The NRA won this day--could the GOP please take notice? (Vanity)

[Doc91678]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble.

Brilliant and daring because the ad committed the taboo of actually mentioning that the president has children and they deserve and require armed protection. There were many among the easily terrified Republican class who squealed in dismay, although the children were neither named nor were they, wisely, pictured.

But it was impossible to make a criticism of the ad that hit the mark clearly when Obama so tendentious lay assembled four little children as his personal shield. If he could make so exploitative a use, how could he then turn any criticism toward the NRA advertisement on the same grounds?

This is the kind of gambit that should be seized by the GOP. After all, Obama gave the NRA the opportunity that the NRA wisely wielded. He warned that he was making cynical use of these children's and dared us to do anything about it. It's a mistake he will surely make again. All the GOP has to do is watch for the next opportunity and find the courage to use it.


Continue reading: ---->

 

[OODA_Loop]

Obama blinked.

 

[francoHFW]

A disgrace, and 80% know it. Also STUPID.

 

[Cowman]

Obama blinked.

We all blink.

 

[del]

 

[BreezeWood]

All the GOP has to do is watch for the next opportunity and find the courage to use it.

so, the GOP is bought and paid for by the NRA - whoever did not know it, knows it now.

 

[jillian]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble

the ad was lowlife scum...

and if you think the NRA is going to get anything but wingers approving of it, you're nuts...

oh wait.

 

[Sallow]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble.

Brilliant and daring because the ad committed the taboo of actually mentioning that the president has children and they deserve and require armed protection. There were many among the easily terrified Republican class who squealed in dismay, although the children were neither named nor were they, wisely, pictured.

But it was impossible to make a criticism of the ad that hit the mark clearly when Obama so tendentious lay assembled four little children as his personal shield. If he could make so exploitative a use, how could he then turn any criticism toward the NRA advertisement on the same grounds?

This is the kind of gambit that should be seized by the GOP. After all, Obama gave the NRA the opportunity that the NRA wisely wielded. He warned that he was making cynical use of these children's and dared us to do anything about it. It's a mistake he will surely make again. All the GOP has to do is watch for the next opportunity and find the courage to use it.


Continue reading: ---->

Well no..

What it did was add to the long list of behaviors by conservatives and conservative organizations that have shown their racist and pitiful views.

This is an historic first.

And it goes along with all the other historic firsts.

Good job boys.



Not only are you folks digging your own graves, but you are positioning a boulder that will roll on top of it once you folks jump into it.

 

[Ringel05]

A disgrace, and 80% know it. Also STUPID.

You mean Obama's pathetic use of four children for political posturing and rhetoric? Yup they do know.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the NRA ad was right on target....

 

[Cowman]

the NRA ad was right on target....

You must be the fucking king in your office with that kind of humor.

 

[DiamondDave]

Who knows if the NRA is on target or a little bit beyond what they should be... What we Do know is Obamalama is WAYYYYYY out in left field on this one... complete winger action...

Oh NO, he is NOT a extreme leftist (remember all those bullshit claims by the likes of wrongwinger, rdd, etc)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the NRA ad was right on target....

You must be the fucking king in your office with that kind of humor.

the only one who thinks he's king is BO........F*King Obama....

 

[Oldguy]

Oh, the horror! The President used children as a prop while proposing legislation!

President Bush Highlights Health and Fitness Initiative

 

[Ringel05]

Oh, the horror! The President used children as a prop while proposing legislation!

President Bush Highlights Health and Fitness Initiative

Wow, color me surprised. Another politician's pathetic use of children for political posturing to further an agenda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So now the gun nuts have added contempt for the dead children to their repertoire.

Brilliant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble.

When did attacking a president's children EVER work politically?

 

[NYcarbineer]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble.

Brilliant and daring because the ad committed the taboo of actually mentioning that the president has children and they deserve and require armed protection. There were many among the easily terrified Republican class who squealed in dismay, although the children were neither named nor were they, wisely, pictured.

But it was impossible to make a criticism of the ad that hit the mark clearly when Obama so tendentious lay assembled four little children as his personal shield. If he could make so exploitative a use, how could he then turn any criticism toward the NRA advertisement on the same grounds?

This is the kind of gambit that should be seized by the GOP. After all, Obama gave the NRA the opportunity that the NRA wisely wielded. He warned that he was making cynical use of these children's and dared us to do anything about it. It's a mistake he will surely make again. All the GOP has to do is watch for the next opportunity and find the courage to use it.


Continue reading: ---->

Given that you're apparently a retread from November after probably losing a bet on the election outcome,

I'd say your capacity for cogent analysis is laughably suspect.

 

[007]

Go take a shower... I mean really... when your balls start to drip you need a shower smeli.

 

[ABikerSailor]

By Mamzelle
1-16-13

The NRA advertisement was a brilliant, daring and effective challenge not only to the arrogant and overreaching president, but to the timorous Republicans and the media rabble.

Brilliant and daring because the ad committed the taboo of actually mentioning that the president has children and they deserve and require armed protection. There were many among the easily terrified Republican class who squealed in dismay, although the children were neither named nor were they, wisely, pictured.

But it was impossible to make a criticism of the ad that hit the mark clearly when Obama so tendentious lay assembled four little children as his personal shield. If he could make so exploitative a use, how could he then turn any criticism toward the NRA advertisement on the same grounds?

This is the kind of gambit that should be seized by the GOP. After all, Obama gave the NRA the opportunity that the NRA wisely wielded. He warned that he was making cynical use of these children's and dared us to do anything about it. It's a mistake he will surely make again. All the GOP has to do is watch for the next opportunity and find the courage to use it.


Continue reading: ---->

Actually, the President, as well as their family, have enjoyed Secret Service protection (who are fully armed) since Congress asked them in 1901, and they've been tasked with it permanently (by Congress) since 1902.

Question..........................didn't Reagan, Bush I, or Jr. deserve Secret Service protection as well, or did they also swipe a pen declaring that they needed armed guards?

Your arguement is a fail.