[scottw]

Originally Posted by Carl

The point the NRA was trying to make is the school has 11 armed security officers assigned to it. This is not secret service, but armed guards in a school. It did not get translated that way through the press. I think the NRA was trying to point out that the very suggestion which the NRA put forth and was ridiculed is the exact policy of the school where the President's children attend along with other high profile families . All that being said, the children of presidents should be off limits regardless.

did you watch the ad?...there were no pictures of the kids, their names were not used....it pointed out the blatant hypocricy of this president, he(or I believe, Carney) made that statement dismissing the idea that guards in schools was any kind of alternative ....knowing that the president's own children enjoy the protection of many guards at their school.........I agree that in a less surreal world, the kids should never enter a debate....but these people wave issues in your face and then condemn you for commenting...it's shameful game...but necessary I guess, in the fundamental transformation of America


"repugnant and cowardly"?....those words define the left's leadership in this country currently, listening and watching both the national response and the NY response from liberal politicians I was struck by the "mould" that these people all seem to have been cut from...self-satisfied, arrogant, elitist, superior, blatantly dishonest(seemingly revelling in their own obvious dishonesty) and dismissive of anything but their "enlightened" opinion...I honestly don't think there's any "co-existing" with these people...they will continue to push and sneer and at some point all of the little fires that they are setting will burst into conflict...and they will sit back and watch it burn...it's what community organizers do...

"A People's Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war(in their minds) against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness(which provides them justification). They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . ."Alinsky

rules

1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene of conflict (Alinsky 1972: 26)

2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement (Alinsky 1972: 26-9).

3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30)

9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky 1972: 35-6).

10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45)

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128).

5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside (Alinsky 1972: 129).


"We are being played; it's time we learned the game.

Conservatives have their Constitution. Progressives have their Narrative. The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...ef_manual.html


You might be a progressive ideologue if:

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position."