Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

Gov. Christie Smacks Down the NRA

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yeah, after watching Gov. Christie, I thought this was a republican that might might have a chance to win the presidency. That is if he didn't insult too many reporters and others with his remarks. But, at least you know he is not spewing alot of BS with a much different hidden agenda. Problem is, I think he has been to critical of Republicans to win the primary, at least for the 2016 election.. Perhaps if Republicans can someday move more center right one day, he could run then. If not, perhaps over time he can be like former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and turn Democrat with a similar statement of "I didn't leave my party, my party left me." After all they both have committed the same sin of working well with the President, in a bi-partisan way.

    The NRA ad of Pres. Obama's children, and the children behind Pres. Obama as he signed the bill are entirely different cases.. The children behind Obama were invited to be at the event. The children wanted to be their and had their parents permission. For everyone involved it was a special, proud and momentous occasion. Those who equated it to Hitler with kids, or Stalin with kids, had nothing to do with the event at all, but of their view of the president. Hitler or Stalin with children wouldn't be an eerie site either, if they were just someones average Uncle Charlie, who was a never broke any law more serious then a traffic ticket. Those of us who see the president favorably, have no such view of comparing Obama to Hitler. I am sure the parents who equate Obama to Hitler, declined the invitation and stayed home.

    The ad using President Obama's children, did not have the children's or the Presidents consent. Perhaps our personal view of the NRA makes us see the whole tone and demeanor of the ad as sick, degrading and hinting at placing a target on their backs.. But, the main thing is that the people the ad depicted, where used in a way they saw as sick and degrading, and did not have a choice on if they wanted to be in the ad or depicted that way.

    With Politicians and movie stars, you rarely see or hear about their children except for a picture of them attending some event with their parents, or a very friendly family shoot with the permission of the Parents and the children. When the children choose to also take up politics or acting, and become a public figure in their own rights, then they are fodder for the media, but not until.. This is an unwritten rule that even the paparazzi of the Tabloids seem to follow.

    edited for clarity (This message has been edited by a staff member.)


    • #17
      Reading the comments and listening to Christie's comments, I was expecting to see a truly execrable video from the NRA.
      Then I watched the video. Yawn.

      "I always looked at Gov. Christie as a mindless hyper-right minion" ---- Of course you did. Don't feel too badly about it. Many on the right have been, and remain, just as clueless.

      (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)


      • #18
        SR540Beaver wrote: Beavah, the 23,800 schools that currently supply armed guards today do not do so with federal funds.

        SR540, I'm not getting the point that you are trying to make. Those guards you mention do not work for free. It doesn't matter if they are paid for with federal funds, state funds, or local funds. It's still tax dollars (or borrowed dollars for which taxpayers which will need to be paid by taxpayers in the future).

        I'm with acco in thinking that armed guards will not make public schools safer. It's a PR thing to give the illusion of safety. Still too many opportunities unless you ban outdoor recess, have indoor bus loading, ... The risk at schools is still too small to make the expense worth while, unless the illusion of safety is important.

        I also don't think that our children should have to go to school in an environment where there are armed guards. An officer friendly, sure. But not armed guards as proposed by NRA. Let grade school kids enjoy the innocence of childhood for a while longer.


        • #19
          I believe that "NO" one person is more Important than anyone else in this world..person gets armed escorts at tax payer expense we all get it.

          Yah, so President Obama's kids get armed federal agents stationed in their home.

          What you're sayin' is that yeh want armed federal agents stationed in everyone's home? At your own expense?




          • #20
            No What I am saying is that NO One person is more Important than another.

            However if the Tax payers provide a service for his children then Our children should get the same service.

            Which could be refused if ya did not want them,


            • #21
              Yah, da lengths we go to try to justify da unjustifiable are a bit hysterical, eh?

              Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that da NRA advertisement was over the top?

              I would think that would be preferable to tryin' to justify putting armed federal agents in everyone's home at taxpayer expense.

              It's just like in Scouting. We put a trained lifeguard in the canoe of a non-swimmer, because da non-swimmer is at higher risk. We don't put a trained lifeguard in every boy's canoe.

              That's not because we don't believe that every boy should be equally valued.

              It's because not every boy needs a trained lifeguard hovering over him, and because we don't have that many trained lifeguards and can't afford to hire 'em.

              And because havin' a trained lifeguard or an armed guard around all the time gets in the way of learning, and privacy, and fun, and life.



              • #22
                Thanks for those well thought out opinions.

                You are most welcome.


                • #23
                  jpstodwftexas - obviously you don't understand that my children are much more important than yours.

                  Seriously, it really is an easy concept that Beavah is trying to state. Yes, all children are equally important but when my neighbors house is on fire, do I complain that the fire department came to their house first? Heck, why didn't they check on my kids at the same time? The obvious answer is risk assessment.

                  The real questions that should be asked is who makes these risk assessments and then after they are made, how much of our limited resources should we expend to ameliorate these risks. Right now, the president, the vice president, and their immediate families receive secret service protection during their time in office. The president and his wife are used to be entitled to receive secret service protection after he left office for life - now that has been reduced to 10 years - due mostly to economic pressures (or a Republican dislike of Clinton?). Malia and Natasha will get protection until the age of 16.

                  These are protections that these folks should get - not because they are more important, but because the risk is is greater- risk as defined by both the likelihood and consequences.


                  • #24
                    OK, so I think that the NRA is way out of line.
                    Could it be that the President went a little bit too far having all the children act as a backdrop when he made his televised announcement?

                    Years back I didn't have a security system on my home.
                    The truth is that there wasn't that much worth taking and I wasn't able to afford it.
                    While there really isn't that much worth taking today.
                    Some people might think because I live where I do and the house is a nice house that maybe they will get lucky.
                    Hence the need for the system . (That and I'd hate anyone to harm my "Watchdogs"!)

                    Back when my son was a little fellow I'm guessing that any local kidnapper might have guessed that kidnapping him wasn't worth the time as I didn't have that much money and no power to change very much.
                    I don't think the same can be said for the President.
                    There are a lot of nuts who might think that by taking one of his kids that would empower him to change the world.


                    • #25
                      When GW Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at a student assembly at a public high school in Ohio, no one criticized him for using children.

                      President Obama invites four kids who wrote the President to attend a ceremonial signing and the right comes out in droves to condemn him for it. Is your hatred of our first black President so deep that you can't accept that this was a nice gesture to four lucky kids who wrote the higherst office holder in the land?

                      Today, the Los Angeles Kings raised their Stanley Cup Banner and invited the family of a victim at Sandy Hook to take part in the ceremony. Who's going to be the first one to say the Kings did it for selfish, cynical reasons?

                      Acco - Congress changed it's mind and has restored lifetime secret service protection to former Presidents. It was passed, and signed into law by President Obama, in December.


                      • #26
                        I dislike speakers using backdrops of American flags (just one please, not 30), kids, troops, policemen,... The speaker and his speech should be able to stand without props. However, I do enjoy the rare occasion when someone is asleep in that backdrop.

                        One backdrop that I would like to see is a stack of money, as in "Today I propose ... and here's the money to pay for it."

                        My $0.02,


                        • #27
                          The backdrop I always found entertaining was the state of the union addresses with a president of one party and a usually cynical, bored looking speaker of the house, from the opposition party, sitting squarely behind him.


                          • #28
                            The reality of the world we live in is the Presidents Family are targets for attack.

                            The Presidents kids could be kidnapped or threatened and used as Power pawns by folks with agendas or wanting Presidential influence.

                            Anyone of you who believe that your kids are more important to the Nation that the current President's kids are complete idiots. Your kids could be kidnaped, murdered or worse and if your lucky they might make the evening news, But it will not impact national policy.

                            I have no illusions about this.......

                            The NRA leadership are complete idiots......I have noticed that the ads have already been stopped at least locally.


                            • #29
                              Anyone of you who believe that your kids are more important to the Nation that the current President's kids are complete idiots.

                              That's rather harsh. Don't confuse "importance" with newsworthy or celebrity. Have you ever read Luigi Pirandello's War?


                              • #30
                                I have not read it.

                                Yes it is harsh.

                                But WE or I is the most important American, right. MY family, job, community, entertainment and needs supersede everything else.

                                Look at some of the members here. Many are selfless and can see beyond the walls of their house and boundaries of their communities.

                                Many more simply cannot.

                                The world is flat as you can plainly see.