Page 1 of 1
Priorities
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:17 pm
by Gob
As many as 200 Chicago police officers were assigned to provide extra security for the wedding of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, despite the fact that this year Windy City residents have been slain in greater numbers than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
The Daily reports:
While 144 Americans have died in Afghanistan in 2012, a whopping 228 Chicago residents have been killed, and the murder rate is up a staggering 35 percent from last year. That’s a rash of homicides quadruple the rate of New York City’s, and police and crime experts fear it may only get worse.
Meanwhile, between 100 and 200 cops will provide protection at the wedding of Obama adviser Jarrett’s daughter:
In the midst of a recent homicide spike and prediction of a weekend weather scorcher, Sneed is told somewhere between 100 to 200 police officers will be dispatched to help “secure the perimeter” of a high-profile wedding in Kenwood.
The federal government did not pay for the police presence; the cost of the extra security will be borne by the Chicago Police Department.
http://freebeacon.com/more-killed-in-ch ... ghanistan/
Re: Priorities
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:21 pm
by Crackpot
that's a false parallel if I ever heard one
Re: Priorities
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:27 pm
by Econoline
Hmm. Besides the "false parallel" issue, the bit you quoted doesn't even mention that the Jarretts' close friends and neighbors, Barack and Michelle Obama and their daughters, were attending the wedding.
I should think that that would make the event worthy of extra police protection anywhere in the world, no?
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:23 am
by Gob
Definitely, so why the fuss over who pays?
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:34 am
by BoSoxGal
Did the US federal government pay for all the extra security in Canberra when POTUS visited?
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:32 am
by liberty
Gob wrote:Definitely, so why the fuss over who pays?
No one has a right to spend someone else’s money?
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:44 am
by Gob
bigskygal wrote:Did the US federal government pay for all the extra security in Canberra when POTUS visited?
We didn't bother with any.
liberty wrote:Gob wrote:Definitely, so why the fuss over who pays?
No one has a right to spend someone else’s money?
Shouldn't you have this sort of thing sorted by now, so it doesn't become a news item?
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:30 pm
by dgs49
One small semantic point. Re-read the first paragraph of this article and where it says, "...despite the fact..." substitute, "because."
Doesn't it make more sense now?
"As many as 200 Chicago police officers were assigned to provide extra security for the wedding of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, because this year Windy City residents have been slain in greater numbers than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."
Re: Priorities
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm
by rubato
liberty wrote:Gob wrote:Definitely, so why the fuss over who pays?
No one has a right to spend someone else’s money?
You're single?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Priorities
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:59 am
by oldr_n_wsr
I don't care who you are, that right there is funny.
