Obama supporters view TEA party same security threat as radical Islam

[childofGod1]

Isn't the headline kind of misleading? 26 percent means a majority don't view the Tea Party as being a "Top terror threat."

26% is a significant number of people who have irrational fears of a completely nonviolent group. Their unfounded fears are so great that they supercede fear of a group that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, and publicly proclaims their intent to continue to kill as many more of us as possible.

Should the headline read "A 74% majority of Obama supporters may be sane!"

I think that might be more misleading...

 

[childofGod1]

Bully for you. I am that old and bitter person who locks himself up in his home simply because I have no desire to be exposed to your Brave New Utopia of Unrestrained Pelvic Activity.

LOL, you're my age... not old yet.

 

[Bedford]

I have no desire to be exposed to your Brave New Utopia of Unrestrained Pelvic Activity.

That is funny, and reminds me of my mother describing the first time she saw Elvis on television. The people of that era also had no desire to be exposed to a Brave New Utopia of Unrestrained Pelvic Activity.

Things continue to come full circle.

 

[Savior2006]

That is funny, and reminds me of my mother describing the first time she saw Elvis on television. The people of that era also had no desire to be exposed to a Brave New Utopia of Unrestrained Pelvic Activity.

Things continue to come full circle.

Things don't come full circle. They stay exactly the same way that they are. Some of us look ahead. Others whine about countries losing morality they never had in the first place.

 

[revanneosl]

I think the main problem is lazy thinking. Nobody can deny that domestic terrorists of the right-wing variety are a greater threat than any foreign terrorist organization. Just see the chart below.

Where the lazy thinking comes in is when my liberal brethren and sistren forget that detail & nuance are everything, and succumb to the temptation to lump the TEA Party in with all sort of other, more unsavory groups and individuals: the Klan and other white supremacists, the Abortion Clinic bomb throwers, the Sovereign Citizen nutjobs, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Schaeffer Cox and the Huttaree militia. The TEA Party are not these people. They are much, much saner (no matter how much I may disagree with them.) They are not going to blow up any clinics or government buildings or shoot any doctors. They are just going to fantasize about it & post their fantasies to the Free Republic website.

The really interesting part of the chart, to me, is that ecoterrorists are coming in 2nd place, ahead of Islamic extremists. In fact, for three years (2000, 2001, 2005) the ecoterrorists beat the right-wing terrorists in number of attacks, and in two years (2002, 2003) it looks like a tie.

I never hear conservatives say that ecoterrorists are more dangers than Islamic extremists though - even though they clearly are. I wonder why that is.

 

[Bedford]

Things don't come full circle. They stay exactly the same way that they are. Some of us look ahead. Others whine about countries losing morality they never had in the first place.

Sometimes I think that many have been traumatized by the reality of how people are, compared to how they were perceived before mass media opened the eyes of the world to what is going on. They blame media instead of questioning their ignorance to what is really going on in the world.

 

[Savior2006]

Did you even watch the video you posted? Any proof of Tea Party affiliation?

I kind of jumped the gun. What can I say?

(Oh and don't start playing the "they are violent card", when the Tea Party equivalent on the other side of the aisle has a long and well documented criminal and violent history.

OWS? What makes you think I supported them? I've made it abundantly clear in the past that I don't.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Having my request to the OP to reveal the full poll denied and even laughed at, this thread is nothing more than partisan trash.

Like NHE, I haven't a clue what you're talking about either. No one denied you access to anything (the link is there - you don't have to pay for anything), and no one laughed at your request.

It's a 5-question poll which didn't include a question pertaining to the point in which you seem to be interested:

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted June 22-23, 2013
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How important is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to the country’s national security?
2* Should the United States build an anti-missile defense shield?
3* Should the United States reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal?
4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?
5* How likely is it that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons?
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Where's the problem?

 

[Bedford]

Like NHE, I haven't a clue what you're talking about either. No one denied you access to anything (the link is there - you don't have to pay for anything), and no one laughed at your request.

I do not doubt that you have no clue to what I am saying because you have not tried to access the complete raw data from the poll. Instead I have to rely on a summation which does not provide the information I require to make a reasonable retort. I asked for the information and was laughed at.


Are you willing to pay $20 to make a reasonable retort on any thread here?





Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.



Tell me, what does

ROTFL ...

stand for?

rolling on the floor laughing

Ya, nobody was laughing, in your dreams.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Instead I have to rely on a summation which does not provide the information I require to make a reasonable retort.

Now that is funny, Bedford.

In other words ... you got nothing ... so you want someone else to provide you with ammunition to refute something you just "know" is wrong.

I asked for the information and was laughed at.

Sigh ... it's ironic, too.

 

[Bedford]

Now that is funny, Bedford.

In other words ... you got nothing ... so you want someone else to provide you with ammunition to refute something you just "know" is wrong.

Sigh ... it's ironic, too.

I am not sure if you have a clue to what I am saying, and it doesn't really matter. You are not one I take serious.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I think the main problem is lazy thinking. Nobody can deny that domestic terrorists of the right-wing variety are a greater threat than any foreign terrorist organization. Just see the chart below.

Where the lazy thinking comes in is when my liberal brethren and sistren forget that detail & nuance are everything, and succumb to the temptation to lump the TEA Party in with all sort of other, more unsavory groups and individuals: the Klan and other white supremacists, the Abortion Clinic bomb throwers, the Sovereign Citizen nutjobs, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Schaeffer Cox and the Huttaree militia. The TEA Party are not these people. They are much, much saner (no matter how much I may disagree with them.) They are not going to blow up any clinics or government buildings or shoot any doctors. They are just going to fantasize about it & post their fantasies to the Free Republic website.

Thank you, I think.

The really interesting part of the chart, to me, is that ecoterrorists are coming in 2nd place, ahead of Islamic extremists. In fact, for three years (2000, 2001, 2005) the ecoterrorists beat the right-wing terrorists in number of attacks, and in two years (2002, 2003) it looks like a tie.

I never hear conservatives say that ecoterrorists are more dangers than Islamic extremists though - even though they clearly are. I wonder why that is.

Actually I think we bring it up all the time. Ever participated in an AGW thread here; one on the EPA, IRS, alternative energy?

I do find it interesting though the eco terrorists themselves are strangely silent against the latter (alt energy) for example, even though those battery, solar panel, etc. plants are as damaging, if not more so to the environment than what the eco terrorists hate - big lumber, developers, etc.

And totally as an aside, there's an interesting phenomenon occurring in Colorado and other western states right now, which has been escalating for several decades due to the impact of environmentalists (sane or otherwise) - forest fires. Eco terrorists will bomb, burn, even sabotage the very trees (spike them) they're ostensibly trying to save to stop logging. Unfortunately, planned logging is something that actually HELPS forests, HELPS the federal government, HELPS homeowners and forest lovers by culling out the forests of fuel. Those ignorant, self-deluded idiots have caused untold damage and heartache, expense, and even death in their utterly naive "cause" against lumber companies.

We talk about them all the time - whenever another forest fire erupts needlessly and burns innocent people out of their homes or livelihoods.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am not sure if you have a clue to what I am saying, and it doesn't really matter. You are not one I take serious.

OK. I would merely remind you that you initiated our discussion here.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I do not doubt that you have no clue to what I am saying because you have not tried to access the complete raw data from the poll. Instead I have to rely on a summation which does not provide the information I require to make a reasonable retort. I asked for the information and was laughed at.

Good grief - it was 5 questions, none of which (again) addressed your apparent interest. Leave it alone already.

Tell me, what does

ROTFL ...

stand for?

rolling on the floor laughing

Ya, nobody was laughing, in your dreams.

Ok, my post was actually "ROTFLOL" - and it was [in fact] referring to something Wols said, not you.

 

[EdwinWillers]

OK. I would merely remind you that you initiated our discussion here.

This might otherwise be humorous if we didn't realize he was doing this intentionally.

 

[Bedford]

Good grief - it was 5 questions, none of which (again) addressed your apparent interest. Leave it alone already.
Ok, my post was actually "ROTFLOL" - and it was [in fact] referring to something Wols said, not you.

You really need to pay attention.

POST 2

I cannot view the entire poll unless I pay. I want to know how many republicans consider the occupy movement as terrorists. Do you have this information?



[FONT=&quot]4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?[/FONT]

POST 3

ROTFL ...

 

[Bedford]

partisan hackery from the right, at it's finest. Be proud.

 

[Bedford]

The title is misleading. more partisan hackery.

 

[EdwinWillers]

You really need to pay attention.
POST 2

POST 3

Ah my total bad. You see, you were addressing ME, ergo I mistakenly thought you were addressing... my post.

 

[USincognito]

That is funny, and reminds me of my mother describing the first time she saw Elvis on television. The people of that era also had no desire to be exposed to a Brave New Utopia of Unrestrained Pelvic Activity.

Things continue to come full circle.

Flappers and "hysteria treatment" devices in Sears catalogues.
Manhattan being described as an Island of Vice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/books/review/island-of-vice-by-richard-zacks.html?_r=0
Bordellos in western towns.
Red Lamp districts.
Merkins wearing prostitutes in Philidelpia.
A surprising number of mulatto children running around slave quarters.

Some people apparently love American History because they pine on about it all the time.

Shame those same people don't know all American History.