Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Of Armed School Guards and Hypocrisy

Of Armed School Guards and Hypocrisy

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On December 21, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY),  said, “The NRA’s response to the Newtown massacre is both ludicrous and insulting, and they are fundamentally out of step with the American people on the issue of gun violence.” Nadler continued, “… like enhanced, universal background checks, which the vast majority of its members support ….” There goes Nadler again, spouting off his opinion, but offering no substantiation of his remarks. Nadler is wont to do that. Then Nadler talks out of both sides of his mouth. He first complains about the cost of armed school guards, then says what is needed is a buyback program. Gee, does Nadler think buyback programs have no costs associated with them?

That is, sadly, the environment presented by Democrats/liberals/progressives (DLP) and a vast majority of the MSM. So, with that in mind, let’s examine what is actually happening vis-a-vis armed school guards.

President Barack Hussein Obama sends his children, Sasha and Malia, to Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. The school has, besides the Secret Service guard, eleven security officers of its own. Those security guards are (wait for it …) armed. And, in late November 2012, Sidwell Friends school sought to hire a new police officer.

But when National Rifle Association (NRA) president Wayne LaPierre (pictured right) publicly advocated that there be armed security at every school, DLP and the liberal MSM said that he was a, “raving lunatic who is just as dangerous as Adam Lanza.”

Further, NBC’s David Gregory, another known gun control advocate, also sends his children to Sidwell Friends School. Gregory recently attacked the NRA on Meet the Press about the NRA suggestion to place armed guards at all schools. While interviewing (mocking?) LaPierre, Gregory said,

“You proposed armed guards in school. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?”

I personally think that Gregory’s bias is rather clear, as illustrated by his use of the word concede. But that’s my opinion.

This source informs us that several other first children have also attended Sidwell Friends School, among them Tricia Nixon. So, all you DLPs will say, Republican Richard M. Nixon sent his daughter there, so all should be well and good. But I don’t seem to remember Nixon being so vocal about gun control. The source concludes with a quote from Awr Hawkins (of Breitbart), “Shame on President Obama … for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own.” And this has to really hurt DLPs: this source is MSN.

Some of you will argue that Obama’s children must be protected. That may be so, but do they deserve any more protection than other children? They are already guarded by the Secret Service, so why are eleven more armed guards necessary? And what about David Gregory’s children? Do they fall into the same category and deserve the same protection as Obama’s children? If yes, then why are not all children like Gregory’s children, deserving of the same protection?

Leave it to Obama, a known gun control advocate, to send his children to a school that has armed guards, while at the same time advocating policies that deny the rest of the US public from providing the same protection for our children. This is Obama saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Hypocrisy? I would contend that it is well displayed here, but it’s your call.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Lemme get this straight – you think we should all have guns in school because the president’s kids have guards and Secret Service men at their school?

    Tell you what, Warren – when we’re ALL president and have our fingers on the nuclear button, and we’re ALL getting an average of 30 death threats every single day, THEN we should all demand our kids have the same level of protection that the president’s does.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Short and sweet-A guard with a side arm is NOT going to take out a maniac with a semi-automatic rifle who doesn’t care if he lives or dies in the crossfire.

    Defending the NRA… so typical.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hey Warren –

    Tell you what – go arm yourself with all the weapons you could possibly want…and you know what? One idiot with a .22 cal. Saturday Night Special will still kill you. Know how? All he needs is to get the drop on you, and you’re done for.

    Columbine had an armed guard…and look at all the good it did them. Virginia Tech had its own police department…and how many died?

    The key, sir, is to keep the guns out of the hands of crazies, because it does NOT matter how many guns the good guys have, when idiots get hold of guns, innocent people die.

    And one more thing – if you still think that carrying firearms will keep you alive, how about asking the families of the armed cops that are killed almost every week of the year….

  • Clavos

    The key, sir, is to keep the guns out of the hands of crazies

    No. The key is to reopen the asylums and lock up the crazies.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    No. The key is to reopen the asylums and lock up the crazies.

    Quoted for truth!

  • troll

    @ #4…identification becomes a problem

    so a young man who shows up at a clinic complaining of symptoms of the ‘postmodern disease’ – depression and suicidal ideation – should expect incarceration in the name of preventing mass murders?

    your Rx is surprisingly impractical – though we could use those fema camps I guess

  • troll

    …or maybe we can identify a certain sequence in the human genome associated with violent behavior and institutionalize kids at birth

    there’s the ticket

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment #1 and # 3, Glenn, (and comment # 2 by Jet as well) as usual, you try to muddy the waters, to obfuscate by offering rants that are completely off-topic. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. And what about David Gregory’s children?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    As usual, Warren refuses to directly address the arguments presented…and never realizes how that reflects on him.

  • Igor

    @4-clav: the problem is that YOU don’t know who the crazies are.

  • Igor

    If we post guards at schools (at a cost of billions every year) inevitably a guard will kill an innocent student, whether in a crossfire or some mania of his own.

    More billions will be required. All to support a goofy misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is clearly designed to arm an emergency militia for use against foreign invaders, or perhaps, a marauding grizzly.

    Eventually EVERY resource in America will be required to support this goofy idea and the increasing demands of it’s manic adherents.

  • Cindy

    hmmm, who will be left outside to take care of us, once ALL the crazy people are locked up?

    maybe we can get one of those hunter gatherer tribal peoples to do it…wonder if they mind flying.

  • clavos

    @4-clav: the problem is that YOU don’t know who the crazies are.

    Of course not; but I don’t have to. That I don’t doesn’t mean that nobody does.

    What a dumb remark, Igor.

  • Igor

    YOU have no way to find all the crazies, even if you delegate it. Furthermore, YOU are unwilling to pay for the army of public servants required to find the crazies and then the facilities to imprison them. Because you’re CHEAP!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Igor’s a bit inflammatory there, but he’s got a point: if you want to lock up the crazies, you’ve got to be willing to pay the taxes that will allow us to do that, including identification, treatment, support, supervision, and, yes, what is essentially lifelong incarceration. Trying to save money on all that was why Reagan slashed the social programs and asylums back in the 1980’s. So…if that’s what you believe is what needs to happen (and I agree that it is very necessary), then you have to be willing to cough up some more tax money in order to pay for it.

  • Zingzing

    So clavos wants asylums to imprison people who have committed no crime. Who is running these things? Who is regulating them? Who decides who’s crazy? Who’s paying for them?

    That’s a crazy idea, clavos, and presents an interesting break from your normal “philosophy” of small government. I guess small government means something different from what I think it means. All very, very interesting… Yes, yes…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    What we’re referring to are identifying and getting treatment and support for those who have mental problems that cause them to present a danger to the public. You already know that Reagan’s slashing of funding for such places directly led to so many more people being homeless, and you also know that a lot of people that are on the streets are looney-tunes. It’s safer for these people and for the general public if they are provided a safe, warm place to sleep, instead of them living out their lives on the streets where they are in danger, and where they also present dangers to the general public.

    That, and it also helps businesses that are hurt by homeless camping out nearby (and often on their very doorsteps).

    We don’t want to become even more of a police state (for we are certainly such now), but it’s better for all concerned if we can identify those who need help or who present a danger to the public and get them off the streets.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Just because David Gregory (what’s his middle name, by the way?) sends his children to a school that employs armed guards, it doesn’t follow that he approves of the guards being there.

    I’m sure – in fact I know – that there are lots of things about the US of A that you don’t like, Warren; yet you continue to live there. Why is that?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Just followed Warren’s link to the claim of a police officer being sought at Sidwell. The not-so-Brietbart article links to training courses being offered but no job at the school. Whoops

  • Glenn Contrarian

    He’s afraid of the different, of losing his place on top of the social heap.

    I think that’s why I couldn’t remain a conservative – I began to see that there was nothing wrong with adapting to changes in society, in the world. I came to see that the ‘good old days’ really weren’t that good, that life is better now for humanity as a whole than it ever has been.

    But there’s a big part of Warren that looks back wistfully to those good old days. He knows he can’t go back to them again, but he wants to keep hold of what’s left of those ‘good old days’, because he knows that farther from America he lives (not ‘visits’, but lives), the farther he is from everything that he knows…

    …and that scares the hell out of him.

    But that’s just my not-so-psychologically-educated opinion.

  • Zingzing

    Glenn, help for the mentally ill may be what you’re talking about, but clavos said “asylums,” which is a bit different. Two of my mother’s aunts spent time in asylums, one died there, the other got out, but promptly walked herself into a lake.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    This is all such a specious argument. Of course anywhere a president’s children attend school will have at least one, probably more, Secret Service agents. That this particular school has several of its own on the payroll is a choice the school administration has made. It is likely that a good many children of politicians and perhaps other high level government functionaries attend the school as well.

    The notion of having armed guards at all schools is ridiculous. In a # of the recent mass shootings, there were in fact one or more security guards of some kind on the premises and they were often among the first ones shot. So, would anyone suggest that all of our schools employ several armed guards? Whoops. What happened to small government?

    Who is going to pay for that? School budgets pretty much everywhere across the country are strapped beyond their limits. Would the DC Tea Baggers sign on for new taxes to help defray the costs involved? Hmmm. Maybe not. If such a spending bill couldn’t get through Congress – and let’s face it, there is virtually NO bill that can make it through Congress – then how are local governments to cover the costs of security guards. Fire more teachers? Dramatically increase class sizes? Do away with more “non-essential” programs and administrators? Consolidate more schools creating more mega-schools?

    What will be the vetting process? Who will do it? How much more bureaucracy will be necessary to implement this doofus idea?

    And yes. What happens when the first security guard “goes postal?”

    Hey! How about if the NRA carries that burden on behalf of the people? Let them and their membership pay the freight on that one. Have the gun manufacturers add to the pot – after all this arming of America will only benefit them.

    This is such a bad idea, and the argument about Obama and his kids is so off the mark as to be just stupid.

    Just as a side note, many urban schools do already employ various kinds and numbers of security forces, but their “mission” is to control the kids – mainly high school aged kids – who can get seriously out of hand from time to time. I worked for a few months at an inner city high school several years ago here in Indy. I occasionally had lunch with one of the guards with whom I had struck up a conversational relationship. He said that the worst part of the job was the shear boredom. Just as with other such jobs, the day to day happenings were few and far between. Most of the time there was really nothing for them to do but sit or stand around. The same can be said of bank security guards and the like. Guards in such positions might go for months or even years without incident, when suddenly all hell breaks loose. The guard or guards would likely be caught “off-guard” just as much as the bank customers & employees, students, teachers and administrators. The time to react can often be no more than a second or two. Who is ready for that? Damn few.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    The solution is simple Baritone-hire security guards to protect the security guards!

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Intelligent suggestion-in the past the KKK was sued when Blacks and Jews were murdered to the point that they nearly went bankrupt out of existance.

    So… Every time a school gets shot up or a police officer/fireman is shot with an assault rifle, the families of the victims should sue the NRA for not only promoting the misguided right to own such weapons, but for also owning the politicians that won’t bring this craziness to an end.

    The bullshit that the NRA and gun manufacturers want you to believe is that Obama wants to outlaw huntin’ ‘n coon guns or personal protection sidearms-WHICH IS AN OUT-AND-OUT LIE. What he wants banned are military-style assault rifles and 30 bullet gun clips.

    How many shots does it take to bring a man down – and/or how many deer wear bullet-proof vests?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What really gets me is that these pro-gun nuts don’t realize that all the guns in the world won’t help them if a man really, truly wants to kill them. The successful use of a gun in self-defense is far and away the rare exception to the rule.

    I think we had this discussion before – and I remember digging out the stats and finding that for every successful use of a gun in self-defense, there were eighty or so innocents killed by guns. Not only that, but the very fact that police – armed and trained with firearms, and almost always alert to the threat – die almost every week somewhere in America. That last fact by itself destroys the NRA’s ‘essential for self-defense’ argument.

    All guns do is to make it a lot easier to kill a lot more people.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Please take this seriously.

    Add these Warren to the inconsequencial list of human sacrifices accepted by the NRA as just a miniscule price to pay for the pleasure of bearing arms, add the names of Mike Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka, the volunteer firefighters callously gunned down on Christmas Eve in a town near Rochester..

    William Spengler, an ex-convict, murdered/executed Chiapperini and Kaczowka using the same model assault rifle as the one used at Sandy Hook Elementary School to butcher all those kids-and he also wounded two other firefighters after luring them to a blaze he had set in ambush.

    Well Warren???? How many bodies need to be added to the altar of the NRA’s worship.

    As surely as an AR-15 can mow down kids in moments, LaPierre will find escapes from responsibility in the Rochester killings. Someone or something else will be to blame. He blustered after Sandy Hook that the answer was to have more people with more guns standing ready to kill bad guys.

    But there was a cop at the scene of the fire Monday morning: In addition to being a volunteer firefighter, Chiapperini was a 20-year veteran of local police department. And he’s dead, a good guy, killed by a bad guy who was bent on murder and suicide and who had an assaukt rifle.

    Are you capable of original/intelligent thought Warren-or are you just a parrot so desparate for attention that you’d say anything to get it?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Whatever a liberal supports must therefore be wrong” – that’s in essence what’s been the conservative viewpoint since the early 1990’s. And Warren buys into it hook, line, and sinker.

  • clavos

    Here’s an intelligent, well-balanced opinion piece that addresses the dual issues of gun control and mental health treatment as solutions to the mass killings phenomenon.

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Yes, it is a good article; it refers to a variety of arms limitation proposals as “sensible ideas” and goes on to conclude that both reducing the access to weapons and improving patient care are “necessary”.

    So should we then conclude that you have now changed your mind and in fact do support the reduction in availability of military grade weaponry?

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 26, Jet, you say, “Well Warren???? How many bodies need to be added to the altar of the NRA’s worship?” I am sure that you will point out just how I worshiped the NRA. The article, in case you didn’t bother to read it, was about hypocrisy. The ONLY mention of the NRA was in the context of David Gregory’s interview. This comment is an example of rants that make it rather difficult to conduct “debates” with people who offer rants (lengthy or otherwise), then insist that their rants are relevant to the topic(s) offered in my articles, or that their rants offer much more than their opinions.

    You continue, “Are you capable of original/intelligent thought Warren-or are you just a parrot so desparate for attention that you’d say anything to get it?” Jet, you are as classy as ever.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man…

    I consider you this website’s equivalent of the ear piercing brat in the middle of a grocery store…

    and not worth bothering with because the only “point” you get is your closed minded own.

  • clavos

    So should we then conclude that you have now changed your mind and in fact do support the reduction in availability of military grade weaponry?

    I never did not support it’ I said it won’t make a significant dent in the rate and number of massacres like Newtown, and I haven’t change my opinion on that point.

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Well, each to their own.

  • troll

    The president sends his children to a school full of armed guards, but wants to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights.

    who made this tag line up?

    Warren wisely imo avoided the subject of the constitution in this piece

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I said it won’t make a significant dent in the rate [of availability of military grade weaponry] and number of massacres like Newtown, and I haven’t change my opinion on that point.

    Actually, if we look at the cumulative cost in human lives of the twelve largest mass shootings in U.S. history while bearing in mind that the assault weapons ban was from 1994-2004, it does look like the lack of availability of assault weapons to the general public does decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings.

  • Jawknee

    Those of you claiming the President gets special protection because he’s the president are forgetting that our Bill of Rights says ‘we’re ALL created EQUAL’. His life is no more important than any of ours. He’s not a King, he’s a man who was created by the same creator. If he gets 24/7 armed security for him and his family, we get the rigt to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

  • clavos

    it does look like the lack of availability of assault weapons to the general public does decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings.

    Did the “lack of availability” to which you refer remove automatic weapons already out in the hands of the public? Because, if not, I would say any reduction in deaths is likely merely a coincidence.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 28, clavos, I agree that the article you cite is well written and thought provoking. Joe Nocera offers one sentence, however, that (IMHO) captures the essence of the dilemma we gun rights advocates face: “Torrey [E. Fuller Torrey] told me that Connecticut’s laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Adam Lanza’s mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried.” Kinda places us in a “Catch 22″ situation, doesn’t it?

    Re: comment # 31, Jet, I want to thank you for perfectly illustrating the point I tried to make in my comment # 30.

    Re: comment # 36, Jawknee, good point.

    Re: comment # 37, clavos, good point.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jawknee,

    You do have a point, although it’s hardly the fault of Obama or any other individual president that the office has become, through circumstances of time, politics and history, inflated in its role and importance far beyond what the founders originally intended.

    There’s also the question of whether the phrase “shall not be infringed” implies that there can be no restrictions on firearms ownership whatsoever. The Supreme Court’s current interpretation suggests that it doesn’t mean that, in which case Obama isn’t proposing to take away anyone’s Second Amendment rights. The charge of hypocrisy seems very far-fetched to me.

  • Igor

    @36-Jaw: if you are a member of a militia you : ¨… get the rigt to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.¨

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jawknee –

    As I told Warren, when you start getting thirty death threats per day every day for over three years, and when you also have your finger on the nuclear button, THEN I’ll support you and yours having the same level of protection that the president and his family has.

    But until then, you’re full of crap.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    y’know, I just wonder how many of these people who are soooooo offended that there’s Secret Service protection were also offended that Bush’s daughters had the same protection. They aren’t really offended and never were – all they’re doing is trying to find an excuse to say something bad about the black guy in the white house.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    To be fair, Glenn, Bush never pushed for enhanced gun control while in office – although no doubt he would have if he thought it would get him or his friends re-elected.

  • clavos

    I’m offended that they get protection (on our dime) after they’re out of office. I’m even more offended by the enormous retirement pay and allowances they and all those asshats in the Congress get when they retire.

  • clavos

    It’s funny how one of the principles the founders and colonials held dear was separation from Britain and its king and all the nobility, yet we’ve grown our own over the years in the form of presidents and all those elected parasites in Washington, who are just as useless the 18th century British nobility were.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I’m offended that they get protection (on our dime) after they’re out of office. I’m even more offended by the enormous retirement pay and allowances they and all those asshats in the Congress get when they retire.

    C’mon, now, Clav – you know that a former president knows things that other nations would love to know. The Secret Service protection for former presidents isn’t there to protect them from getting assassinated – it’s there to keep them from getting kidnapped and forced to talk.

  • clavos

    it’s there to keep them from getting kidnapped and forced to talk.

    Oh horseshit, Glenn. He doesn’t need the huge retirement income and enormous expense account to keep him safe from foreign threats. It’s there for prestige, nothing more.

    And the Congress twits owe us, not the other way around.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I think you’ll agree that I’ve never called you ignorant before, but if you don’t think that what’s inside a former president’s head is a true national security issue, well, let’s just say you have a great deal to learn about this world.

    And you call it a ‘huge retirement income’, but he gets a lot less of a retirement income than your run-of-the-mill Wall Street hedge fund manager or corporate CEO, despite the fact that none of the ever held a responsibility more than a mere fraction of the 24/7 life-and-death responsibility held by the President of the United States.

    What’s the real reason for your opinions about this matter?

    You’re still insisting on painting government with the same broad brush, never actually realizing that the vast majority of government employees are just as good and just as honest (and often more so) as their counterparts in the private sector. The problem isn’t reality, Clav – the problem is that you’re continuing to allow your cynicism to color your opinions to such an extent that you’re sometimes unable to distinguish far-right societal and political assumptions from reality.

  • clavos

    And you call it a ‘huge retirement income’, but he gets a lot less of a retirement income than your run-of-the-mill Wall Street hedge fund manager or corporate CEO, despite the fact that none of the ever held a responsibility more than a mere fraction of the 24/7 life-and-death responsibility held by the President of the United States.

    They don’t get paid with my money, and most work much longer than eight years to earn their pensions. Ex presidents don’t need a government pension; they make enormous sums of money giving speeches, lending their names and support to organizations, some serve on corporate boards of directors and as advisors to corporations.

    Bill Clinton has made a substantial fortune on his own since he left the presidency. Though he thankfully never was president, algore has (and continues to) done the same.

  • clavos

    What’s the real reason for your opinions about this matter?

    I don’t think they either deserve or need it.

  • clavos

    the problem is that you’re continuing to allow your cynicism to color your opinions to such an extent that you’re sometimes unable to distinguish far-right societal and political assumptions from reality.

    My societal “assumptions” are anything but “far-right:” I’m an atheist, I support gay rights , including the right to marriage, I think churches should pay taxes, I believe the government is overstepping its bounds with the Patriot Act and its electronic surveillance activities, I think churches and religions should stay the hell out of public schools, and on and on.

    Wow! What a great psychologist you are — NOT!!

    And you’re also a former gummint employee, so you naturally defend your ilk. I’ve seen too much idiocy on the part of the united states government and its personnel to believe your line of fantasy about how great it (and its employees) are.

  • clavos

    if you don’t think that what’s inside a former president’s head is a true national security issue, well, let’s just say you have a great deal to learn about this world.

    He doesn’t need a pension for that.

  • Baronius

    “I consider you this website’s equivalent of the ear piercing brat in the middle of a grocery store”

    Like it or not, Jet, he did write an article that made a point. What point did your comment #31 make? (Actually, I think it made a really strong point, just not the one you intended. It’s a point that a lot of comments on this thread have made.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    And you’re also a former gummint employee, so you naturally defend your ilk. I’ve seen too much idiocy on the part of the united states government and its personnel to believe your line of fantasy about how great it (and its employees) are.

    And you just proved my point about you, and about conservatives in general.

  • clavos

    And you just proved my point about you, and about conservatives in general.

    …And your government has proven and reproven my point to me for more than a half century; almost on a daily basis.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    I think you’re overindulging on confirmation bias. If people are people are people – as you seem to agree with your support of gay rights, women’s rights, and opposition to racism – then it logically follows that the proportion of good people to bad, of intelligent people to not so much, of ethical people to corrupt, would vary but little in the public sector as compared to the private sector.

  • Baronius

    Glenn – You said that Reagan slashed the funding for social programs for the mentally ill in the 1980’s. That’s not true. As I’ve pointed out on this site before, it happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s. See this article for more information.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    I’m still reading the article, but I wanted to tell you that I appreciate it very much – I especially appreciate credible information that evinces falsity of what I previously believed. If there’s anything I appreciate, it’s that which proves me wrong.

  • Igor

    @49-Clav: Hey, why keep badmouthing Al Gore? I voted against him in 2000, but on reflection he would have made a far better president than the nitwit that GWB turned out to be.

    He wouldn’t have promoted that Rich Mans Tax Cut that GWB did at his oligarchic masters command. That’s the reason for half of our economic problems now, that will haunt us into the future.

    Maybe Al Gores NSA would have been awake when they got the warnings about OBL being determined to use highjacked airplanes to attack the USA. Maybe they’d have been alert enough to stop it. They couldn’t have been any worse than GWB, Condoleesa Rice and their gang of clowns.

    And even if OBL succeeded, maybe Al Gore would have put togeter the right team of Special Forces to extract OBL from Afghanistan and bring him to trial, or die trying.

    I voted for GWB in 2000 but I’m not dumb enough to defend that choice now that he turned out to be such a bum. He couldn’t do anything right.

    “…Though he thankfully never was president, algore …”