Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 22, 2014, 06:44:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: White House slams NRA ad using Obama daughters to criticize new gun laws  (Read 1401 times)
Nails
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 26229


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVI2DmLI2Q


View Profile
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:40:05 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-slams-repugnant-cowardly-nra-ad-165149975--politics.html


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmGfZt8iJdA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmGfZt8iJdA</a>


The White House on Wednesday blasted a web ad released by the National Rifle Association using President Barack Obama’s daughters to criticize the president on gun control as “repugnant and cowardly."
The NRA released the ad Tuesday, a day before Obama announced a package of proposals aimed at curbing gun violence in the wake of a mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., last month.
In strikingly personal terms, the ad calls Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing Secret Service protection for daughters even as he calls for tighter gun laws.
"Why is [Obama] skeptical about putting armed security in schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" the ad asks.
As the president's children, Malia and Sasha Obama are entitled to Secret Service protection. Obama has never said he opposes more armed security guards at school, which the NRA recommended in the wake of the Newtown massacre. But the president has said such a step is not sufficient in curbing gun danger.
White House spokesman Jay Carney released a statement responding to the ad shortly before Obama outlined his new gun proposals.
“Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” Carney said in a statement emailed to reporters. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”
Report to moderator   Logged
El Diablo Blanco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17189


Nom Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2013, 01:42:09 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-slams-repugnant-cowardly-nra-ad-165149975--politics.html

The White House on Wednesday blasted a web ad released by the National Rifle Association using President Barack Obama’s daughters to criticize the president on gun control as “repugnant and cowardly."
The NRA released the ad Tuesday, a day before Obama announced a package of proposals aimed at curbing gun violence in the wake of a mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., last month.
In strikingly personal terms, the ad calls Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing Secret Service protection for daughters even as he calls for tighter gun laws.
"Why is [Obama] skeptical about putting armed security in schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" the ad asks.
As the president's children, Malia and Sasha Obama are entitled to Secret Service protection. Obama has never said he opposes more armed security guards at school, which the NRA recommended in the wake of the Newtown massacre. But the president has said such a step is not sufficient in curbing gun danger.
White House spokesman Jay Carney released a statement responding to the ad shortly before Obama outlined his new gun proposals.
“Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” Carney said in a statement emailed to reporters. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

Umm, maybe because he is the fucking president of the USA and there are over a billion people in this world that would love to do him and his family harm.  Are these guys that fucking ignorant?
Report to moderator   Logged
OneMoreRep
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9171



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2013, 01:48:20 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmGfZt8iJdA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmGfZt8iJdA</a>

The NRA just made a huge mistake and earned themselves a very powerful enemy.

While Obama isn't much of a bully regarding most matters, this little incident will not work out to their advantage.

I have always been a fan of the NRA, but this time they might have dug themselves way too deep.

Even freedom of speech has it's limits and while they didn't use derogatory terms, bringing in his kids as pawns for their argument just earned them a world of trouble.

"1"
Report to moderator   Logged
ChopperRider
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3480


Ugly, bald Shitso scalp for sale = $1


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2013, 02:54:02 PM »

The Obama Administration didn't seem that worried about kids and gun safety when they were selling Fast & Furious assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 04:42:08 PM »

Umm, maybe because he is the fucking president of the USA and there are over a billion people in this world that would love to do him and his family harm.  Are these guys that fucking ignorant?

way to miss the point of the video. Obama doesn't want schools to have armed security meanwhile the school he sends his kids to has armed security. This is not to be confused with the secret service that protects his kids wherever they go.
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 04:45:13 PM »

The NRA just made a huge mistake and earned themselves a very powerful enemy.

While Obama isn't much of a bully regarding most matters, this little incident will not work out to their advantage.

I have always been a fan of the NRA, but this time they might have dug themselves way too deep.

Even freedom of speech has it's limits and while they didn't use derogatory terms, bringing in his kids as spawns for their argument just earned them a world of trouble.

I disagree. The NRA simply voiced what many of us Americans are thinking but don't have the political platform to be heard. Even if this lands them in trouble, I applaud them for their courage and integrity for standing up to a hypocritical leader
Report to moderator   Logged
OneMoreRep
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9171



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 04:52:20 PM »

I disagree. The NRA simply voiced what many of us Americans are thinking but don't have the political platform to be heard. Even if this lands them in trouble, I applaud them for their courage and integrity for standing up to a hypocritical leader

Sure.  They used freedom of speech to make an ad that hits home at the Obama family.

While he certainly is highly hypocritical, I think he will go above and beyond to destroy any chance the NRA has of making things work for them.

Knowing full well that the NRA doesn't have any way of creating or passing any laws, I think he will literally be gunning for them, pun intended.  What kind of repercussion he can deliver to them is yet to be seen.

Also, I have no doubt that the ultimate goal is for Americans to be stripped of all guns.  I think they seek to only allow guns in the hands of law enforcement.  Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the distant future, all available guns/weapons are only made available to active military personnel at their location of duty.

Picture the movie Judge Dredd.

"1"
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44586


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 04:52:58 PM »

way to miss the point of the video. Obama doesn't want schools to have armed security meanwhile the school he sends his kids to has armed security. This is not to be confused with the secret service that protects his kids wherever they go.
Hmmm, an added layer of security because THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S KIDS!

I'm sure regular parents have as many enemies, domestic and abroad as the president of the United States.
 Roll Eyes
And I'm sure that regular parents get death threats and threats to kidnap/kill their kids like the President.

Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 05:07:44 PM »

Hmmm, an added layer of security because THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S KIDS!

I'm sure regular parents have as many enemies, domestic and abroad as the president of the United States.

And I'm sure that regular parents get death threats and threats to kidnap/kill their kids like the President.

they already have Secret Service protecting them. I'm sure the Secret Service goes through better training than any armed guard at a school. They are specially assigned to keep an eye out on on the President's kids not to mention they are required to take a bullet to protect the First Family. So your argument about having "an added layer of security" is meaningless. It would be like positioning you outside the White House with a gun and calling it "an added layer of security"
Report to moderator   Logged
dr.chimps
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25831


Bunch Commander


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 05:11:12 PM »

they already have Secret Service protecting them. I'm sure the Secret Service goes through better training than any armed guard at a school. They are specially assigned to keep an eye out on on the President's kids not to mention they are required to take a bullet to protect the First Family. So your argument about having "an added layer of security" is meaningless. It would be like positioning you outside the White House with a gun and calling it "an added layer of security"
Your edit belied your post.  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19417


Decepticons! Scramble!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 05:17:17 PM »

Also, I have no doubt that the ultimate goal is for Americans to be stripped of all guns.  I think they seek to only allow guns in the hands of law enforcement.  Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the distant future, all available guns/weapons are only made available to active military personnel at their location of duty.

Picture the movie Judge Dredd.

"1"
Agree.
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44586


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2013, 05:19:36 PM »

they already have Secret Service protecting them. I'm sure the Secret Service goes through better training than any armed guard at a school. They are specially assigned to keep an eye out on on the President's kids not to mention they are required to take a bullet to protect the First Family. So your argument about having "an added layer of security" is meaningless. It would be like positioning you outside the White House with a gun and calling it "an added layer of security"
secret service are mere mortals and even they drop the ball...remember one has already committed suicide, another embroiled in another mess and I could go on....
My a regiment is not meaningless. An added layer of security, one in Whig we don't know their training, background or company. There are only so many SS agents, and many have to cover the wife, Obama, kids, and other duties. All that costs money. A SS agent who has been in the game for at least 10 yrs can be making over 100k, now add that up. Versus trained and armed security at the school.


You don't think that The president gets threats daily about people wanting to kidnap his children? And then they have to investigate that? They are not going to reveal the numbers on how many threat they get a day, and whether or not the threat is serious or not.
Bottom line the president's kids are bigger targets than a regular joe's kids on account that they are the president's kids.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pray_4_War
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2757


11 inch penis


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2013, 05:19:48 PM »

Hmmm, an added layer of security because THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S KIDS!

I'm sure regular parents have as many enemies, domestic and abroad as the president of the United States.
 Roll Eyes
And I'm sure that regular parents get death threats and threats to kidnap/kill their kids like the President.



Regular people's kids lives are at risk of random violence and the President's kids are at risk of targeted violence.  The bottom line is that they are all at risk.  It's more than a little hypocritical of Obeezy to want protection for his kids while arguing against it for ours.  Unless you think that the lives of the President's children are more important than regular kids which is absurd.
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2013, 05:20:17 PM »

Your edit belied your post

originally, I was going to type up something else but I decided to go a different route. So my opening sentence no longer applied
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19417


Decepticons! Scramble!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2013, 05:22:25 PM »

secret service are mere mortals and even they drop the ball...remember one has already committed suicide, another embroiled in another mess and I could go on....
My a regiment is not meaningless. An added layer of security, one in Whig we don't know their training, background or company. There are only so many SS agents, and many have to cover the wife, Obama, kids, and other duties. All that costs money. A SS agent who has been in the game for at least 10 yrs can be making over 100k, now add that up. Versus trained and armed security at the school.


You don't think that The president gets threats daily about people wanting to kidnap his children? And then they have to investigate that? They are not going to reveal the numbers on how many threat they get a day, and whether or not the threat is serious or not.
Bottom line the president's kids are bigger targets than a regular joe's kids on account that they are the president's kids.
I think his point, is that it's ok for a school to have armed guards when his kids are there, but it's not ok for everyone elses kids. That's the point. Obviously those guards at that school are there for more than just his children.
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2013, 05:26:25 PM »

Regular people's kids lives are at risk of random violence and the President's kids are at risk of targeted violence.  The bottom line is that they are all at risk.  It's more than a little hypocritical of Obeezy to want protection for his kids while arguing against it for ours.  Unless you think that the lives of the President's children are more important than regular kids which is absurd.

strong this. For every argument defending Obama's hypocrisy to have armed guards (not to be confused with Secret Service) at his kid's school, I can come up with a valid rebuttal. In the end, there's no good reason why it's okay for his kids to go to a school with armed guards while our children must attend gun-free schools. To the poster who commented that armed security is "an added layer of protection," I would argue that public knowledge of the Secret Service is enough of a deterrent. Show me how many assassination attempts there have been on past Presidents' kids. I'm curious to know. Meanwhile, our kids are being shot up and killed in gun-free schools b/c <surprise surprise> there is no deterrent to the bad guys.
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44586


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2013, 05:32:42 PM »

Regular people's kids lives are at risk of random violence and the President's kids are at risk of targeted violence.  The bottom line is that they are all at risk.  It's more than a little hypocritical of Obeezy to want protection for his kids while arguing against it for ours.  Unless you think that the lives of the President's children are more important than regular kids which is absurd.
of course all kids are at risk...

Did GW's girls have security at their schools (were they in HS at the time?)?
It's not hypocritical. Thing is, as I said there are more people who would "gun" for the President's kids if there was a chance to do so. I don't think the regular person has AQ, and other extremist factions threatening or willing to do harm to their kids. I don't think the regular parent has people constantly making threats to their lives, and their loved ones.

What next, the president shouldn't ride in an armored vehicle due to the regular person not needing that?
Or the regular person doesn't need Secret Service agents, so why should the president?


I think his point, is that it's ok for a school to have armed guards when his kids are there, but it's not ok for everyone elses kids. That's the point. Obviously those guards at that school are there for more than just his children.
I get that in a sense, but were the armed security guards there before the president's children were enrolled there? Were the schools picked due to having armed security?

If anything, I believe that schools need campus police, or a subset of police from the local police depts that cover the schools.

Report to moderator   Logged
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31498


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2013, 05:36:29 PM »

The NRA just made a huge mistake and earned themselves a very powerful enemy.

While Obama isn't much of a bully regarding most matters, this little incident will not work out to their advantage.

I have always been a fan of the NRA, but this time they might have dug themselves way too deep.

Even freedom of speech has it's limits and while they didn't use derogatory terms, bringing in his kids as spawns for their argument just earned them a world of trouble.

"1"

There could be huge ramifications and unintended consequences over this.
Report to moderator   Logged

7
che
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12889



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 05:59:32 PM »

  Unless you think that the lives of the President's children are more important than regular kids

Celebrities are more important than the rest of us , I hope this helps.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pray_4_War
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2757


11 inch penis


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2013, 06:03:41 PM »

of course all kids are at risk...



If they are all at risk why do they not all need armed security?



Did GW's girls have security at their schools (were they in HS at the time?)?


That's irrelevant because GW wasn't out there arguing against armed security in schools.


It's not hypocritical.


I question your understanding of the word hypocritical.
Report to moderator   Logged
OneMoreRep
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9171



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2013, 06:05:33 PM »

Celebrities are more important than the rest of us , I hope this helps.

x2

Regular people die and are killed every day.  A celebrity dies and a nation mourns for weeks, sometimes even months.

Celebrities can speak for a country (see: Bono, Sting, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn etc..), whereas Joe the plumber is only good for draining out another man's rectum.

"1"
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44586


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 06:06:48 PM »

There could be huge ramifications and unintended consequences over this.
i find that this is tip of a bigger iceberg. The NRA is a huge lobbying group, and as endemic of the massive lobby groups today, they have all but bought/ helped every politician in Washington. Thus, giving them unprecedented power, and  inflated their very, very huge Wong Hong heads full of arrogance. So, they believe that they can say or do anything, with impunity. And this is a dangerous road for both parties. Powerful lobbies/lobbyists who believe that they are untouchable and will do anything to get their way, vs the Presidency...

Good thing there are no more convertible Lincolns anymore...
Report to moderator   Logged
Voice of Doom
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2472


Everything is under control.


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2013, 06:11:16 PM »

The point of this ad is that the president sends his children to a school that caters to the elites in the country.  Politicians, money families, children of industrialists.  It's an elite school.  Those people have the money and the status to get their children armed protection.  It's called priviledge and its what human civilization is built upon.

It's not in the elites interests for regular folks children to have the same level of security.  It makes their arrangement less special and less priviledged.  The elites prefer regular Americans to be disarmed and at the mercy of the corporate-government apparatus that they control.

Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44586


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2013, 06:19:32 PM »


If they are all at risk why do they not all need armed security?

That's irrelevant because GW wasn't out there arguing against armed security in schools.

I question your understanding of the word hypocritical.
everybody is at risk of something..
But who is more at risk? You tell me.

Who is going to pay for all the armed security at every school? Who is going to pay for their training, background checks, guns, etc?
There is a cost. And it is not irrevelant, because if Gw kid's schools had armed security, then the NRA are just trying to pick a fight, without true solutions. And against people like you fall for it.

I already stated the better solution is campus police, like they do at many inner city HS, or have police patrol the schools.

No, you make the argument, "well, if Obama has armed security at his kid's schools, then all children need armed security at their schools."
"Aren't my kids just as important?"

Instead of asking, was that security agency already contracted at that school? And due to the climate of today, one would hope that the  President had that extra layer of security.
Because, if some ish went down, and it was there, everybody knows his detractors would ask why he didn't have that added layer, and doesn't he care about his kids, Afterall he is the President.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pray_4_War
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2757


11 inch penis


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2013, 06:56:27 PM »

everybody is at risk of something..
But who is more at risk? You tell me.

Who is going to pay for all the armed security at every school? Who is going to pay for their training, background checks, guns, etc?
There is a cost. And it is not irrevelant, because if Gw kid's schools had armed security, then the NRA are just trying to pick a fight, without true solutions. And against people like you fall for it.

I already stated the better solution is campus police, like they do at many inner city HS, or have police patrol the schools.

No, you make the argument, "well, if Obama has armed security at his kid's schools, then all children need armed security at their schools."
"Aren't my kids just as important?"

Instead of asking, was that security agency already contracted at that school? And due to the climate of today, one would hope that the  President had that extra layer of security.
Because, if some ish went down, and it was there, everybody knows his detractors would ask why he didn't have that added layer, and doesn't he care about his kids, Afterall he is the President.


The fuck are are you trying to say?  You aren't making sense.

It's time for me to excuse myself. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!