If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   NBC News talking head David Gregory chides NRAs Wayne LaPierre for even considering the notion of having armed guards at schools. After the interview, he picked up his kids at their school...which has 11 on the security payroll   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 521
    More: Dumbass, NBC, mock trial, Sidwell Friends, payrolls, security  
•       •       •

9313 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 07:17:22 AM
Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.
 
2012-12-24 07:26:39 AM

sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.


The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
 
2012-12-24 07:55:26 AM
I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning
 
2012-12-24 07:56:20 AM
Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

This is an outrage!
 
2012-12-24 07:59:28 AM
Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.
 
2012-12-24 08:11:30 AM
Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.
 
2012-12-24 08:16:52 AM
David Gregory probably does not set school policy.
 
2012-12-24 08:18:42 AM

BunkyBrewman: Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?


TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.
 
2012-12-24 08:21:08 AM
This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.
 
2012-12-24 08:22:11 AM
Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.
 
2012-12-24 08:24:58 AM
 the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends

                  HA    HA

 encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

            ARMED QUAKERS
 
2012-12-24 08:31:12 AM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


Yet he probably chose the school based on it's policies. Go figure.
 
2012-12-24 08:32:32 AM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


And he clearly doesn't object strongly enough to not send his kids there.
 
2012-12-24 08:34:29 AM
I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?
 
2012-12-24 08:38:09 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: BunkyBrewman: Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.


Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security. That, plus "security" doesn't necessarily mean against rampage shooters. If you have security at a Foot Locker they're there to stop thieves, not prepared to take down a guy with a high powered rifle.
 
2012-12-24 08:38:34 AM
Did you guys know that the President said he doesn't think all Americans should have Secret Service protection, even though he himself has Secret Service protection??? What a hypocrite! It's like he thinks some lives are more valuable than others!
 
2012-12-24 08:41:32 AM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.
 
2012-12-24 08:45:11 AM

Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.


Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.
 
2012-12-24 08:49:09 AM

kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.


Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.
 
2012-12-24 08:49:35 AM

EnviroDude: Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.


If you want armed security for your kids then pay for it yourself.  Send them to a school that has it.  Unless you're ready for the taxes it will take to pay to put them in every public school.

Higher taxes for education and a massive expansion of government.   EnviroDude, I don't think I even know you anymore.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:02 AM

Nabb1: kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.

Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.


Argue that schools need armed guards if you'd like, but that's not the point this headline is trying to make. "Conservatives" are trying to present this situation as some sort of "HA! Gotcha!" Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:09 AM

nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.


Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:28 AM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


That's pretty much what I was going to say. When you have the children of high profile folks attending your exclusive school in droves (it is a very exclusive school, btw), you'll want that security. However, the chances of someone trying to kidnap and hold for ransom one of the kids at one the schools here are  probably zero. If there's gonna be a kidnapping in my solidly middle class area, it's going to be a parent who was denied custody or a perv. Why should my community bear the extra expense of bored, armed personnel on every site? While my city is financially solvent, the ones around us are not. They'd have to get the big, bad ol' government to pay for it.

We have an armed,  off duty officer at one of the High  Schools at all times, but he was always in the lunch room,  hanging  out with the lunch ladies, unless it was time for his rounds. Not only that, that particular school is pretty rough. It's a necessity in that situation, but the kids were most likely to be.the ones needing to be shot, not an intruder.  Hell, a bunch of those kids were probably packin' heat on the sly. It's one of the reasons that when I found  out how bad  things were there when my son was still in H.S., I moved.

Also remember, Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia Tech subcontracted out with the  police department and Fort Hood was a military base,  for pity's sake. The presence of armed personnel is obviously not a deterrent at all. Something does need to be done, but armed guards at every school, especially of the citizen patrol or teacher variety, is not the answer. What the answer  is, I am not entirely sure. I'll get back to you when I figure it out.
 
2012-12-24 08:55:32 AM
It's safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It's just odd he'd want it for his kids, but wouldn't be more open to it for others.

It's also entirely possible that he feels the same way about the armed guards at this school, but whatever feelings he has are outweighed by the educational benefits provided there.
 
2012-12-24 08:55:51 AM

kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't


I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.
 
2012-12-24 08:57:21 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


Important? No. At risk? Yes. But I think you know that. Or do you also think that you need a stop light and crosswalk at every intersection?
 
2012-12-24 08:58:19 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't

I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.


No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument. Find a better one.
 
2012-12-24 08:58:36 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


They pay for that security.  You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.
 
2012-12-24 08:59:00 AM
Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.
 
2012-12-24 08:59:43 AM
Also,

Dancin_In_Anson: Good to see that you understand that their there are children that are more important than yours.


FTFY
 
2012-12-24 09:01:19 AM

JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.


Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?
 
2012-12-24 09:03:52 AM

kxs401: No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument.


That's not the argument.

Diogenes: They pay for that security. You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.


Wait...I thought my taxes went to fire and...police protection. Now I have to pay more for the police part of the equation. Hmph.
 
2012-12-24 09:04:47 AM

nmrsnr: FTFY


Dancin_In_Anson: Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


FTFM...AY
 
2012-12-24 09:05:41 AM

nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?


Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.
 
2012-12-24 09:11:40 AM
If all the kids and teachers were packing heat those guards wouldn't be needed. Duh.... problem solved. Can't you all see that?
 
2012-12-24 09:15:47 AM

Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.


Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.
 
2012-12-24 09:17:05 AM
We had the cops at my high school every day. Still had stabbings and shootings.
 
2012-12-24 09:18:49 AM
I also hope no guns were harmed due to David's insensitive comments and dismissive attitude. After all, the safety of our guns is the most important thing here
 
2012-12-24 09:19:26 AM

Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.


And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.
 
2012-12-24 09:21:08 AM

Diogenes: Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.


It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.
 
2012-12-24 09:23:25 AM
NRA- All pets require litterboxes!

David Gregory- no, not all pets need litterboxes.

NRA-OMG but you have litterboxes for your cats! That means you're a hypocrite, Michael Moore has to be put to death by firing squad, and Sarah Palin is the head of the Department of Education!

Rational people- *facepalm*
 
2012-12-24 09:25:18 AM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.

And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.


Fallacy of insufficient options.  I'm saying we can have smart security for all without further bankrupting education.
 
2012-12-24 09:27:16 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.

It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.


Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.

Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.  You just want to taunt it seems.  Fine.

I used to respect you as a sparring partner and reasonable dealer.  Sad to see those days are gone.
 
2012-12-24 09:30:17 AM

Diogenes: Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.

And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.

Fallacy of insufficient options.  I'm saying we can have smart security for all without further bankrupting education.


What is your idea of "smart security"?
 
2012-12-24 09:47:15 AM
It's like the World Series of Intentional Obtuseness in this thread.
 
2012-12-24 09:49:59 AM

Diogenes: Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.


Where did you come up with that? Really. I'm quite curious to see what kind of pretzel logic you used to come to that conclusion.

/You tell yourself you're not my kind
//But you don't even know your mind
///And you could have a change of heart

Diogenes: Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.


It's clearly stated in the headline.
 
2012-12-24 09:56:27 AM
If he's paying the tuition, he's paying for the armed guards.
The difference with LaPierre's proposal is that he's saying we need to have armed guards in every school, but is offering no solution to pay for said guards -- one newspaper estimates the cost for one guard per building in Pennsylvania to be up to $140,000,000 annually. Even if the guards were all volunteers who's paying for background checks, liability insurance, training, etc.?

I am *not* opposed to the concept of increased school security. I'd even pay higher property taxes to improve that security. But, here in PA there's a law that requires every school property tax hike above the rate of inflation to be approved via voter referendum. To date there have been 13 such votes, and to date exactly one has passed -- plus, with federal money running out and state-level budget cuts something like 20,000 teachers/support staff have already been fired.
 
2012-12-24 09:57:14 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.

Where did you come up with that? Really. I'm quite curious to see what kind of pretzel logic you used to come to that conclusion.

/You tell yourself you're not my kind
//But you don't even know your mind
///And you could have a change of heart

Diogenes: Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.

It's clearly stated in the headline.


I'm sorry I even tried.  You made it abundantly clear about two weeks ago that homosexuals have no valid input on public policy.  I'll take my comments back to the closet.  Sorry to bother.
 
2012-12-24 09:57:25 AM

sigdiamond2000: It's like the World Series of Intentional Obtuseness in this thread.


And there will be people calling other people names soon.
 
2012-12-24 09:59:04 AM
Oh, it's a private school?  Oh, it' the same school that the President's kids go to, and presumably has more security because of that?  Yawn.

That's right folks.  You can't pay for something with your own money unless you also think everybody should have that and pay for it with taxpayer money.  Interesting seeing the right wing making that argument this time though.
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report