• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NRA slams the President over Hypocrisy

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
exdeath said:
20 families in CT would beg to differ.
Click to expand...

highland145 said:
Or the 500+ in Chicago last year.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zinfamous said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see you have skipped some of the more colorful posts in this thread.

😀
 
TerryMathews said:
Lol. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Incorruptible said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, he hasn't done any of those things, but none of them have anything to do with with racial slurs on this forum. Then again, expecting any sort of class, dignity or respect from the rightwing is laughable.
 
umbrella39 said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
TerryMathews said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
TerryMathews said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 🙂
 
exdeath said:
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".
Click to expand...

So, you admit that extra security is needed for certain positions? Kind of hard to defend that hypocrisy statement now isn't it?

I am an American citizen, where is my secret service guard detail? Am I not as important as the President? In fact, I want you to sell your Mustang to pay the taxes necessary to protect me.
 
OrByte said:
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 🙂
Click to expand...

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
 
Incorruptible said:
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
Click to expand...

I just had to lol on this! You talking about other people being detatched from reality is funny.
 
The troll in the air in this thread is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. Anyone who thinks that having a security detail for the President's kids is at hypocritical odds with putting an armed guard in every school is quite simply a flat out troll, or has no ability to think rationally.
 
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one but the NRA & or resident gun fetishists... They probably get wood drooling over ads for M16 clones...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top