It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jeneri
reply to post by bknapple32
Actually dummy, Secret Service has a $20 million expense account for the US President. Those funds are tasked with protecting with the US President and his family. I'm sure you can conclude the tax payer funds this expense account which protects little Nobamas. I dare you to tell me there's no Secret Service protection at Sidwell.edit on 27-12-2012 by jeneri because: (no reason given)edit on 27-12-2012 by jeneri because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jeneri
reply to post by bknapple32
Actually dummy, Secret Service has a $20 million expense account for the US President. Those funds are tasked with protecting with the US President and his family. I'm sure you can conclude the tax payer funds this expense account which protects little Nobamas. I dare you to tell me there's no Secret Service protection at Sidwell.edit on 27-12-2012 by jeneri because: (no reason given)edit on 27-12-2012 by jeneri because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
But you know, it's not just the school the Obama's daughters attend that has armed guards - many Congressmen, business leaders and just rich people send the kids to these schools because they're safe. Do you not see the hypocrisy that their kids are more valuable than yours? Don't let anyone tell you that armed guards cannot keep a school safe. They don't even have to be openly armed and look like stormtroopers.
We're all entitled to safe schools, if it takes armed guards to keep their kids safe ours are worth it just as much.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, perio
www.breitbart.com...
yet fail to realize their "protection" is actually killing more innocent people than it's helping.
Originally posted by gottaknow
Ok. Let's pretend you're President of the U.S., which alone, is a reason for people to mess with your family.
Now, you happen to be the 1st black man to be President as well.
You have 2 daughters.
How are you going to protect those two precious children from the nutjobs and well, anyone else that wants to blackmail or hurt you or them?? What catastrophes could occur nationwide, if they were compromised?
It's a matter of National Security that those children are guarded. It's also a matter of protecting your kids from harm, like any parent has to, but on a much, much higher level.
The same goes for the children of the wealthy. I'm sorry, but if I were to magically obtain great wealth and had children, they need to be protected more-so than if I were to have kids in my current status. You don't think there aren't people who would love to extort a ransom from the wealthy? The Jolie-Pitt kids and those like them need the added protection. You would do the same.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
But you know, it's not just the school the Obama's daughters attend that has armed guards - many Congressmen, business leaders and just rich people send the kids to these schools because they're safe. Do you not see the hypocrisy that their kids are more valuable than yours?
No I do not. I, like most folks equiped with a brain, understand that the daughter of the President of the United States of America is a target for Terrorists and Wackos. I also understand a father who is worth Millions or Billions might have special concerns for his children. Kid-Napping...ever heard of it?
Acknowledging those glaring truths does not in any way mean that those kids are "more valuable" than anyone elses APART from the value thier death or abduction would have have to terrorists or criminals.
What part of that simple logic do you not understand?
ATS seems a battle of stupidity lately. Where debates don't even begin with facts or logic, but rather start from places of willful ignorance or dishonesty.
Originally posted by riley
I find the logic behind this thread quite bizarre.
He is the "leader of the free world".. regardless of who he is personally he is as a powerful head of state.. more than that he is a symbol for the people and of a country just like any monarch is.
He is also Commander-in-Chief of the US army.
What message would it send to US military enemies if one was able to target a family member of it's leader? What would that do to military morale and most importantly the confidence of US citizens if an elected president couldn't even protect his own child?edit on 26-12-2012 by riley because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by NavyDoc
That is not what they really are, that is what they are really supposed to be. Just like you're supposed to slow down when the light turns yellow.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by tide88
And the reason for the Sandy Hook massacre was.......?
What child of a politician attended there - or Columbine?
And you accuse me of ridiculous statements.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Yes, simple logic. Their children are not any more valuable than mine.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
My problem comes when they have armed guards for thier own families but want to ban the tools I use to protect mine.