Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

  1. -1
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,145
    vCash:
    7547
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

    Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.
    President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

    The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

    At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

    The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”

    The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...-politics.html


    Gee I wonder how many bullets are in those clips???





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I have no real issue with this, even though former Presidents are about as relevant as used toilet tissue. There are always Loonies out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. Funny how the laws he wants to impose on others usually dont apply to him and his brethren.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,842
    vCash:
    5192
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    I have no real issue with this, even though former Presidents are about as relevant as used toilet tissue. There are always Loonies out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. Funny how the laws he wants to impose on others usually dont apply to him and his brethren.
    Apples and oranges...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Apples and oranges...
    Grapes and Raisins
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,842
    vCash:
    5192
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Grapes and Raisins
    I don't get the people who try to make someone sound like a hypocrite on this issue when they aren't. Obama is not trying to take guns away from everyone. Obama is trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to kill people with them. So when someone points out that President Obama has armed guards and acts like he is this two-faced villain of some sort, it makes me wonder what their true motives are. If Obama came out and said no one should have guns, I could agree. He hasn't said that and isn't saying that, so pointing out each and every instance where he has a gun within 400 miles of him is asinine...
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,145
    vCash:
    7547
    Thanks / No Thanks
    For me it's about the ammo count in the clip. Obama has already said he supports another AWB which does take away guns from Americans. And he supports making all clips no more than 10 rounds. Meanwhile I'll bet my wife's hotpocket that those clips his guards have are "high capacity". The very clips he wants to ban. Which proves what most of us who have guns know. That having clips with more than 10 rounds is the best for self-defense.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1221
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Apples and oranges...
    Same old nonsense. Mix all sorts of bull**** into the issue at hand. Sure to confuse the simple minded.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    8,918
    vCash:
    27195
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    For me it's about the ammo count in the clip. Obama has already said he supports another AWB which does take away guns from Americans. And he supports making all clips no more than 10 rounds. Meanwhile I'll bet my wife's hotpocket that those clips his guards have are "high capacity". The very clips he wants to ban. Which proves what most of us who have guns know. That having clips with more than 10 rounds is the best for self-defense.
    The authors of the 2nd amendment intent was for the general public to have access to the best weapon of the day. So the intent was to allow automatic weapons with high capacity clips...IMHO.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    TheMageGandalf's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2004
    Posts:
    2,390
    vCash:
    205
    Loc:
    FLORIDA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    The authors of the 2nd amendment intent was for the general public to have access to the best weapon of the day. So the intent was to allow automatic weapons with high capacity clips...IMHO.
    I understand your point of view but at the same time IMHO there has to be some sort of cut off because if your trying to be safe for great home security then you need to be allowed to 'roll' with an M60 and be done with it. Why mess around with a puny by comparison M16 or AK? Just mount a few of those by your windows and your good.

    In all seriousness, back then, I am not so sure if the fathers meant citizens should have a Cannon or two around their houses. It was probably more like a flintlock, maybe a musket something of that nature...heck even a nice sword. It sure as heck beat a pitchfork. I believe that was their true intentions. Because if your going to argue about 'having the best weapon of the day' then they might as well let people have nuclear bombs. At that point, the argument would be that no one messes with anyone for the fear of nuking the neighborhood. So again, there has to be a cut off.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    8,918
    vCash:
    27195
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMageGandalf View Post
    I understand your point of view but at the same time IMHO there has to be some sort of cut off because if your trying to be safe for great home security then you need to be allowed to 'roll' with an M60 and be done with it. Why mess around with a puny by comparison M16 or AK? Just mount a few of those by your windows and your good.

    In all seriousness, back then, I am not so sure if the fathers meant citizens should have a Cannon or two around their houses. It was probably more like a flintlock, maybe a musket something of that nature...heck even a nice sword. It sure as heck beat a pitchfork. I believe that was their true intentions. Because if your going to argue about 'having the best weapon of the day' then they might as well let people have nuclear bombs. At that point, the argument would be that no one messes with anyone for the fear of nuking the neighborhood. So again, there has to be a cut off.

    Obviously the idea that someone should arm themselves with cannons, suit case nukes, etc is silly and extreme. We are taking about different types of small arms..rifles, pistols and shotguns. The types of weapons that a militia member would carry on his person. That was the intent back then, there is no reason to change the 2nd amendment.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 08:06 PM
  2. Obama: GOP plan on consumer protection 'worse than the status quo'
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-08-2010, 01:32 AM
  3. Obama signs new GI Bill for 'all who serve'
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 02:21 PM
  4. Obama signs equal-pay bill
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2003, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •