posted on 02/03/2013 9:03:15 AM PST
Wallace should take some big time stuff for showing partisanship against Lapierre. That was really something to see. Wallace doesn’t do his cause any good by riling up law abiding citizens.
posted on 02/03/2013 9:19:22 AM PST
(Obama won, we are so screwed.)
WOW, that exchange
between Wallace and LaPierre WAS "explosive". I don't normally criticize Wallace, but he was an extremely poor journalist this morning. It was obvious he was vested in more gun-control and was anti-NRA.
First he questions if LaPierre regrets running this ad. Wallace is hinging his argument on the fact that obama's children are more of a target than yours or mine or your neighbors. Now granted, but LaPierre makes the point that all parents want their children to be safer than they are from the "crazies". Police won't be able to get their in time. Wallace counters that let's say we get armed guards in schools, then what about the malls, theaters, etc? (lololol - well, hey, wouldn't that make us want to have MORE responsible people carrying, not less?)
Then he goes on to attack LaPierre accusing him for throwing "class" into his argument when he says elites are hypocrites because they have armed protection but don't want the regular joes to have guns/AR15's.
Wallace just keeps attacking noting that LaPierre has his own set of bodyguards. (so! He should!). La Pierre says it is fine for people - rich, elite - to have bodyguards, but it's THEY, not LaPierre, who don't want others to have their own personal security.
I give Wallace an F, no a Z, for his logic in his debate with La Pierre this morning. He made it personal, and he failed to be a good interviewer. Thanks for the link, TomGuy.
posted on 02/03/2013 10:32:42 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson