20 families in CT would beg to differ.
Or the 500+ in Chicago last year.
But the proper question isn't whether the President's children are more at risk or need more protection, it's whether or not children not at special risk deserve any protection.I assume you guys are being playful, because it would be silly to think that 24 random children in CT or hundreds of random children in Chicago or anywhere are specifically targeted for attacks, as are the children and the family of the POTUS, in any year and for any POTUS.
No, of course you aren't saying that. It would be silly.
But the proper question isn't whether the President's children are more at risk or need more protection, it's whether or not children not at special risk deserve any protection.
I think that question is actually moot since as Fern pointed out, President Obama appears to be embracing the NRA suggestion of having armed guards at schools. Given that, there seems to be no hypocrisy as no one would argue that the average child needs as much armed protection as does the President's children.
Oh, I see you have skipped some of the more colorful posts in this thread.
Oh, I see you have skipped some of the more colorful posts in this thread.
Yeah, you never want to say "no one would say" because you've always got some wacko somewhere saying pretty much anything imaginable.
Lol. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
He completely destroys the US economy, He introduces more racial politics all at the same time limiting freedom even more and people dont have the right to criticize him and call him names?
Lol. Talk about a retard making a retarded post. Get a room with your new boyfriend incorruptroll
Let me know when you unearth, whipe the shit off, and smell better... then maybe you'll attain troll status. Until then you remain less than a piece of shit on the sole of my importance radar!
have you read any of the posts from so called "Conservatives" in P&N lately?!?What is a whipe? And what is the sole of a radar?
Back on topic, it still amazes me that liberals, the supposed party of tolerance, are completely unwilling to consider that someone might have a different opinion than they do but yet not be incompetent.
It's amazing how far you and your party have fallen. Clinton didn't have to belittle his opponents to make his point. Neither did Kennedy. Great men usually don't.
MLK didn't insult the racists who believed he was less than human. Think about that for a minute.
have you read any of the posts from so called "Conservatives" in P&N lately?!?
most of it deserves ridicule...
Anywho it looks like the majority of America...you know..."We THE People" agree with Obama once again.
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/82107?tid=37
No sample size. No model. No list of questions asked. Might as well have come from Fox News.
Let me know when you find a REAL poll.
well yeah thats sort of a general acknowledgment of most polls.Did you read everything from your link, it's right in the methodology that this poll might be flawed because they conducted it in one day.
As emotion dies down, I believe the polling will drop back down to traditional expectations. We will see. I fully acknowledge I cannot tell the future and I don't know how this will play out.
A life is a life. An American is an American. I don't subscribe to any sort of caste system in America like most people do. Everyone is equal in my eyes. The president is just another American citizen to me, he's not elite royalty.
That's not to say security isn't needed for certain positions, but that also doesn't it rule out the same security for others who feel they need it as well.
The proper response would have been to acknowledge the need for better security and allow individuals and communities to make that choice and work it out among themselves, not just shallowly dismiss it and say "oh you don't need it, only I do".
well yeah thats sort of a general acknowledgment of most polls.
It also states that the poll has a maximum margin of +-4%...which is also well within most general polls.
It also says "In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."
which is also well within most general polls.
But don't let that stop you from dismissing poll results...we see how well that worked for Republicans this past election
I find it laughable that the NRA wants to protect our children from maniacs who, quite frankly, are the people they support.
Don't bother to read my last paragraph either, I guess? You know, just put words in my mouth. That's what liberals do best, right?
I thought that obama and his supporters believed in equality? Many of his cronies are against guns and send their kids to schools with armed guards but dont want that for everyone else. This is hypocrisy and shows how detached they are from reality
I just had to lol on this! You talking about other people being detatched from reality is funny.
I think that question is actually moot since as Fern pointed out, President Obama appears to be embracing the NRA suggestion of having armed guards at schools. Given that, there seems to be no hypocrisy as no one would argue that the average child needs as much armed protection as does the President's children.
The troll arrives only to use a personal attack, anything useful to add to the debate?
No one but the NRA & or resident gun fetishists... They probably get wood drooling over ads for M16 clones...