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.

(Washington Post)   Set your faces to stunned: the NRA ad about armed guards at Obama's daughters' school was one big lie   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 373
    More: Obvious, Sidwell Friends School, contact list, private schools, elementary schools  
•       •       •

7106 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jan 2013 at 12:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-19 12:04:58 PM
Actually, I think the idea of each school having it's own tactical response team paid for by a tax on guns is a great idea.
 
2013-01-19 12:06:47 PM
I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.
 
2013-01-19 12:08:09 PM
The NRA are shameless liars.
 
2013-01-19 12:13:25 PM
There is no room for truth in their narrative. Why is the question you need to be asking, America.
 
2013-01-19 12:17:23 PM

vpb: Actually, I think the idea of each school having it's own tactical response team paid for by a tax on guns is a great idea.


I don't care how much money you bring in - if you have to train and deploy that many officers, nationwide, you are not going to get the best and the brightest. Think the TSA in your kid's school. Now give them guns.
 
2013-01-19 12:38:23 PM

mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.


Good to know there's a cool hand on the tiller.

Or big guys that can restrain him.
 
2013-01-19 12:40:58 PM
wait, you're telling me a right-wing group may have lied to make their argument?

where is Jack and his complete lack of surprise when you need him?
 
2013-01-19 12:44:00 PM

mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.


For the most part, I think they've managed to sound more respectful of Sasha and Malia than Limbaugh was of Chelsea Clinton.

It's not much of a bar, but there it is.
 
2013-01-19 12:44:26 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: wait, you're telling me a right-wing group may have lied to make their argument?

where is Jack and his complete lack of surprise when you need him?


You want me surprised? Call me when a right-wing group actually makes a truthful argument.
 
2013-01-19 12:44:42 PM
There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.
 
2013-01-19 12:47:13 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: wait, you're telling me a right-wing group may have lied to make their argument?

where is Jack and his complete lack of surprise when you need him?


i483.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-19 12:47:34 PM

vartian: vpb: Actually, I think the idea of each school having it's own tactical response team paid for by a tax on guns is a great idea.

I don't care how much money you bring in - if you have to train and deploy that many officers, nationwide, you are not going to get the best and the brightest. Think the TSA in your kid's school. Now give them guns.


Many localities put their elementary and middle or middle and high schools on the same or adjacent properties. Occasionally, all three. Perhaps this will lead to pilot programs with shared police substations.
 
2013-01-19 12:49:17 PM
I bet Billy NRA would do a great job of guarding our children's schools. Way better than Jennifer Government possibly could.
 
2013-01-19 12:49:53 PM
If we don't all have Secret Service protection then Obama is a hypocrite.

This was a stupid argument even without the lie.
 
2013-01-19 12:50:33 PM

mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.


You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?
 
2013-01-19 12:50:56 PM

sno man: There is no room for truth in their narrative. Why is the question you need to be asking, America.


Yup. And that's really the problem. They are in no, way, shape, or form interested in having any kind of debate on the actual issue.

There's a simple reason for that: their entire reason for existence is simply partisan hackery. They stopped giving a shiat about anything else long ago.
 
2013-01-19 12:51:10 PM
"The president and his family enjoy 24-hour-security from law enforcement at taxpayer expense, and this ad asks very real questions: If it's good enough for the president, why shouldn't it be good enough for the rest for us?"

No, that is a fake rhetorical question A real question, even a real rhetorical question, doesn't require someone to actually get dumber to answer it. There is a difference between a question that cuts to the core of an issue and one that drains IQ points just by hearing it.
 
2013-01-19 12:51:11 PM
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam insisted that the ad was not about Malia and Sasha Obama: "If anyone thinks we're talking specifically about someone's children, they're missing the point completely. This isn't an issue about comparing the president's kids. This is an issue about school safety and protecting all our children, regardless of tax bracket and how important their parents are. The intent of our ad is to make sure that we point out that there is a double standard that exists."

Sure, we mentioned Obama specifically, but we aren't trying to make a point about him...

If the above statement doesn't act like a weasel spotlight, I don't know what would
 
2013-01-19 12:51:31 PM

vartian: vpb: Actually, I think the idea of each school having it's own tactical response team paid for by a tax on guns is a great idea.

I don't care how much money you bring in - if you have to train and deploy that many officers, nationwide, you are not going to get the best and the brightest. Think the TSA in your kid's school. Now give them guns.


I was assured by very concerned gun owners that this will cost nearly nothing to implement, as schools will just get one officer from the local PD to handle security. They didn't seem to be aware that there are schools with a dozen kids and schools with thousands of kids, one cop will do just fine regardless.
 
2013-01-19 12:51:57 PM

vernonFL: The NRA are shameless liars.


.
 
2013-01-19 12:51:59 PM

Fart_Machine: If we don't all have Secret Service protection then Obama is a hypocrite.

This was a stupid argument even without the lie.


which is presumably why they lied.
 
2013-01-19 12:52:40 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?


Obama gets a taxpayer-funded helicopter and I don't.  This is an outrage!  Why should only the rich and well-connected get a helicopter?
 
2013-01-19 12:52:51 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked.


No, it wasn't relevant. The President of The United States is not some drone working at a software firm in relative anonymity.

Try again.
 
2013-01-19 12:53:28 PM

clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.


article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?
 
2013-01-19 12:53:35 PM

Smelly McUgly: I bet Billy NRA would do a great job of guarding our children's schools. Way better than Jennifer Government possibly could.


They're killing people for their Nike Mercurys!
 
2013-01-19 12:54:02 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?


It isn't f*cking directly relevant to any point.

It is an intentionally dense argument made in an attempt to get the other side to argue AGAINST the idea as though they hate children or think some children are more important.

It is logistically stupid, entirely too expensive, and will lead to nothing but more violence...and the people making the point know how difficult it would be. But, it is a great GOTCHA! point and it ignores any discussion on gun control and, lets be honest, that is most important.
 
2013-01-19 12:54:04 PM

Phil Moskowitz: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

Good to know there's a cool hand on the tiller.

Or big guys that can restrain him.


thegatewaypundit.com

"Oh you wanna fark with my kids huh? Enjoy one of these babies through your front door redneck motherfarkers"
aeronauticpictures.com


www.gannett-cdn.com
"Calm down Big O, we can just troll the shiat out of them using reasonable language and moderated responses"

mimg.ugo.com
"Oh, you know me too well Big B, I love trolling those assholes more than you love Trans Ams"
 
2013-01-19 12:54:08 PM
I really hate hearing this "Obama's kids got teh sukurty, why are they impurtent and mye kids ain't" argument. You people do realize that the security of the President's family is also a matter of national security, don't you? If his wife, or one of his children were kidnapped you do realize that would most certainly compromise national security, don't you? You do realize that every President's family has had tons of security, for that very reason, don't you?

And to answer your question: Yes, the security of the President's family is more important (to this nation that is) than the security of your family. The same went for the Bush daughters, and Chelsea Clinton before them, and so on.

I think some of these people fantasize about something terrible happening to his wife or one of his daughters. I also think some non-trivial subset of those people masturbate at the same time.
 
2013-01-19 12:54:24 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: If we don't all have Secret Service protection then Obama is a hypocrite.

This was a stupid argument even without the lie.

which is presumably why they lied.


No, that's just standard operating procedure for them. They didn't need to lie, they just couldn't not lie.
 
2013-01-19 12:55:51 PM

mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.


Chris Christie helped him out. He went ballistic for him. As much as I disagree with Christie on many topics, ever since Sandy he's been a stand-up guy. Maybe he's finally realized that government isn't the problem, but in many cases is the only solution.

Of course this means the Rs now hate Christie after thinking he floats on water the last 4 years. Maybe he'll wake up and realize that his little fits over Obamacare (doesn't want to set up the state level exchange) are stupid and that the ideas of his national party affiliation are out of step with what NJ needs. Here's hoping for a Booker-Christie contest - we won't even have to choose between the lesser of two evils for a change.

/Booker will still get my vote - Christie hasn't yet about-faced on many important topics, healthcare just being the one I'm mentioning
 
2013-01-19 12:55:58 PM

Giltric: clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.

article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?


If you are going to make an argument that our children are important enough to have armed guards protecting them, do you really thinking saying "and we should get whatever we can for a rock bottom salary" should be part of your argument?
 
2013-01-19 12:56:04 PM
In an interview with The Washington Post, however, Arulanandam brought up the Secret Service: "The president and his family enjoy 24-hour-security from law enforcement at taxpayer expense, and this ad asks very real questions: If it's good enough for the president, why shouldn't it be good enough for the rest for us?"

So they're pivoting to demanding Secret Service protection for everyone in the country?
 
2013-01-19 12:57:56 PM

bulldg4life: Giltric: clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.

article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?

If you are going to make an argument that our children are important enough to have armed guards protecting them, do you really thinking saying "and we should get whatever we can for a rock bottom salary" should be part of your argument?


Just wait until the guards start banging the students. It will be the fault of big government secure-o-crats.
 
2013-01-19 12:58:59 PM

bulldg4life: Giltric: clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.

article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?

If you are going to make an argument that our children are important enough to have armed guards protecting them, do you really thinking saying "and we should get whatever we can for a rock bottom salary" should be part of your argument?


Cops have an overall larger responsibility....why not start them at eleventyhundred thousand a year.

The default duty falls upon the cops if a school has no security officers...correct?
 
2013-01-19 12:59:59 PM
Of course it's a lie.  That's all the NRA does these days, and it's not any different from any other cult out there.  Their entire existence is contingent upon its members believing their lies that Democrats are coming for their guns.  If NRA members were smart or sane or even brave, there would be no NRA.
 
2013-01-19 01:00:17 PM
Everyone should be armed.

For when the robots take over. They are everywhere and eat old people's medicine for fuel. They are made of metal, and they are strong. We need more guns.

/we need peace of mind with all the crime and robots.
 
2013-01-19 01:00:53 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?


They insinuated that the children of the President of the United States shouldn't be protected, in direct opposition to federal law. Nobody was doing that to Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter. Everybody understood why they got to have armed protection. But suddenly Sasha and Malia need to be left at the mercy of every whackjob that's just waiting for the opportunity to blackmail the President with his daughter's lives (and you know they're out there)?
 
2013-01-19 01:01:30 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?


Get a lot of death threats every day, do you?
 
2013-01-19 01:01:33 PM

Vodka Zombie: lies that Democrats are coming for their guns


I can pull up probably a hundred cites that will prove you wrong including pending state and federal legislation.

Do you want to go there?
 
2013-01-19 01:01:37 PM

HotWingConspiracy: bulldg4life: Giltric: clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.

article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?

If you are going to make an argument that our children are important enough to have armed guards protecting them, do you really thinking saying "and we should get whatever we can for a rock bottom salary" should be part of your argument?

Just wait until the guards start banging the students. It will be the fault of big government secure-o-crats.


This is why every child in america needs to carry a concealed weapon. If every student had a gun no one would be able to take advantage of them.
Just look at the military, no rapes or sexual assaults and everyone's armed and trained to use weapons.

/over simplification for comedic effect
//i'm well aware that members of the military do not carry loaded firearms 24/7 365

 
2013-01-19 01:01:41 PM

Giltric: clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.

article claims 50% of all high schools have security guards already...so your number would be lower.


but 100k per armed guard? Why not start them at NYPD rookie salary which is probably around 35k?


Once you include taxes and other costs associated with putting a person on payroll, $100K in total cost is not out of the question. The guard would probably make $35K after taxes. There's federal and state taxes, possibly city taxes (in places like NY or SF), disability insurance, FICA, Medicare, union dues (if any), unemployment insurance, worker's comp (paid by the employer, the school, presumably), paper work added to HR, training, uniform...
 
2013-01-19 01:03:28 PM

enry: Get a lot of death threats every day, do you?


Yes....especially here since the start of the gun threads after Newtown...which is why I took my email off my profile.

The antis are very pro violence and pro death threaty...
 
2013-01-19 01:03:31 PM

bulldg4life:
It isn't f*cking directly relevant to any point.

The fact that you don't like the idea doesn't mean they've committed some rhetorical war crime. Get a grip.


It is an intentionally dense argument made in an attempt to get the other side to argue AGAINST the idea as though they hate children or think some children are more important.


Good thing the anti-gunners aren't doing anything like that.

It is logistically stupid, entirely too expensive, and will lead to nothing but more violence

And now you've gone completely off rails... apparently you think guns are some sort of evil magic that will kill people by their mere presence. How is it that trained, armed personnel serve as protection everywhere else but be a grave threat once they're in a school setting?

Perhaps it would ultimately be impractical, but the shock and outrage about the suggestion and about mentioning Obama's daughters is complete BS.
 
2013-01-19 01:03:32 PM

clambam: There are approximately 130,000 public schools in America. Figure $100,000 per armed guard in salary and benefits, two guards per school, that comes to a mere $26 billion a year. I'm sure no one will complain about having their taxes raised to cover that.


why is the solution always to raise taxes?

are you saying that everything the government spends money on is more important than the safety of our children? There is no where in the budget where the government can find $26B?

besides, that is only about $12/month per child or about 2.5% what CT spends per yer per child on education.
 
2013-01-19 01:04:27 PM
WTF? I'm so confused.
 
2013-01-19 01:05:06 PM

WippitGuud: Smelly McUgly: I bet Billy NRA would do a great job of guarding our children's schools. Way better than Jennifer Government possibly could.

They're killing people for their Nike Mercurys!


Well, Sasha and Malia go to Pepsi's school, and REAL America's kids are stuck going to McDonald's school, and we all know how hard it is to be cool with the arches on your school uniform. How come Obama's kids think they're better than us?
 
2013-01-19 01:06:03 PM

Giltric: The antis are very pro violence and pro death threaty...


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-19 01:06:10 PM

vartian: vpb: Actually, I think the idea of each school having it's own tactical response team paid for by a tax on guns is a great idea.

I don't care how much money you bring in - if you have to train and deploy that many officers, nationwide, you are not going to get the best and the brightest. Think the TSA in your kid's school. Now give them guns.


TSA? There's only a few hundred TSA manned airports in the US, and only a few dozen of those are major international airports. There's 125,000 schools in the US. In other words, TSA agents will be the best of the best compared to the hundreds of thousands of school security guards out there.
 
2013-01-19 01:06:30 PM

Giltric: enry: Get a lot of death threats every day, do you?

Yes....especially here since the start of the gun threads after Newtown...which is why I took my email off my profile.

The antis are very pro violence and pro death threaty...


That's pretty stupid of them.

Not all anti-gun people or whatever cheesy nickname you prefer are like that though.

I don't hate guns, I just think they need to be more regulated. I'm fine with CCW's and assault weapons, and all of that jazz. I just think we need to do a much better job at keeping track of them.

The fact that the GOP has actively tried to defang the ATF doesn't help their cause either.
 
2013-01-19 01:06:50 PM

the_foo: mitchcumstein1: I don't know how President Obama doesn't lose his farking mind when they bring his kids into it. I really don't.

You know what? Save your forced outrage. They didn't say or even insinuate a single bad thing about Obama's daughters. They were not disrespected in the slightest way. It was merely pointed out that they are protected by armed guards, which was directly relevant to the political discussion taking place, especially after the suggestion of putting guards in schools was roundly mocked. And the President ended up including school guards in his recommendations, so maybe they had a point? Why should only the rich and well-connected be protected?


His children have nothing to do with it. Zero.

Who said only the rich and powerful should be protected?
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report