  There are a couple of Secret Service, of course, but at the periphery.

    I didn't say NO threat. You did. Try to keep up.

    Name one way that Israel is relevant to this topic.  I dare you.

     




    A few unarmed security guards and a couple secret service on the periphery? you are a fool if, you believe that!!

    I know it for a fact.

    Repeat: Sidwell Friends is Quaker school  Don't you know what that means?

    No matter how much the NRA seems bent on threatening Malia & Sasha.

     

    Every country with humans has homicidal maniacs.  Try again.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    They both want to keep the children safe in school, at least I hope that's what the US wants. 

     


    Wow.  They're like twins.  Totally.

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    Israel = irrelevant to this topic 

     

    Comparisons can only be made when they favor the lefts agendas.

     

    I make a reference to Isreal and armed guards and  it is irrevelant.  Duly noted. 

     




     

    You sure you got the right tree, doggie...?

     

    OK then, tell how there is any comparison whatsoever.  Use facts.

     

     




     

    They both want to keep the children safe in school, at least I hope that's what the US wants. 

     




    Of course the US wants that. Hopefully, we are sophisticed enough to do it in a way that doesn't involve adding more guns. Adding guns to school inherently makes them less safe. Why are you so gullible to the NRA schtick? They don't care about you. They only care about gun sales and profits.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    You really expect he or any other president to send their kids to public schools?  That makes no sense.   

    Why don't you see that it's shameful for the NRA has to resort to trying to embarrass POTUS' children just to (poorly) make a point?  That's a nakedly weak argument, and if they had a better argument they should have used it. 




    The POTUS agrees obviously that having armed guards at their school keeps his daughter safe.

    The NRA said putting armed guns in schools was a realistic way to stop PEOPLE (not guns) bent on killing them from being able to do so.

    The left said "oh no not more guns; the NRA is crazy" so, the NRA points out quite accurately that if, men with guns can be trusted to keep the POTUS kids safe why is it crazy to suggest doing the same for all kids?

    You scream oh no that makes sense and therefore is unfair and exploiting children.

    dovche

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    No matter how much the NRA seems bent on threatening Malia & Sasha.


    Where was the threat. 

    What I got out of the message was that my children should be afforded the same protection as the presidents children. 

    How is that a threat? 

    You barking up the wrong tree, doggie? 




    And the only way to do that is add a gun to the situation? That is the NRA view. Doesn't mean its the right view. Why are you so blinded by the NRA? They are a business lobby. They   don't    care    about    people.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    No matter how much the NRA seems bent on threatening Malia & Sasha.


    Where was the threat. 

    What I got out of the message was that my children should be afforded the same protection as the presidents children. 

    How is that a threat? 

    You barking up the wrong tree, doggie? 



    Lose the other argument, so you jump in here (and steal my line), eh?

    The simple act of calling attention to the Obama girls' school's level of security is a veiled threat.  I wouldn't be surprised if the school or secret service have had to increase protection due to the NRA's shameless political ploy.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    You really expect he or any other president to send their kids to public schools?  That makes no sense.   

    Why don't you see that it's shameful for the NRA has to resort to trying to embarrass POTUS' children just to (poorly) make a point?  That's a nakedly weak argument, and if they had a better argument they should have used it. 

     




    The POTUS agrees obviously that having armed guards at their school keeps his daughter safe.

     

    The NRA said putting armed guns in schools was a realistic way to stop PEOPLE (not guns) bent on killing them from being able to do so.

    The left said "oh no not more guns; the NRA is crazy" so, the NRA points out quite accurately that if, men with guns can be trusted to keep the POTUS kids safe why is it crazy to suggest doing the same for all kids?

    You scream oh no that makes sense and therefore is unfair and exploiting children.

    dovche

     




    It is a matter of risk assessment. The POTUS daughters are naturally at a higher risk of harm then the average school child. So they get SS protection to offset that risk.

    In a normal school setting adding guns would be a higher risk then not adding guns. Really, how does an armed guard help? The Sandy Hook incendent was over in less then 10 minutes. With the size of todays school, that is less time then it would take for a guard to get there unless he was already on the spot. Just a game of chance. Not a solution at all.

    Why would any person object to stronger background checks to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill? Even scalia believes that the 2d amd. doesn't apply to semi automatic. Why do you think you know better then him?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    No matter how much the NRA seems bent on threatening Malia & Sasha.


    Where was the threat. 

    What I got out of the message was that my children should be afforded the same protection as the presidents children. 

    How is that a threat? 

    You barking up the wrong tree, doggie? 

     




    And the only way to do that is add a gun to the situation? That is the NRA view. Doesn't mean its the right view. Why are you so blinded by the NRA? They are a business lobby. They   don't    care    about    people.

     

     




     

    Why do you believe that the NRA is full of nuts? I have some great friends I've made through the NRA and other gun clubs. Majority are regular Joe's. Lumping and labeling is something I thought Libs were against. 

    Don't believe everything the MSM sells. They know how to rope a dope, but guess you already know that.


    No, I don't believe the NRA is full of nuts. I believe their leadership is cold, calculating and only concerned with profits and gun sales.  I also believe the leadership does not speak for the majority of the members. George Bush agrees with me on this.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    You really expect he or any other president to send their kids to public schools?  That makes no sense.   

    Why don't you see that it's shameful for the NRA has to resort to trying to embarrass POTUS' children just to (poorly) make a point?  That's a nakedly weak argument, and if they had a better argument they should have used it. 

     




    The POTUS agrees obviously that having armed guards at their school keeps his daughter safe.

     

    The NRA said putting armed guns in schools was a realistic way to stop PEOPLE (not guns) bent on killing them from being able to do so.

    The left said "oh no not more guns; the NRA is crazy" so, the NRA points out quite accurately that if, men with guns can be trusted to keep the POTUS kids safe why is it crazy to suggest doing the same for all kids?

    You scream oh no that makes sense and therefore is unfair and exploiting children.

    dovche

     



    You dope.

    They could have made that point very well WITHOUT bringing the President's kids into it.  By doing so, however, they preserve their place up high on Douvche Mountain surrounded by their equally dovchey army.

    There are plenty of other, less obtrusive, less dangerous solutions for preventing gun violence, not just in schools, but everywhere.  Like most of the right, the NRA was far to gleeful in its attempt to get guns in the hands of more people.  Yes, guns don't kill people, but people with guns do.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    No matter how much the NRA seems bent on threatening Malia & Sasha.


    Where was the threat. 

    What I got out of the message was that my children should be afforded the same protection as the presidents children. 

    How is that a threat? 

    You barking up the wrong tree, doggie? 

     



    Lose the other argument, so you jump in here (and steal my line), eh?

     

    The simple act of calling attention to the Obama girls' school's level of security is a veiled threat.  I wouldn't be surprised if the school or secret service have had to increase protection due to the NRA's shameless political ploy.

     

     




     

    I didn't lose any arguement, didn't realize having a conversation entailed winning and losing.  

    Wait, didn't you say earlier that the girls school had a few secret service guards...now you say they may have had to increase protection? You also said you knew for a fact there were just a few ss guards. Looks like you're giving away information that could endanger the girls. 

     



    I didn't broadcast it in a national commercial, did I...?  Just here in the local peanuts' gallery.

    I've known about the school since Chelsea was there (I was studying arts education).  Naturally, the SS is present, but deliberately not conspicuous so as not to disrupt the school's operations or core mission.  But even Clinton didn't get nearly the level of threats directed at this president.

     

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....



    No, it really isn't, though you might think it is.

    The President is the President of ALL American kids (even those whose parents hate his guts, like you do).

    The NRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the President's kids.

     

    Get it now??

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    Chelsea was there many years ago, so how is it you know for a fact the number of ss guards, or you just blowing smoke out your a s s? 

    I win, you lose. 



    Yes, she was.

    And when the Obamas were enrolled, I followed up to see how Sidwell had changed over the years.

     

    Really, you can look stuff up on your own.  I don't mind.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

    [QUOTE]

    No, it really isn't, though you might think it is.

    The President is the President of ALL American kids (even those whose parents hate his guts, like you do).

    The NRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the President's kids. 

    Get it now?? 




    Why did the POTUS trot out children and not black teens or young males which have a much higher fatality rate from gun violence than children?

    I give you one guess lol

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share