Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ??


Shows your ignorance on the topic. WE AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS. It ISN'T our financial responsibility for those guards at their school. Obama is with paying the 35k in tuition.

You want what his kids get for your kids? Fork over the 35 k a year




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpkmets

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.


Any school unprotected is a target for crazies, gun or no gun, I think there is more empirical data on that then with your statement.... Or maybe because there are 6 million violent crimes each year people should carry more.

The hypocrisy is for Obama and the left to slam the NRA for suggesting we need to guard our schools, while having THEIR schools guarded....
edit on 25-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Shows your ignorance on the topic. WE AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS. It ISN'T our financial responsibility for those guards at their school. Obama is with paying the 35k in tuition.

You want what his kids get for your kids? Fork over the 35 k a year


So those who can afford it get guards...the rest are saved by gun control....I'm sure gun control will cure the crazies in the process too, so then the President can spend less money...hehe



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


PUBLIC Servants get paid by the PUBLIC. These PUBLIC Servants, who want to do away with Conceal and Carry or ban guns OUTRIGHT, have no problems justifying using people that do support conceal and carry. If ANYONE doesn't find this hypocritical, Then they really need to have their heads examined. I can care less what people do with "their" money. But when you are in office, and use these laws to your advantage, all the while criticizing them or trying to do away with them, you have to expect the backlash you are going to get......



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
propaganda

it would be pure stupidity to risk the potus' kids regardless of party affiliation

dump thread



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Well of course!!!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The main thing that is being overlooked is that Joe Sixpack down the street can become POTUS or a congressman just as easily as anyone else in this country.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



Originally posted by bknapple32

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)


How classy of you to attack my pointless user name. Anyhow, I see your point of view as very telling of the political class of the USA. They consider themselves more important than the folk that elected them. That is not true at all. As I said earlier, if anything were to happen to a sitting elected leader, protocol would instate a new one. When there is no one to take their place fresh elections would be held. We would have new leaders. Honestly, do you really think the American people would sit idly by when the sitting president and/or his family were targeted? There would be a furor. Demands to destroy the instigators. Take no prisoners.

Even so, you do not convince me. I hold it dear that we are all created equal. Being elected to a political post, one which, in itself, is easily replaceable, does not make the elected a higher power in our society. The way in which politicians treat their voters is borderline elected royalty. Witness how little they listen to their constituents. Nothing will change until this myth is dispelled. Outlooks of the type you endorse merely feed this problem. Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Idiots...


A presidents children has much better odds of getting abducted than your average school child.

Not saying one is more important than the other, just saying one has more leverage than other children to crazy anti government people, terrorist..etc.

That is why they have guards at their school.

Of course you just want to jump all over Obama just to stir hatred of the man.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
A story you won't find In the Marxist press firearms are fine as long as they are used to keep their communist hide safe.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
The main thing that is being overlooked is that Joe Sixpack down the street can become POTUS or a congressman just as easily as anyone else in this country.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.


Jesus....

Ok when joe sixpack is elected president, then his kids get armed guards. Thats how it works. How is this hard for people to understand?

No one is better then the other... Its just certain risks are associated with jobs that are frankly more important. You arent being driven around in bullet proof glass limos or air force one. Cause you arent president.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
It isn't hard for people to understand. People "get it". Why would the president declare you don't need guns to protect your children, but he uses armed guards for his?

Because he thinks his family is valuable and needs to be protected ... JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE .. that's why.

Are his children "more valuable" than yours? Are we placing values on people and their lives now?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Are his children "more valuable" than yours? Are we placing values on people and their lives now?



No child is more important than another's.

What part about this don't you understand....he is the President of the USA..there are idiots out there that would take his children in hopes of using them as leverage for nefarious plot.

So his children have better odds of getting taken than yours do...that is a fact.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
And besides, I dont think the president has a choice. To protect the office, his kids will have guards wherever they are. It just so happens they attend a PRIVATE school with private employees who are guards. These arent armed teachers or principals. They are private employees for a private school with one job. Security.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I guess you missed the news that 20+ kids and adults were murdered in a mass shooting in Newtown, CT.

It looks to me like kids in regular schools need protection too.

That is what I'm having a hard time understanding. Not to mention the POTUS' kids already have a Secret Service detail assigned to them because they are the kids of the POTUS.

Edit to add:

It also makes it hypocritical that these same politicians are the ones that legislate "gun free zones". So if they aren't going to provide protection for our kids then we should be able to provide protection for them, right?
edit on 25-12-2012 by Timing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I guess you missed the news that 20+ kids and adults were murdered in a mass shooting in Newtown, CT.

It looks to me like kids in regular schools need protection too.

That is what I'm having a hard time understanding. Not to mention the POTUS' kids already have a Secret Service detail assigned to them because they are the kids of the POTUS.

Edit to add:

It also makes it hypocritical that these same politicians are the ones that legislate "gun free zones". So if they aren't going to provide protection for our kids then we should be able to provide protection for them, right?
edit on 25-12-2012 by Timing because: (no reason given)


You ignore almost EVERY point thats made.

How are we providing protection for those kids? We dont pay for that. Remember... private school??



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Actually you're ignoring the point that has been made.

The point is that there has been no mention from the left about assigning a resource officer to schools, instead it has all been about instating a new assault weapons ban.

The point is that they pay to send their children to schools that hire armed guards, yet in the same breath they tell us that guns are bad and that the citizenry should be restricted to which weapons that can own.

Do you see it yet? Are are you going to continue to ignore the hypocrisy?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Timing
The main thing that is being overlooked is that Joe Sixpack down the street can become POTUS or a congressman just as easily as anyone else in this country.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.


Jesus....

Ok when joe sixpack is elected president, then his kids get armed guards. Thats how it works. How is this hard for people to understand?

No one is better then the other... Its just certain risks are associated with jobs that are frankly more important. You arent being driven around in bullet proof glass limos or air force one. Cause you arent president.

...I hate to say this but this a losing battle.

I can not see the logic many here have and am resigned to the fact they just hate Obama and anything he or his family does will be attacked.

This thread just honestly makes no sense... What to you want, for his kids to run arounfd willy nilly in Public School, shop at the mall and gop to Movies without any protection?

Then one day you wake up and we have Nuked Israel (or Palestine, or Saudi Arabia- take you r pick) because some Rogue nation has kidnapped the kids and is blackmailing the GUY WITH THE CODES.
My kids are not targets - Even when they were young. I have no power, thus blackmailing me is pretty pointless.

I just do not get this whole line of thought...
-Anyhow you are correct BK. 100%



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


No one is saying that that their children should run around unprotected because they are high value targets.

What we are saying is that if they aren't going to pay for the same protection that their kids get then they need to stop proposing legislation that restricts our rights to protect our kids.

The point is that they get up in front of the TV spouting off how guns are bad and proposing legislation that restricts our right to protect our kids, but yet send their kids to school with armed guards because trained armed guards have a better chance at thwarting any attempt to inflict harm to their kids while they are at school for political reasons.

That is what we are saying. Nice try at trying to twist the argument though.





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join