School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


If 11 gaurds with firearms do not keep kids safe then why are they there? Obviously, trained people with firearms do keep kids safe.

See the red herring fallacy yet? Yeah, Obama is a pro at dragging red herrings so our fox hounds go chasing after false leads.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JTreader
 


No, it's not Obama's secret stimulus. If anything, spending on guns was more of a pushback reaction to his desire to disarm civilians as part of the larger Progressive agenda of Nanny State Utopian control.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Law makers, our president implies it, libs in general. More than a few people have said no guns, what they leave out is unless it's protecting them.


Yes, the ruling Elite is always the exception to that which they demand we live under. Same goes for healthcare, education, music, and food.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Good for the school it has the President's daughter attending it should be very secure. Come on people this is simple common sense.



The leaders need to have there children be a safe as possible because of what they do for a living. National security is a stake. COMMON SENSE.



Do I like this President? NO. Do I respect the office he holds? YES.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


well his kids kinda have to be protected to the fullest.. if i was potus there would be 50 armed guards there
edit on 25-12-2012 by goou111 because: (no reason given)



Exactly. People calling this hypocrisy are not looking at the fact that his children -- the children of any POTUS are absolutely targets for kidnappers or crazies. It's like saying that the fact that Obama himself needs Secret Service is proof that everyone needs to carry.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by bknapple32


Not a class issue, a national security issue



I thought ALL children in America warrant the same kind of Protection?



ya know, waaay back when, so did the Founders of this once great country.
and for over well over 100yrs ... no President or Congressperson had any security detail unless they provided one themselves. (and not at taxpayer expense either)

however, in those days, those who held such offices were actually desired by the public they serve.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jpkmets
 


Good point. Since he does have a guard service, we should have them too. I mean, aren't we just as entitled to protection as he is? Who knows, all of us could be assassination targets.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
everyone who says poor children are just as valuable as rich children are living in the wrong world.

that is not how the system you are willingly supporting works.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


No, they weren't. There were armed uprisings against the government when Washington was in office. Due to taxation without representation.


The Whiskey Rebellion', or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.


en.wikipedia.org...

I guess it's nice to have some rose colored glasses view of the past though, but it just isn't true.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 

what on this earth does the Whiskey Rebellion have to do with valuing our children or school ????

what does your comment have to do with armed guards in some school environments ?
seriously, wth ?

ETA - since i had to re-read the comment you responded to ... what does the Whiskey rebellion have to do with tax-funded political "security details" ??
we didn't have them back then ... what's your point ?
we had protests, we had dissention, we even had secession ... but, what does any of that have to do with protecting our children, especially when in school ?
edit on 25-12-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Direct reply to your statement statement;



however, in those days, those who held such offices were actually desired by the public they serve



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 

yeah so ?
even with the rebellion, he, nor his children had an armed security detail at taxpayer expense.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I bet all the parents of children in that school, not just the president, would give a plethora of justifications as to why they have the right to protect their kids. Yet, when the average joe wants to do the same, it is resisted with fury.

As to the president. He, and his family, are no more important than anyone else in the USA. He is merely an elected official after all. If he were incapable of serving his post others are scheduled to succeed him. If all of those people are incapable of serving there would be new elections to provide someone for the post. So, I do not buy any argument in regards to guarding the children of elected officials. Politics is dangerous. These people should not have their families guarded night and day, payed for by the peoples tax dollars to boot. I will accept that only when everyones families are protected equally well.

So Mr. President. Why don't you lead by example. Put your beloved daughters in harms way. Expose them to danger while they are in school. Until then, you are a hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jpkmets
 


I disagree. If these politicians are not up to the inherent dangers of office they should not serve. It is not the duty of the taxpayer to protect the people we elect. If the elected happen to get hurt on the job and cannot serve their post we simply elect new people for the job. It would weed out the cowardly at the very least. It would also show that the politician is willing to die for their beliefs. Which is a quality I would admire at election time.

Instead I, and many others, are forced to suffer incompetent and/or corrupt people in office and pay for their protection as well. My, my....the political system in the USA has the deck stacked well against the common man.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I bet all the parents of children in that school, not just the president, would give a plethora of justifications as to why they have the right to protect their kids. Yet, when the average joe wants to do the same, it is resisted with fury.

As to the president. He, and his family, are no more important than anyone else in the USA. He is merely an elected official after all. If he were incapable of serving his post others are scheduled to succeed him. If all of those people are incapable of serving there would be new elections to provide someone for the post. So, I do not buy any argument in regards to guarding the children of elected officials. Politics is dangerous. These people should not have their families guarded night and day, payed for by the peoples tax dollars to boot. I will accept that only when everyones families are protected equally well.

So Mr. President. Why don't you lead by example. Put your beloved daughters in harms way. Expose them to danger while they are in school. Until then, you are a hypocrite.


Yep sure is YOUR reality...

But back in the real world, our elected officials are targets. Sorry that joe six pack isnt. Face it. You arent as important as the president. Thats life. I know youd like to think that your kid is just as important of a target as Obama's...But they arent. They are just an average great kid. Nothing special to a kidnapper though. What are they going to get from you? Certainly not as much as kidnapping the president of the united states. And if you cant understand that, then yep... your reality. Not the shared one the rest of us live in.
edit on 25-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking
People with money send their kids to private schools with more resources. Our politicians have a lot of money

I thought demanding the same for the poor that the rich have was supposed to be socialism

Are we supposed to pay higher taxes for poor kids to be protected in school but not for them to have healthcare? Guess we'll just protect them from guns and not disease
edit on 25-12-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)


I am a social democrat, and in your country your liberals look like right winged fascists compared to the equality I believe in and anything else is evil and a hellzone.

But then so is having to send your children to armed penitentiary schools.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by sonnny1
 



See thats what it comes down to. You guys dont like Obama. Yet dems and republicans have been sending their kids to these schools for a long time. Its an issue now that Obama has kids in one of these schools.

Are you aware of Obamas family tree? dems & repubs are an illusion of choice. There IS NO equality. Wallstreet wins, period.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Those poor Obama kids are having their freedoms smashed as we speak...Oh the horror.....



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

not sure about "the rest of us", but i'm pretty sure most of us realize that Mr Obama is just as expendable as the next guy. protocols are established to remedy such a conflict of interest.

not saying that it should happen, but it should not be our financial responsibility.
National Security, my buttttt.

surprisingly, no president until the assassination of McKinley demanded such nonsense.
or are you going to suggest that we had no enemies of which to be concerned ??



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

But then so is having to send your children to armed penitentiary schools.


So let's say all guns are banned and destroyed. I would bet Quentin Tarantino could make a good movie about a totally unprotected school and some guy with a nail gun, chain saw and couple of machetes...if you get my point...

We have guards EVERYWHERE, watching for the criminals to mainly prevent stealing, and robberies, BUT I guess it is really wrong to have them protect our kids from crazies too.....

I can understand the whole gun or no gun debate, but this, I think is stupid...


edit on 25-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join