Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, Kelly Day, CEO of Blip?
The woman who heads up the largest independently owned video network tells how she's bringing TV into the digital age. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: NRA Obama Ad: deep end of crazy

NRA Obama Ad: deep end of crazy

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–19 out of 19 messages

Author	Message

cdnreprtr	Posted - 1/16/2013 2:32:11 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Ok, I post more than my share of bullshit and feed the trolls. But that NRA ad attacking Obama kids, David Gregory etc? Seriously: this is political discourse for one of the major US lobbying groups? Do y'all even understand how this looks to the international community? And that it is taken seriously by US politics? Accuse me of anti Americanism all you want. But this is just way beyond responsible or rational political debate. Y'all have jumped the shark. This kind of nonsense erodes any moral legitimacy or leadership America claims. It is sooooo far off of international norm of political argument, never mind ethical conversation. Good luck being an ex-empire .. er, superpower ... er .." Shining light on the hill" of democracy. There's nothing democratic about this kind of demagoguery.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/16/2013 2:47:37 PM \| show profile \| flag this post The ad is just stunning in it's stupidity. "The National Rifle Association has posted a new video on its website calling President Obama “an elitist hypocrite” for dismissing the group’s suggestion to put armed guards in schools while his own daughters have Secret Service protection." “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” The video, which also is running on the Sportsman Channel, says the president "demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security." "The White House responded Wednesday. "Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," said the president's press secretary Jay Carney. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly." So--watch the ad--Tell me what you think. http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/01/16/16543105-nra-ad-brings-obama-kids-into-gun-debate?lite The best/worst/most hypocritical part of this is the NRA response to the criticism: "On Wednesday, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told NBC News, "Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject. This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day. "That's the real issue. Anything else is an attempted calculated distraction." It's NOT about Obama's daughters?!?!!? "Calculated distraction"?!?!?! Is our favorite 'freelance writer' here now writing NRA press releases????

con	Posted - 1/17/2013 9:14:05 AM \| show profile \| flag this post "Ok, I post more than my share of bullshit" and this post is no exception. the left will attack children of republican presidents- yet they are stunned- yes stunned- when their tactics are used against them.

Village Gal	Posted - 1/17/2013 9:23:09 AM \| show profile \| flag this post can you give us an example of where an organization used the children of a Republican president in an advertisement to make a point?

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 1/17/2013 9:31:06 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Again... this NRA ad shows a direct link between mental illness and the gun culture.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/17/2013 12:21:41 PM \| show profile \| flag this post * can you give us an example of where an organization used the children of a Republican president in an advertisement to make a point? * I, too, would like to have this example. Please post it, con.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/17/2013 12:33:17 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Yea, I'd like to see that too A Democrat commercial attacking Bush's daughters for example. BTW, rather than take anything back, the NRA released a NEW and improved ad today. Apparently the :35 version wasn't insulting enough--this one's 4 1/2 minutes long. These guys truly have .223 brass balls.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/17/2013 12:57:38 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Don't you think they're shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, by appearing to be increasingly rabid about possessing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? I think it's getting to be a harder and harder story to report because of it. I'm seeing more media use NRA sources who are not hard core in order to keep some level of fairness in the reporting -- keep the NRA in it without making the NRA look like a bunch of kooks.

stopbs--	Posted - 1/17/2013 12:58:05 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I'm stunned Really. I'm stunned that a group of thinking journalists and others who bother to stop by here and use their intellectual skills, can't see or won't admit that you are avoiding the subject. Your response to the NRA ad is "Don't talk about the President's kids." What about responding to the actual issue??? Some kids, like those of the president, the Washington political and journalistic elite (David Gregory), the wealthy, certain celebrities, etc. are all protected by armed guards at their schools. What about your kids? And mine? Why don't they get the same protection? You can make the case that kids of the elite are in more danger, more likely to be kidnapped. I'd agree. But unprotected kids in Newtown, CN are more likely to get shot by a crazed mass murderer. You think anyone would try that at Sidwell Friends School? Unless they were trying "Suicide by Cop?" Christ. Unless we get beyond this bullshit of "I'm offended by everything the other side says" we're going to go down in a hail of words and not solve a g.d. thing. The point is that no insane gunman is going to try (or even be able to try) invading a well-protected school. So let's protect the schools and take every other reasonable step to keep our kids safe!

stopbs--	Posted - 1/17/2013 12:58:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I'm stunned Really. I'm stunned that a group of thinking journalists and others who bother to stop by here and use their intellectual skills, can't see or won't admit that you are avoiding the subject. Your response to the NRA ad is "Don't talk about the President's kids." What about responding to the actual issue??? Some kids, like those of the president, the Washington political and journalistic elite (David Gregory), the wealthy, certain celebrities, etc. are all protected by armed guards at their schools. What about your kids? And mine? Why don't they get the same protection? You can make the case that kids of the elite are in more danger, more likely to be kidnapped. I'd agree. But unprotected kids in Newtown, CN are more likely to get shot by a crazed mass murderer. You think anyone would try that at Sidwell Friends School? Unless they were trying "Suicide by Cop?" Christ. Unless we get beyond this bullshit of "I'm offended by everything the other side says" we're going to go down in a hail of words and not solve a g.d. thing. The point is that no insane gunman is going to try (or even be able to try) invading a well-protected school. So let's protect the schools and take every other reasonable step to keep our kids safe!

it's just tv folks	Posted - 1/17/2013 3:02:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post bs, do you have any proof that David Gregory's children have armed guards protecting them at school (or anywhere)? Making up insane crap only serves to belittle yourself. As for your complete inability to comprehend why presidential children like the wild drunken Bush twins need serious protection, that just highlights your poor "journalistic" skills. The funniest thing I'll likely hear today, this week, this month, this year, this century is that bs claims to have children!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...!!! Someone that self centered and narcissistic a parent? God help any child raised by someone like that. I'm sorry bs doesn't have the capacity to understand that just giving everyone military style assault weapons won't solve anything. It will only enrich gun manufacturers.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 1/17/2013 3:23:44 PM \| show profile \| flag this post stopbs... The comparison is apples and oranges. Yes, the President and his kids have armed guards. And JFK was surrounded by armed guards when he was killed. Yes, hundreds of PUBLIC schools in this country have armed guards. Columbine had them. No one is saying we shouldn't guard kids. We're saying we shouldn't HAVE TO guard them with armed guards. But the NRA ad goes way over the top -- and THAT is the news story here: the paranoid rants of a frightened lobbying group for a manufacturing industry. It shows just how out of touch with reality -- and out of control -- the gun-industry's lobbying group has become.

cdnreprtr	Posted - 1/17/2013 4:50:16 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Stop ... every president and their family, regardless of party has protection. It is not political. You know that. The NRA knows that. it is a sickening political attack. (that goes further to wrap up gun control with every other anti-obama issue on the con agenda). And i very much doubt David Gregory, or his family, have armed protection. So why was his image used? does any don't it is because he asked tough questions of the NRA on national TV .. questions the NRA could not answer. A PR disaster that they responded by adding him to the personal attack. But here is the bottom line: Let's say the WH agrees to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put armed guards in schools, at a time the GOP is clamouring for cutbacks ... PROVIDED .. the NRA and GOP agree to reasonable gun control measure: banning of extended mags, full background checks including private /guns show sale, etc... Would that be agreeable to the NRA or gun nuts? No. they refuse any compromise, any restrictions, any reasonableness. So the gun nuts do what they do best. Attack. And attack the innocent.

stopbs--	Posted - 1/17/2013 6:56:51 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I get it. I understand that you're objecting to what you feel is a political ad that uses the President's kids in a way that you feel is inappropriate. I thought that the President, surrounding himself with kids to announce his gun control plans, was also exploitive. That's the way the political sides are playing it. That's the way they always play it. Grab the emotion. Make your sale. What I'm saying is that our ranting about images obscures the issue. I agree, etaoin, it is a damn shame that we have to guard kids. But, apparently it's necessary in a sick world. The NRA is proposing one solution. I think it's a good solution, but it's not the only one. I agree with the President's call for criminal background checks for gun sales both public and private. I don't favor banning semi-automatic weapons. We tried it for a decade! The bad guys still got them. I do favor limiting high capacity clips though. But 10 bullets may be too few. If three guys break into my house, I think I'd like a few more bullets. But, it's a matter of balance. What's too few? What's too many? I am disappointed that a discussion on treating mental illness is apparently not even on the back burner. The CDC is getting money to explore the causes of gun violence, but so far all I've read is that they'll be looking into the possible effect of video games. That's a waste to me. So where will the money come from to guard schools and treat mental illness, you ask? I don't suppose that any of you on the left would object to taking some of it from the Pentagon budget? Well, LETS LOOK AT THAT. My point is that we have to look at compromise if we really want to protect our kids. This constant nitpicking over "this side said, that side said" is not going to amount to a hill of beans. (Just FYI to answer your question cdn, last I heard, David's kids also go to Sidwell where they have armed security.)

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/17/2013 9:14:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post * My point is that we have to look at compromise if we really want to protect our kids. This constant nitpicking over "this side said, that side said" is not going to amount to a hill of beans. * Tell us something we don't know. And tell it to your Congressman and Senator.

cruiser	Posted - 1/17/2013 10:00:31 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Compromise does NOT mean rolling over to the Democrat position. But I don't expect you left wingers to acknowledge...or even understand...that.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/17/2013 11:08:00 PM \| show profile \| flag this post One thing at a time; con; We would still like to see what you meant by "the left will attack children of republican presidents". We've asked several times for an example. stopbs--IF you can afford to send your kids to a special private school with armed guards because you feel/think your kids might be in danger--go right ahead. Let's assume those guards are more than qualified. If you think however that every public school out there should have an armed rent-a-cop or a retired deputy armed with an assault weapon--fine. Tell me how we're going to pay for it for tens of thousands of schools. "So let's protect the schools and take every other reasonable step to keep our kids safe!" Agreed. Get rid of the assault weapons and high mag clips. "banning semi-automatic weapons. We tried it for a decade! The bad guys still got them" That's because it was a BAD LAW. If I had my way, I'd ban POSSESSION of them...not 'stopping the selling of them after Jan 1, 2014'. Owning heroin is ILLEGAL. Period. It's confiscated. And its owners are prosecuted. Heroin bought before Jan of 1998 or some such bullshit has nothing to do with it. 10 bullets in your clip isn't big enough?? Who the hell is invading your home?? Al-Queda??? "I am disappointed that a discussion on treating mental illness is apparently not even on the back burner" Wait a minute. Look at the 23 Executive Orders the president signed: http://www.mediaite.com/online/here-are-the-23-executive-actions-pres-obama-just-signed-to-curb-gun-violence/ There's like eight or nine that address the issue of keeping the mentally ill away from guns. "My point is that we have to look at compromise if we really want to protect our kids." Agreed. And Congress and the president can agree--and the SCOTUS can sign off on what both sides do--IF politicians on both sides of the aisle tell LaPierre and the NRA to keep their noses--and threats out of it. I won't even dignify that last last poster with a comment.

stopbs--	Posted - 1/18/2013 2:49:00 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Read the orders, mp You're right to an extent. He does mention having Sebelius lead a dialogue on mental illness. That's a start. But the other orders have to do with "clarifying" existing laws re: mental illness. In fairness, clarifying existing laws is really the limit of executive powers when it comes to issuing "orders." That's why there's a hullabaloo about whether some of these orders are constitutional. You ask: "10 bullets in your clip isn't big enough?? Who the hell is invading your home?? Al-Queda???" Well, MAYBE. Who the hell knows? The point is I want the ability to defend myself without the dirt bags thinking "She only has two bullets left." I supposed I could have two guns. But if I'm already thinking that, then the criminals are way ahead of me. Still, I agree with limiting mag rounds. I'd just like a slightly higher limit. Cuomo says 7. Obama says 10. I'm thinking 12-15. You're never going to please everyone. Paying for armed guards, you ask??? I answered it. How about looking into the bloated Pentagon budget to start. I see it as moving money from one form of protection to another. Sure, I'd like to move some money from "social programs" as well, especially where it involves cleaning up fraud and waste. The point again, is compromise. We have to ask ourselves "How important is it?" Even those who don't have kids in schools probably go to theaters and shopping malls which some nut-cases like to target. If we (this country) makes this a priority and stops the b.s. schoolyard bickering, we might just get enough done to thwart some future attacks.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 1/18/2013 10:28:16 AM \| show profile \| flag this post The ban DID work, stopbs... The number of mass shootings has jumped jumped dramatically since the ban was lifted: Shootings before, during and after assault ban: 1982-1994: 19 1995-2004: 16 2005—2012: 27 The problem with the ban was that it had too many loopholes. These were put into the law by gun rights supporters -- at the urging of the NRA -- to weaken the law. Then the NRA used the weakness they engineered to say the law did nothing. However, if the law had been in effect, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase the model of gun he used in the Aurora shootings. Without the NRA engineered loopholes, he would not have been able to buy any OTHER model of the same weapon.