I’m not – nor do I wish to be – inside the head of any potential assassins… But I’m thinking that if I’m gonna kill the President, I’m not going to first fire off a memo announcing such.
Seems to me that the death threats are an attempt to catalyze chaos within the administration, a desperate tactic by an opposition base with nothing more substantive to latch onto.
Out of curiosity, how many of the threats are being expressed through e-mail or on websites and such? An upturn in threats may be partly due to the increasing ease of electronic communication and what was formerly a momentary private thought (“Somebody should take a bullet to that guy”) can become an impulsive Twitter message for all the world to see.
Didn’t happen. Bush wasn’t a conservative, so invading Iraq was obviously a liberal position.
You’re right of course, any time a conservative does something wrong, he is no longer a conservative. It’s why Fox news often ‘accidentally’ puts a D next to the name of some Republican when he is confessing his sins at a press conference. It’s why it was Clinton’s fault that Reagan ran away from terrorists in Lebanon and made it clear the US would cave to violence, and it was also Clinton’s fault that Ron sold weapons to terrorists.
When one of these fuckers actually tries to hurt the president or his family, I’m sure there will be a logical explanation of how he was actually a liberal, like the guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum.
They don’t mention how many death threats Mr. Obama has received vs any other president. Who thinks those numbers would differ significantly from that of this most recent administration? This article, as well as past ones by the same source, indicate a significant portion of the substantiated threats are coming from racist individuals and groups as opposed to those motivated by political ideology. To characterize this as representative of another political affiliation on the whole is to both stretch and grasp. It’s just plain ol’ racism and neither party has a monopoly on that.
Yes, good thing. Of course if there were, I’m sure you would be providing links to make sure we all stay honest.
That said, not all hate is created equal. Is expressing joy at someone’s natural death the same as wishing that someone would kill that person? If I hate Bush for invading Iraq and destroying the image of America worldwide, is that the same as hating Obama for being a socialist Muslim foreigner? Methinks that some supposed equivalences need to be questioned more.
That’s because its un-American to not support the President in a time of war. Duh.
I understand that you’re mostly goofing around rather than trying for precision, and here’s more of the same:
The article says (and you quoted it) that Obama is the “target” of “more than 30 potential death threats a day.”
If he can average 32.9 per day then he’s got the 12,000 he needs. The article doesn’t say the daily average is only 30.
The article also doesn’t say that Bush averaged 3000 a year (8.2 per day), it say Bush received “3,000 a year or so.” That’s ambiguous, but I’d interpret it to mean “roughly 3000.” So maybe it was 2900.
My point is that numbers for Obama might very well be almost exactly 4x W’s puny death threat totals.
Of course, W should be able to include all the death threats from foreign nationals in overseas media. He worked hard for them and deserves to have them counted. I imagine Obama’s overseas totals are laughable by comparison.
Oh no, that’s not necessary - nothing keeps some people honest.
No, which is why that was not the comparison. BrainGlutton claimed that those who would rejoice at Obama’s assassination are Pitworthy. However, he has never Pitted any of those who rejoiced at the death of Republicans, nor even those who issued actual threats against Republicans. IOW, his outrage is highly selective.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, he “needs” 15,000. A 400% increase means five times as many as the beginning number, just as a 100% increase means twice as many.
A 400% increase wouldn’t be 4W. It would be W + 4W. 5W It would have to average 15k/yr.
I’m glad this thread is here. Because it gives me an opportunity to air my pet peeve about this too-common mathematical error. Usually pet peeve threads are related to spelling, and I get distracted.
ETA: DAMN YOU, LHoD! 
So, since it’s not un-American to attack the current President, does that mean the war is over? Can we at least thank Barack Obama for ending the war?
I posted 400% faster than you!
Well, at least you don’t claim to have taken 400% less time to do it.
Well the two situations are somewhat different. Celebrating a politician’s death is not the same as celebrating a politician’s assassination. The assassination is an attack on the entire system; the death is simply an occurrence. This is even more so if you think that the motivation behind the assassination would be one that demonstrates a particular trait, such as racism, which it is generally agreed is one that the country has had major problems with in the past, and which many of us hoped was being overcome.
Politician dropping dead of heart attack - not a threat to the system
Politician being assassinated by person in opposition to policy - threat to the system
Politician assassinated by person because politician is black - threat to system and terrible reminder of the continued role of racism in society.
Anyway, had Maggie Thatcher died while in office in the UK, I would have shed no tears for her. Had the IRA scum succeeded in blowing her up in Brighton, I would have thought it would have been terrible for the nation. I can’t believe you apparently cannot see a difference between the two.
I was in JCPenney the other day and this group of people stood about 20 feet away from me, talking about Obama. One woman said that she was upset he wasn’t dead yet. “That’s the only reason I wasn’t too upset about him being elected. I knew someone was going to shoot him.”
As I was leaving the store, I saw that I knew one of the people in the group. That was an icky feeling.
The answer is obvious…Dick Cheney. WHy would anyone threaten GW when it would just allow Cheney to take over.
On the flip side, racists primarily, while maybe conservative or not, would be far more happy with Joe Biden.
To a true conservative, supporting your country is only valid when a a God-anointed Republican is in charge.
Otherwise it’s just someone else’s country, say, for those coast-dwelling, latte-sipping, sushi-eating libruls they hate with such vehemence.
I agree with this.
There is also the added issue of where the actions of the person in question have had a demonstrably negative impact on the person. Thatcher’s policies put a lot of people out of work (rightly or wrongly) and caused a lot of grief, particularly to the poorer members of society. I’m not surprised that many of them still hold a grudge and may toast her demise, even though they wouldn’t approve of a violent attack on her.
If someone was a crazy leftie looking to take out Bush, then you’d have had Cheney as president afterwards. Both fairly similar people in attitudes. Not an improvement for lefties - left wing extremists were probably more afraid of Cheney anyways.
Obama is making lots of changes right now - change is not what conservatives want by definition. But if someone is a crazy rightie looking to take out Obama, then you’d get Biden as president. He would not likely be as popular or as successful in pushing his left wing agendas through. Less change - so a likely improvement for righties and far right extremists.