Obama signs bill giving himself armed protection for life

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

President Barack Obama gave himself and his wife Michelle the benefit of armed protection for the rest of their lives by signing a bill granting a Secret Service detail to former presidents and their spouses in perpetuity.

The new law, which will cost U.S. millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16. The billpassed the House and Senate in December.

Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, joked in 2011 that he liked the fact that 'men with guns' protected his daughters, Malia, now 14, and Sasha, now 11.

'I should also point out that I have men with guns that surround them, often,' he told ABC News. 'And a great incentive for running for re-election is that it means they never get in the car with a boy who had a beer, and that's a pretty good thing.

The new law statesthat all former U.S. presidents who served after January 1st 1997, along with their spouses, receive protection from the Secret Service for their entire lifetimes.The law also stipulates that children of presidents receive protection until the age of 16.

Lifetime government-provided security for former presidents was the law of the land until 1997, when Congress passed legislation limiting Secret Service protection to ten years after leaving office.

Now, every former president Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush along with Obama will continue to receive Secret Service details for the rest of their lives.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in November 2012 by South Carolina Republican Representative. Trey Gowdy.Co-sponsors included Republican Lamar Smith, and Democrats John Conyers and Bobby Scott.

'Both men [Bush and Obama] are young, enjoy good health, and have long lives ahead of them post-presidency,' Gowdy said on the House floor. 'This bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives.

The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorising the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.

The legislation was signed along with a host of other bills, including the naming of seven post offices.

Some conservatives have attacked Obama for allegedly wanting to deprive ordinary Americans the right to arm themselves while at the same time ensuring that his family will always be protected by 'men with guns' at taxpayers' expense.

source

Obama thinks it's okay to spend millions of stolen tax dollars on armed security for himself, yet he opposes American citizens using their own money to keep guns to protect themselves. His hypocrisy it outrageous. Why does Obama believe that he and his family are entitled to safety, but not the rest of us? Why does Obama believe that he is the exception to his own laws?

#2 Posted by Aljosa23 (25110 posts) -

Don't all ex-presidents have stuff like this?

#3 Posted by GreySeal9 (24400 posts) -

Obama has not proposed to ban people from purchasing firearms.

/thread.

#4 Posted by BossPerson (9472 posts) -

to be fair he is more a target than most people will ever be in 1000 years of living.

#5 Posted by InEMplease (6342 posts) -

President Barack Obama gave himself and his wife Michelle the benefit of armed protection for the rest of their lives by signing a bill granting a Secret Service detail to former presidents and their spouses in perpetuity.

The new law, which will cost U.S. millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16. The billpassed the House and Senate in December.

Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, joked in 2011 that he liked the fact that 'men with guns' protected his daughters, Malia, now 14, and Sasha, now 11.

'I should also point out that I have men with guns that surround them, often,' he told ABC News. 'And a great incentive for running for re-election is that it means they never get in the car with a boy who had a beer, and that's a pretty good thing.

The new law statesthat all former U.S. presidents who served after January 1st 1997, along with their spouses, receive protection from the Secret Service for their entire lifetimes.The law also stipulates that children of presidents receive protection until the age of 16.

Lifetime government-provided security for former presidents was the law of the land until 1997, when Congress passed legislation limiting Secret Service protection to ten years after leaving office.

Now, every former president Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush along with Obama will continue to receive Secret Service details for the rest of their lives.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in November 2012 by South Carolina Republican Representative. Trey Gowdy.Co-sponsors included Republican Lamar Smith, and Democrats John Conyers and Bobby Scott.

'Both men [Bush and Obama] are young, enjoy good health, and have long lives ahead of them post-presidency,' Gowdy said on the House floor. 'This bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives.

The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorising the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.

The legislation was signed along with a host of other bills, including the naming of seven post offices.

Some conservatives have attacked Obama for allegedly wanting to deprive ordinary Americans the right to arm themselves while at the same time ensuring that his family will always be protected by 'men with guns' at taxpayers' expense.Laihendi

source

Obama thinks it's okay to spend millions of stolen tax dollars on armed security for himself, yet he opposes American citizens using their own money to keep guns to protect themselves. His hypocrisy it outrageous. Why does Obama believe that he and his family are entitled to safety, but not the rest of us? Why does Obama believe that he is the exception to his own laws?

Your head could not be any further up your own ass.

#6 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -
- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendi
#7 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

#8 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Been around for a while bro.
#9 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendiworlock77

And just like that, the thread is dead.

#10 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

Lol "millions" of dollars

#11 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Lol "millions" of dollars

Barbariser

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

#12 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

OP is upset because he cant even afford to tip when he eats out.

It will all get better when you finish middle school OP.

#13 Posted by soulless4now (41377 posts) -
Not a bad thing.
#14 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

OP is upset because he cant even afford to tip when he eats out.

It will all get better when you finish middle school OP.

Cloud_Insurance

I'm sure OP is in better shape financially than the US government. The difference is that he can't just print or borrow more money all the time.

#15 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

hartsickdiscipl

President Obama didn't make this bill. It was introducedby a Republican in the house, and passed thu vote to the Senate and then to his desk. I may disagree with Obama on alot of things; however this makes sense (and it isn't just Obama)

#16 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

hartsickdiscipl
Did you even read the article?
#17 Posted by dave123321 (34127 posts) -
Lai, you got anymore talliers for otcars?
#18 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

Chaos_HL21

President Obama didn't make this bill. It was introducedby a Republican in the house, and passed thu vote to the Senate and then to his desk. I may disagree with Obama on alot of things; however this makes sense (and it isn't just Obama)

He could have vetoed it. The current policy is protective enough. 10 years of protection after being out of office, with continued protection if a threat is received at least once a year.

#19 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

worlock77

Did you even read the article?

The fact that he signed it tells me enough.

#20 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Lol "millions" of dollars

hartsickdiscipl

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing tpo. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

#21 Posted by GreySeal9 (24400 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

hartsickdiscipl

Did you even read the article?

The fact that he signed it tells me enough.

:roll:

No wonder you're such a gullable believer of conspiracy theories.

#22 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
Good for him. If I were President of the United States, I would want the same thing.
#23 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

hartsickdiscipl

Did you even read the article?

The fact that he signed it tells me enough.

What does it tell you?
#24 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Lol "millions" of dollars

Barbariser

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "
wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing to. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

That's true. Being president is probably above and beyond the most stressful job in the world; presidents sure don't age well.
#25 Posted by InEMplease (6342 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Lol "millions" of dollars

Barbariser

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing tpo. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

F*ckin A

#26 Posted by Vac87 (277 posts) -

SS agents are trained professionals. not ome random lunatic off the street who wants to buy military grade weapons.

No one has proposed banning private ownership of all guns.

#27 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is pretty outrageous. His vacations cost the country millions of dollars due to the special arrangements needed for them, and now he does this. What does he think he has to fear that other presidents haven't? Currently a president only has to receive one "credible" threat a year to keep secret service protection beyond their 10-year allotment. That typically keeps presidents protected anyways, but he wants to make sure. Strange that he should do this.

hartsickdiscipl

President Obama didn't make this bill. It was introducedby a Republican in the house, and passed thu vote to the Senate and then to his desk. I may disagree with Obama on alot of things; however this makes sense (and it isn't just Obama)

He could have vetoed it. The current policy is protective enough. 10 years of protection after being out of office, with continued protection if a threat is received at least once a year.

Considering the US president, whoever he or she may be, makes life long enemies (real enemies, not political enemies) in office, that argument is just plain stupid.

And your link about how much the Obama trip costs tax payers is laughable. Its not like the Secret Service, Air Force One staff and fuel are free year round and then only cost money when Obama wants to do something with them you idiot. Air Force One is constantly fueled and ready to go anywhere and every and its fuel is constantly cycled (you can just leave jet fuel in a tank it will eat through it). I just don't understand idiots like you man... Its like you are physically incapable of logical thought process.

#28 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendi

#29 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

Can OP link me to where Obama proposed legislation to outlaw all guns?

#30 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Lol "millions" of dollars

Barbariser

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing tpo. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

How can a budget be that big when you're 16 trillion in debt? If I was that far in debt, I wouldn't be able to afford anything.

#31 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

President Obama didn't make this bill. It was introducedby a Republican in the house, and passed thu vote to the Senate and then to his desk. I may disagree with Obama on alot of things; however this makes sense (and it isn't just Obama)

C2N2

He could have vetoed it. The current policy is protective enough. 10 years of protection after being out of office, with continued protection if a threat is received at least once a year.

Considering the US president, whoever he or she may be, makes life long enemies (real enemies, not political enemies) in office, that argument is just plain stupid.

And your link about how much the Obama trip costs tax payers is laughable. Its not like the Secret Service, Air Force One staff and fuel are free year round and then only cost money when Obama wants to do something with them you idiot. Air Force One is constantly fueled and ready to go anywhere and every and its fuel is constantly cycled (you can just leave jet fuel in a tank it will eat through it). I just don't understand idiots like you man... Its like you are physically incapable of logical thought process.

Nice details about the jet fuel. Very relevant.

#32 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

Can OP link me to where Obama proposed legislation to outlaw all guns?

DroidPhysX

HE'S A COMMUNIST MUSLIM KENYAN WE DON'T NEED EVIDENCE IT JUST IS! Think about it man... The fact that you don't already knows this just goes to show you are brainwashed by the liberal media and their agenda to have gay muslim overlords ruling the US under Sharia law.

#33 Posted by Aljosa23 (25110 posts) -

Laihendi disappeared.

#34 Posted by comp_atkins (31465 posts) -
these threads.... i can't deal with it anymore... my outrage tank is empty for the week. try again later.
#35 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

#36 Posted by InEMplease (6342 posts) -

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

Sword-Demon

Exactly.

#37 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

Sword-Demon

How many presidents have had protection after leaving office? Oh yeah all of them.

#38 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendi

None of the former presidents need anymore security. When was the last time someone heard of threats made against Carter, Bush Sr., etc.? And if they do need security they should pay for it themselves, or raise money for it from their supporters. They are all wealthy and well-connected men. The support for this bill between Obama and congress indicates a ruling class mentality that they have. They believe in privileges for themselves at the expense of others. They believe they have rights that others don't have. They believe they can take away our guns while using our money to buy more guns for themselves.
#39 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
Lai, you got anymore talliers for otcars?dave123321
I only have 3 now including myself. 4 if Bruce decides to do it.
#40 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

Sword-Demon
I don't see the point in checking ID at cigarette counter. How many kids buy cigarettes at the store?
#41 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Lol "millions" of dollars

hartsickdiscipl

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-hawaii-vacation-cos_n_1158825.html

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing tpo. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

How can a budget be that big when you're 16 trillion in debt? If I was that far in debt, I wouldn't be able to afford anything.

The U.S. government has a 2013 revenue intake of 2.9 trillion dollars, or 725, 000 times the cost of that vacation. If your personal debt was about 5 times larger than your annual income (like the U.S. government), you would still be able to afford things provided that the annual interest paid on debt was less than 20%. You would also be totally screwed of you got called on your debt, and would have to declare bankruptcy if you weren't able to pay it off via selling assets. The U.S govt pays something like 1-3 % on debt interest, so its ability to spend is hardly affected (and it can just borrow more to cover the budget shortfall anyway), and nobody's going to try calling it on that debt since it would lead to either a U.S. recession or a U.S. default, both of which would fvckmurderape the world economy.

#42 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -
WHAT? it's already been like this. presidents get life... nothing new here people. keep moving
#43 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendi

None of the former presidents need anymore security. When was the last time someone heard of threats made against Carter, Bush Sr., etc.? And if they do need security they should pay for it themselves, or raise money for it from their supporters. They are all wealthy and well-connected men. The support for this bill between Obama and congress indicates a ruling class mentality that they have. They believe in privileges for themselves at the expense of others. They believe they have rights that others don't have. They believe they can take away our guns while using our money to buy more guns for themselves.

Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean threats aren't made. And please tell - what bill has been proposed to outlaw guns?
#44 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

I wasn't asking for confirmation, dude. I'm well aware that it might cost that much to fund a vacation with top tier security. It doesn't fvcking matter because a few million USD is literally less than a hundredth of a % of the Federal Budget, and anyone who spends time making a massive fuss about that kind of "wasteful spending" probably doesn't understand the sheer size of most national budgets around the world, and especially not that of the U.S.. Btw, Bush spent more time and money than Obama on vacations and I think anyone complaining about his taking "off-time" is probably making a huge sh!t over nothing tpo. I'd happily sacrifice millions of dollars if it meant helping an incredily stressed national leader to get some relaxation time without having to worry about being blown to pieces by some mad ideologue.

Barbariser

How can a budget be that big when you're 16 trillion in debt? If I was that far in debt, I wouldn't be able to afford anything.

The U.S. government has a 2013 revenue intake of 2.9 trillion dollars, or 725, 000 times the cost of that vacation. If your personal debt was about 5 times larger than your annual income (like the U.S. government), you would still be able to afford things provided that the annual interest paid on debt was less than 20%. You would also be totally screwed of you got called on your debt, and would have to declare bankruptcy if you weren't able to pay it off via selling assets. The U.S govt pays something like 1-3 % on debt interest, so its ability to spend is hardly affected (and it can just borrow more to cover the budget shortfall anyway), and nobody's going to try calling it on that debt since it would lead to either a U.S. recession or a U.S. default, both of which would fvckmurderape the world economy.

Stahp this thread had a mandatory NO LOGIC requirement that you accepted upon entry!

#45 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

Laihendi disappeared.

Aljosa23

He has a firm bedtime of 8 pm

#46 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]- Reinstatement of a 1965 law - Bill proposed by Republican legislator - Was voted in by the House and Senate - Covers all former Presidents, not just Obama Try again Lahendi

[quote="Secret Service"] Former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former president leaves office Children of former presidents until age 16.

This new legislation overturns previous legislation that limited protection for former Presidents previously. Source
#47 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -
[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"]

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

worlock77
I don't see the point in checking ID at cigarette counter. How many kids buy cigarettes at the store?

even before they started protecting presidents in 1901, there has never been a president assassinated after leaving office. I see nothing wrong with the current 10 year protection. hell, lower it to 8 to make it fit with new elections.
#48 Posted by zenogandia (912 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Sword-Demon"]

I don't see the point.

how many presidents have been assassinated after leaving office?

Sword-Demon

I don't see the point in checking ID at cigarette counter. How many kids buy cigarettes at the store?

even before they started protecting presidents in 1901, there has never been a president assassinated after leaving office. I see nothing wrong with the current 10 year protection. hell, lower it to 8 to make it fit with new elections.

It's always been like that, no need to lower it. And considering that Obama might be a bit more hated than past presidents... we know why. Let him be protected.

#49 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
haha someone's bitter anyway, former presidents are pretty high risk targets and i dont think its outrageous to give them protection.
#50 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -
In recent years, former Presidents Nixon and George H W Bush declined Secret Service Protection.