Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Secret Service problem?

January 21, 2013

To the editor: There was an Associated Press article today that stated “The gun lobby released an online video Tuesday that called Obama an ‘elitist hypocrite’ for having armed Secret Service agents......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

Auntydem

Jan-21-13 9:13 AM

NRA ran a longer ad that said the 11 guards were the security guards employed by the school. But the NRA did not do the research - those people are not armed. Check out "4 Pinocchios for a slashing NRA ad on security at Sidwell Friends School".

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-21-13 10:00 AM

Armed guards do protect the presiden't children. It clearly shows he values his own children higher than our children. What does he propose to keep our children safer ? Smaller clips in the hopes that fewer of our children will be killed next time someone goes on a shooting rampage. So the bottom line is - guards for his kids smaller clips for our kids. Typical elitist response.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-21-13 1:27 PM

If a school board decides to hire armed security or police officers for their schools, they can. Why would they wait for an executive order? Why does the NRA imply that the President is preventing schools from doing so?

The executive orders include this statement “Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs. Some schools will want well trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services. Either way, each district should be able to choose what is best to protect its own students.”

The value of many of the executive orders is very clear if you read the Star-Trib story about Christian Oberender.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

guess69

Jan-21-13 1:46 PM

JReader---you read a little more into it than is worth. Do you deserve protection for you kids at the same level as the president's? I'd like you to debate you, but I'll give you a break, get over yourself.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-21-13 2:48 PM

Had Obama simply called for arming teachers or placing armed security in public schools those now calling for only that would have to find some way to be against it. He would be accused of orchestrating some kind of union plot to control our children or sending in his personal army to – oh, just fill in the blank!

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jan-21-13 3:46 PM

I don't know if other Presidents have had armed guards at their children's schools, but I do know they all have had armed secret service following & providing protection for their families. That is the way it always has been & always will be.

No, the President's children are not more valuable than ours, but they are more exposed & more noted in the public eye because of the position of their father. He is the leader of the United States, the highest office there is. Every precauton has to be taken for himself & his family, including armed guards at his daughter's schools.

Are the children of movie stars or the extremely rich more valuable than ours? No. They, too, however, are more exposed because of the position of their parents, & you can bet they have protection.

If schools choose to put armed guards at their schools, so be it. Some already are, & no one is stopping them.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-21-13 3:53 PM

The whole NRA proposal for armed guards was summarily dismissed by the administration.

There's really nothing to debate guess69. If you fail to see the double standard that is very apparent here it would be a waste of anyone's time trying to debate you on it.

In addition, the Whitehouse was upset because the NRA brought his children's safety into the debate. But it was perfectly ok for the president to use other people's children in his PR campaign to push his gun control agenda.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jan-21-13 4:30 PM

I agree with you on that JReader.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-21-13 6:23 PM

JR: Happy Elitist Hypocrite Inauguration Day!!!

And, may you enjoy all 1,460 days of his remaining term.

I know I will.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-21-13 7:54 PM

Gosh...I got all caught up in the Inauguration and forgot to wish everyone a Happy Martin Luther King Day, too.

This must be what liberal heaven is like!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yunosmart

Jan-22-13 12:37 AM

The president doesn't keep armed guards at his children's school because he is afraid of some maniac might come there and start shooting. There are armed guards there because the President of the United State's children go there. It's really not hypocritical for members of the First Family to receive Secret Service protection. That's what the Secret Service does. It's kind of the whole reason they exist.

I think that media should stop sensationalizing every mass shooting that there is. Some of these people just want to "go out with a bang" and try to "break the record of deadliest shooting in history". Having armed guards at every school across the country would be ridiculous. Schools can't pay these people. Schools can barely pay the teachers. This town should be well aware of school's lack of funding.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-22-13 9:44 AM

Sven,

I'm sure I will. We should set up a pool - say each put in $5.00 to guess what the national debt will be by the end of those 1,460 days. Not sure if my keyboard will be able to handle all of those digits though.

He's already added over fifty grand of debt for each man woman & child during his first four years in office, I'm sure he's bucking for a cool hundred grand for each one of us before he leaves.

Thanks for all you do Mr. President but we just can't afford you.

Wasn't Michelle's dress just divine ???

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-22-13 3:30 PM

JR: Now, that's the spirit! Enjoy the Obama journey. Focus on the positive. Stop getting all moist about the national debt and keep an open mind about your fashion sense.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-22-13 6:28 PM

Now Sven, I'm not getting moist - just going broke.

When I was a younger man I wondered what it would have been like if Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected. Well now we have a chance to find out. Oh goody...

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-22-13 9:14 PM

JR: My guess is that it would have turned out about as well as if Gerald Ford had been re-elected.

Of greater importance, it's hard to know who was the more glamorous fashion queen, Betty or Rosalyn.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-22-13 10:22 PM

And, JR, you're not going broke because of President Obama. When he took office the Dow as at 7,500. It was over 13,500 yesterday.

Stop whining. Please.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 11:58 PM

So now Wall Street doing well is a good thing?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 12:24 AM

PR: Stop trying to think. Please.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jan-23-13 2:25 AM

I'm glad that armed guards are protecting our president's children. Can you imagine the national security risk if our president had to negotiate with terrorists with his kids held hostage? BTW: of course he thinks his kids' safety is more important than our kids...THAT IS WHAT PARENTS DO!

I'm pretty sure that there would be a pretty good chance that his kids would be in danger at some point without secret service protection. It is just the world we live in. The reason why your kids do not have secret service protection is because it is highly unlikely that anyone will take them hostage to get something out of you or our nation.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-23-13 9:23 AM

Sven, I just love how you have to constantly lower the bar for your guy to make him be a capable president.

What was the price of a gallon of gas when he took office compared to today ? Can you say 180% increase ? C'mon say it... I know you can.

Not whining just stating facts.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-23-13 9:26 AM

MCW,

I'm not saying the president shouldn't protect his kids. He should just use the same standard of care when trying to protect our kids too. And, if he is going to use other people's kids in his propaganda campaign he shouldn't be surprised when other people will attempt to use his kids to prove their points.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 11:48 AM

And, JR, how do you say bogus statistics?

We've had gas at or about $3.00 a gallon since 2005. In fact, it spiked at $4.20 in mid-2008.

Guess who was President then, JR? Can you say George W. Bush?

The price of gas fell--briefly--to an unusual low just prior to the inauguration of President Obama in late 2008 and has climbed back to "normal" levels and been at or around $3.00 since.

Your so-called argument is baseless. As usual.

But, nice try.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web