In response to:

Is Chris Christie Overreacting Over the NRA’s “Reprehensible” Ad?

rgama Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 12:03 PM
Let's see: The NRA's ad referred to the President's children, but the NRA didn't explicetly attacked Sasha and Malia. Oh, I see, were they referring to the President's other children? You know, this twisted conservative logic can, at times, be really hilarious.
JarheadRVN70 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 12:23 PM
You total ignorance is underwhelming, knob.
FranksNBeans Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 12:09 PM
Wow rag, you really are a mental titan, aren't you.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is apparently up in arms because the National Rifle Association released an ad asking simple yet important question: If President Obama’s kids are protected by professional armed guards -- why can’t yours be, too?

I agree with the governor on a number of substantive points, but here are two things to consider:

1. The NRA -- at no point during their advertisement -- explicitly attacked Sasha and Malia Obama by name. Yes, they imply that the “president’s children” -- because of who they are -- have certain...