New Jersey Governor Christie slams NRA ad as "reprehensible"

[philnotfil]

reuters.com

"To talk about the president's children or any public officer's children who have - not by their own choice, but by requirement - to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible,"

"I think any of us who are public figures, you see that ad and you cringe," said

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016, said the ad undermines the NRA's credibility at time when gun control has moved to the center of the political debate.

"It's wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate," he said.

[MichiGator2002]

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by rivergator

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

No it is perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be in any school. It is perfectly asinine and hypocritical to agree with only one of the prior two statements, which appears to be the case with the administration.

[The_Graygator]

Hilarious that conservatives' children are never off limits to libs though (Palin's, Bachmann's, Ryan's, the Bushes'), but how dare you say anything about a lib's, and in this case, it wasn't even bad at all.

Nobody went overboard outright calling the Obama's children names are trying to character assassinate them like the libs have done to conservatrives' children in the past.

Liberals... love to dish it out, but can't take it.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

Hilarious that conservatives' children are never off limits to libs though (Palin's, Bachmann's, Ryan's, the Bushes'), but how dare you say anything about a lib's, and in this case, it wasn't even bad at all.

Nobody went overboard outright calling the Obama's children names are trying to character assassinate them like the libs have done to conservatrives' children in the past.

Liberals... love to dish it out, but can't take it.

Which political ads did Democrats run that used conservatives' kids?

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

It really isn't. While each of us dearly value our children, when the child of a President, the chief exeutive and commander in chief, is kidnapped or held hostage, it raises an entirely different set of circumstances. Under such a circumstance, the President may no longer be able to act as the President in addressing such an event; she or he may have to relinquish temporarily his powers as President or could be subject to having the cabinet temporarily remove his authority as President. Indeed, the abduction or murder of a sitting President's child or spouse by a foreign or domestic group is the second worst thing that the Secret Service seeks to avoid, passed only by the same thing happening to the President himself or herself. The protection of a sitting President's children or spouse raises a critical national security issue. The death of anyone else's child, while a horrible tragedy, is not analogous.

[sappanama]

Originally Posted by rivergator

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

So there are classes of children that are more worthy of protection, dignitaries kids in private schools. This also seems to validate that private schools are a good thing, and a necessary thing for the uber class, the new royalty politicians and dignitaries and the wealthy. Glad that was clarified.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by sappanama

So there are classes of children that are more worthy of protection, dignitaries kids in private schools. This also seems to validate that private schools are a good thing, and a necessary thing for the uber class, the new royalty politicians and dignitaries and the wealthy. Glad that was clarified.

1. They pay for it themselves.
2. They are far more vulnerable to kidnapping that the average American kid.

but I'm pretty sure we covered all this in the other thread which started with the claim that Obama was removing armed guards from all the public schools.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, since the thrust of the proposal -- arming guards or staff/faculty at schools -- was made with no demand of federal funding, or even any direct taxpayer funding (just authorization, really), the entire "who pays" topic is total straw, pure irrelevance. The premise was rejected put of hand and it is clear in context that nobody on the left would be in favor even if Warren Buffett decided to underwrite it himself. And the hypocrisy is complete by blowing off the idea, long before even asking who would pay.

[jimgata]

Christie's recent actions indicate he is only for himself. Despite all his bravado about his governing style and being on the side of the citizens, his actions and comments are about one thing, to get relected.
If Obama doesn't want his kids to be mentioned in any scenario, keep them out of politics.
Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life. Source of protection-GUNS. His motto, don't do as I do do as I say.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life.

Really? Obama made that law? And, if he did, he did it all by himself? That law, that states that the Secret Service is to protect Presidents, their families and former Presidents and their families wasn't passed by Congress long before Obama was ever elected? And former Presidents and their families don't have the ability to reject Secret Service protection?

Link please.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

I agree with both of those sentences although I will concede that the second one is debatable. The first one in bold type is not.

How DARE you criticize my executive order! Didn't you see those kids surrounding me while I signed it?? This is all about the kids!*

*But not about my kids though. Nobody better mention them, or else! Let's just say I'm connected. I know a big guy in Jersey who will kneecap you for talking about my kids. No, not Tony Soprano. But close.

[corpgator]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Christie's recent actions indicate he is only for himself. Despite all his bravado about his governing style and being on the side of the citizens, his actions and comments are about one thing, to get relected.
If Obama doesn't want his kids to be mentioned in any scenario, keep them out of politics.
Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life. Source of protection-GUNS. His motto, don't do as I do do as I say.

Not true. That was a very old law. A new law was passed under Bush limited the protection to 10 years post presidency.

[jimgata]

so obama did change it didn't he?

[g8rjd]

nm...edited after confirming post below.

[rivergator]

Guys, here is what happened:

Presidents used to have lifetime Secret Service protection. In 1997, Congress passed and Clinton signed a law limiting it to 10 years after they left office.
In 2012, Congress unanimously passed a law restoring it to lifetime. That included Bush, who would have otherwise been left out because he was in the gap.
The bill was sponsored by a Republican, there was zero opposition in Congress and Obama signed it.

g8rjd, the link you posted is not up to date.

[g8rjd]

nm

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by jimgata

so obama did change it didn't he?

No. Congress did. Obama signed the bill after Congress passed it.

[MichiGator2002]

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?