Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 75

Thread: Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – Incensed by the election of the first black US president, right-wing militia groups in the United States are rising again after a decade of decline, according to new research on extremist groups.

    Ideologically driven by racism and a virulent anti-government, anti-taxation and anti-immigrant agenda, the homegrown groups that thrived in the 1990s and spurred numerous deadly terrorist attacks are expanding, said the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

    "This is the most significant growth we've seen in 10 to 12 years," said a law enforcement official quoted by the SPLC in its special report "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias."

    "All it's lacking is a spark," said the official, adding it is "only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."
    Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report - Yahoo! News

    It's like my weatherman telling me the sun is shining right now...

    Thank god we don't have pundits running around spreading gasoline everywhere... :rolls
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    This doesn't pass the smell test. Time to investigate a little bit more.

    First off, what is a "right -wing" militia? Is the definition really someone who opposes Obama or any democrat president and forms a violent group? That seems a bit unfair to use the term "right-wing". I don't think crazy is right or left wing.

    Second, after reading the SPLC website I don't see need for yahoo and SPLC to identify these groups with Glenn Beck. Talk about guilt by association. The SPLC website talks about groups growing because of the 2000 scare, 9/11 conspiracy attacks, etc. A black president is just another event to ignite crazy people. Get someone Jewish in there and I bet you get some crazies too.

    Basically this report lumps conspiracy gun-toting crazies in with groups that want congress to follow the constitution. Classic guilt by association and I don't buy it.

    Sorry, but just because some racist hick doesn't like Obama and cheers for Beck doesn't mean Beck is a racist and is promoting racist hicks. I can think of one good example. 9/11 conspiracy crazies loved Bill Maher. Bill thought they were nuts and it is unfair to tie those two together. Maher isn't a nut anymore than Beck is.

    Finally, the most ironic thing about this article is that it creates a conspiracy theory (identifies instances with circumstantial evidence or no proof at all) about people believing in conspiracies.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    This doesn't pass the smell test. Time to investigate a little bit more.

    First off, what is a "right -wing" militia? Is the definition really someone who opposes Obama or any democrat president and forms a violent group? That seems a bit unfair to use the term "right-wing". I don't think crazy is right or left wing.
    And the first way it doesn't pass the smell test is cause you make up possible definitions of terms?
    "Right-wing" should be fairly obvious.
    "militia" is also readily definable...
    civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Second, after reading the SPLC website I don't see need for yahoo and SPLC to identify these groups with Glenn Beck. Talk about guilt by association. The SPLC website talks about groups growing because of the 2000 scare, 9/11 conspiracy attacks, etc. A black president is just another event to ignite crazy people. Get someone Jewish in there and I bet you get some crazies too.
    Yeah.
    Everybody focus on the water leaking into the kitchen from the broken faucet.
    Nobody look at the water leaking from the water heater as well...


    The article talks about BOTH racists AND conspiracy theories contributing to the uprising in right-wing militias.
    Your response is a thinly veiled attempt to fixate on just racists, and ignore the other contributions.

    Like this one, acknowledged by this country's Secret Service...

    The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

    The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

    But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

    The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

    Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

    The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.
    Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service for death threats against Barack Obama - Telegraph

    But hey. Let's all just focus on the reasons for the increase that are convenient for the right to acknowledge...


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Basically this report lumps conspiracy gun-toting crazies in with groups that want congress to follow the constitution. Classic guilt by association and I don't buy it.
    No. It doesn't.
    And the amount of propagandic spin you put on this is amazing.
    "groups that want congress to follow the constitution"

    Wow.
    This report talked to professionals who WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT in these areas.
    If you want to show me ANYWHERE where their comments actually covered a simple "groups that want congress to follow the constitution", I welcome you to do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Sorry, but just because some racist hick doesn't like Obama and cheers for Beck doesn't mean Beck is a racist and is promoting racist hicks.
    And the strawmen just keep coming.
    Where did they say Beck was a racist?
    Where did they say Beck was PROMOTING "racist hicks"?

    The issue is that Beck's comments are INFLAMING these groups.
    And looking at his ACTUAL comments, and how careless they are, I really can't see how anybody couldn't expect that EXACT THING to happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    I can think of one good example. 9/11 conspiracy crazies loved Bill Maher. Bill thought they were nuts and it is unfair to tie those two together. Maher isn't a nut anymore than Beck is.
    A key difference here.
    Maher OPENLY REFUTES the 9/11 conspiracy crazies.
    Can you show Beck OPENLY REFUTING the people that follow Beck's ideology?


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Finally, the most ironic thing about this article is that it creates a conspiracy theory (identifies instances with circumstantial evidence or no proof at all) about people believing in conspiracies.
    No.
    You didn't read the article at all, did you...
    It interviewed people WHO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT who have a job of monitoring these types of groups.

    If I labeled Bush's accusations of Saddam using WMDs on Americans as "a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory", would that have been a viable response to those accusations?
    NO!
    The viable response is to show how the accusations were NOT TRUE.
    Just relabeling the situation is pointlessly propagandic.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    This is supposed to be a bad thing?
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    This is supposed to be a bad thing?
    To the extremists, I imagine it's not a bad thing.
    The actual report gives a variety of impacts and examples of the rising trend.
    Bombings. Murders. Plots to commit terroristic murder.

    But I guess if some people wanted to overlook all that, we might as well just describe al Qaeda as a "militia group" and wonder what all the fuss is about...
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Bombings. Murders. Plots to commit terroristic murder.
    Wow you sound about as bigoted as the racists who think all muslims are bombers, murders and terrorists. Or someone who talks about gays spreading AIDS. Hypocrisy much?

    Overall, the rise of militia groups can only be seen as a positive thing, regardless of how fond you are of picking on a few bad eggs to smear a whole group of people.
    Last edited by Symbiote; 08-19-2009 at 11:00 PM.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Wow you sound about as bigoted as the racists who think all muslims are bombers, murders and terrorists. Or someone who talks about gays spreading AIDS. Hypocrisy much?
    What in the world are you talking about?
    I was just talking about the observed phenomenon which makes the law-enforcement personnel, some of which were quoted in the study, cautious and concerned over militias.


    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    Overall, the rise of militia groups can only be seen as a positive thing, regardless of how fond you are of picking on a few bad eggs to smear a whole group of people.
    I'm sorry, but no.
    They cannot "only be seen as a positive thing".
    The government sure as heck doesn't.
    But what the heck does law enforcement know, eh?

    And "smear a whole group of people"?
    Do you understand the meaning of the word "militia", and the clear implications that are seen by such a group?

    So, regarding Waco, were they just misunderstood?
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    And the first way it doesn't pass the smell test is cause you make up possible definitions of terms?
    "Right-wing" should be fairly obvious.
    "militia" is also readily definable...
    civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
    I thought right-wing was fairly obvious as well but I don't see much to indicate they prefer a "right wing" viewpoint. Some of these groups prefer no government...seems a little misleading to call that "right wing" even when right wingers prefer less government. And no, it didn't pass the smell test because it came across a little bigoted.


    Yeah.
    Everybody focus on the water leaking into the kitchen from the broken faucet.
    Nobody look at the water leaking from the water heater as well...


    The article talks about BOTH racists AND conspiracy theories contributing to the uprising in right-wing militias.
    Your response is a thinly veiled attempt to fixate on just racists, and ignore the other contributions.
    Still has nothing to do with Glenn Beck which is my point. You want to talk about "thinly veiled attempts" look at those examples.

    No. It doesn't.
    And the amount of propagandic spin you put on this is amazing.
    "groups that want congress to follow the constitution"

    Wow.
    This report talked to professionals who WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT in these areas.
    If you want to show me ANYWHERE where their comments actually covered a simple "groups that want congress to follow the constitution", I welcome you to do it.
    They talked about groups supporting the 10th amendment. Something actually done in my home town on the radio everyday. I don't think the radio guy is crazy.

    A key difference here.
    Maher OPENLY REFUTES the 9/11 conspiracy crazies.
    Can you show Beck OPENLY REFUTING the people that follow Beck's ideology?
    Actually he does this very often. He makes fun of going to the 'tea parties" and always being filmed with the few nuts. He jokingly claimed that conservatives don't know how to protest and thus you only get lunes who claim to be right-wing. I actually listen to what people really say instead of taking huffingtonpost clicks. I've been to a Glenn Beck speech. I've been to Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, James Carville as well. So yeah, I know Maher openly refutes those people but so does Beck. Even Jon Stewart jokes about the audience that follows him.


    No.
    You didn't read the article at all, did you...
    It interviewed people WHO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT who have a job of monitoring these types of groups.
    So? I already posted an article in another thread about the government issuing reports on "right-wing" extremist groups which was bogus. Frankly Obama and his administration and apparently these folks are pulling the same thing Bush did. Creating false claims to make a "link" to achieve guilt by association.

    Do you honestly not think this SPLC group is a bit of a stretch? Are there a rise in hate groups and crazy groups? Yes. You always get that when something unique happens such as a black president or bad recession. Should this be linked to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or people being genuinely upset about our government? No, and the SPLC is trying to say they are all one in the same...certainly implying it.
    Last edited by Steeeeve; 08-20-2009 at 09:36 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    The tree-watering XXXXXX outside the presidential townhall are associates if not members of the aptly labeled knuckledraggers known as the Viper Militia. Say no more.
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I thought right-wing was fairly obvious as well but I don't see much to indicate they prefer a "right wing" viewpoint. Some of these groups prefer no government...seems a little misleading to call that "right wing" even when right wingers prefer less government. And no, it didn't pass the smell test because it came across a little bigoted.
    Which groups prefer "no government"?

    And when "right-wing militia" is accurate, but you don't like the implications, that's not bigotry.
    Nobody is saying ALL right-wingers are in a militia.
    It's just recognizing that right-wing militias are on the rise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Still has nothing to do with Glenn Beck which is my point. You want to talk about "thinly veiled attempts" look at those examples.
    Some people want to pretend words have no consequences.
    That Beck's complaints and statements don't have the obvious impact that they clearly do.

    That's your prerogative I guess.
    I guess I don't see what is so "thinly veiled" about Glenn Beck calling for people to rise up, and then it happens...


    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66
    If you want to show me ANYWHERE where their comments actually covered a simple "groups that want congress to follow the constitution", I welcome you to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    They talked about groups supporting the 10th amendment. Something actually done in my home town on the radio everyday. I don't think the radio guy is crazy.
    Was the radio show host covered by the article?
    If all he's saying is support for the 10th amendment, I would say no.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Actually he does this very often. He makes fun of going to the 'tea parties" and always being filmed with the few nuts. He jokingly claimed that conservatives don't know how to protest and thus you only get lunes who claim to be right-wing.
    Wow. Is this an example of where he "makes fun of going to the 'tea parties'" AS HE ESSENTIALLY HOSTS ONE HIMSELF???
    YouTube - Glenn Beck Tax Day Tea Party at Alamo


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    I actually listen to what people really say instead of taking huffingtonpost clicks. I've been to a Glenn Beck speech. I've been to Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, James Carville as well. So yeah, I know Maher openly refutes those people but so does Beck. Even Jon Stewart jokes about the audience that follows him.
    You're not even talking on the same playing field.
    Maher tells the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that they are wrong.
    Point blank. No equivocation.
    NOT "joking" about how they don't know how to protest.

    And I invite you to view the youtube video above.
    Based on your comments of how he views "tea parties", I think it's you who needs to watch him...


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    So? I already posted an article in another thread about the government issuing reports on "right-wing" extremist groups which was bogus. Frankly Obama and his administration and apparently these folks are pulling the same thing Bush did. Creating false claims to make a "link" to achieve guilt by association.
    Vague references to what you previously said?
    Meaningless to me.
    Especially since THIS STUDY, the one we're actually talking about, DOCUMENTS why it considers right-wing militia as rising, and a threat.

    You complain about "guilt by association", and then you PULL THAT STUNT YOURSELF in trying to refute THIS study by referencing something else that is not this study...


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Do you honestly not think this SPLC group is a bit of a stretch? Are there a rise in hate groups and crazy groups? Yes. You always get that when something unique happens such as a black president or bad recession. Should this be linked to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or people being genuinely upset about our government? No, and the SPLC is trying to say they are all one in the same...certainly implying it.
    You claim it shouldn't be linked.
    I can't help but wonder how you could be so blind.
    Earlier in this thread, I DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE SECRET SERVICE EXPLICITLY linking Sarah Palin's comments to a rise in death threats against Obama.

    Completely ignored.
    But you don't want to believe the link exists...
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

    Wow. Is this an example of where he "makes fun of going to the 'tea parties'" AS HE ESSENTIALLY HOSTS ONE HIMSELF???
    Hysterical shrieking isn't going to hide your bigotry.

    Will you admit that the vast majority of militia community groups have noble, positive goals?

    Or will you continue to use moronic individual examples to encourage discrimination against a wide range of people?

    The people at Waco weren't even a militia, they were a religious cult that included women and children. The government gassed and burned them all to death, an act you applaud since they don't fit your ideals about what society should look like.

    It's horrific acts like the murder at Waco that inspire militia movements.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Hysterical shrieking isn't going to hide your bigotry.
    Will you admit that the vast majority of militia community groups have noble, positive goals?
    What noble goal?
    Helping the sick?
    Feeding the hungry?

    Should they get tax cuts for their altruism?
    < end sarcasm >



    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    Or will you continue to use moronic individual examples to encourage discrimination against a wide range of people?
    Can you go one single post without a blatant lie or willful delusion?
    I never "encouraged discrimination against a wide range of people"...


    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    The people at Waco weren't even a militia, they were a religious cult that included women and children. The government gassed and burned them all to death, an act you applaud since they don't fit your ideals about what society should look like.
    Rrrriiiggghhhtttt...
    And the death of four ATF agents was purely an accident?
    They accidentally shot themselves?

    And I never said anything about "applauding" what happened there.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Clearly the article was about right-wing militia groups who are racist.

    Arguing that these people are a good thing is absurd.

    Luckily they are too flaky to have any real power.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    Which groups prefer "no government"?

    And when "right-wing militia" is accurate, but you don't like the implications, that's not bigotry.
    Nobody is saying ALL right-wingers are in a militia.
    It's just recognizing that right-wing militias are on the rise.
    I just don't understand why the term "right-wing" is used. Seems to me they are specific issue militias, crazy militias, and then people just mad at the government...as said in the article.

    Some people want to pretend words have no consequences.
    That Beck's complaints and statements don't have the obvious impact that they clearly do.

    That's your prerogative I guess.
    I guess I don't see what is so "thinly veiled" about Glenn Beck calling for people to rise up, and then it happens...
    I see no proof it is getting them to become crazy...seems they were always crazy and a protest gives them a place to go. This happens at almost all protests...nothing new. And there is nothing wrong with people "rising up" anyway...you seem to be doing the same thing this "study" is which is lump crazy people with people that think our federal government is horrible.

    Was the radio show host covered by the article?
    If all he's saying is support for the 10th amendment, I would say no.
    The article talks about those groups relating to constitutional ideas. The biggest "group" I know of is the 10th amendment folks. Not really that extreme.

    Wow. Is this an example of where he "makes fun of going to the 'tea parties'"
    No, that is an example of him attending one. He makes fun of going to them on this radio and speeches. Perhaps I should say he makes fun of himself for going to them.

    You're not even talking on the same playing field.
    Maher tells the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that they are wrong.
    Point blank. No equivocation.
    NOT "joking" about how they don't know how to protest.

    And I invite you to view the youtube video above.
    Based on your comments of how he views "tea parties", I think it's you who needs to watch him...
    There is nothing wrong with tea parties and he constantly is saying those who engage in violence are wrong. Good grief
    You claim it shouldn't be linked.
    I can't help but wonder how you could be so blind.
    Earlier in this thread, I DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE SECRET SERVICE EXPLICITLY linking Sarah Palin's comments to a rise in death threats against Obama.
    Probably because it was to stupid to address. The article says "The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks." Does that mean the secret service blamed Palin or that they just told Obama he has had more threats in October and the writer added the "coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks" part? Zero quotes from the SS in the article means that article fails.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I just don't understand why the term "right-wing" is used. Seems to me they are specific issue militias, crazy militias, and then people just mad at the government...as said in the article.
    You don't understand why the term is used???
    CAUSE IT IS ACCURATE...

    If we had ISLAMIC extremist terrorists who were creating a significant, shouldn't we recognize that ISLAM was a common aspect of the terrorists?


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    I see no proof it is getting them to become crazy...seems they were always crazy and a protest gives them a place to go. This happens at almost all protests...nothing new. And there is nothing wrong with people "rising up" anyway...you seem to be doing the same thing this "study" is which is lump crazy people with people that think our federal government is horrible.
    You are either purposely or without proper understanding inflating my position beyond what it actually is.
    I have no problem with PEOPLE "rising up".
    When MILITIAS rise up, THAT is cause for concern.
    Do you appreciate the difference?

    As for "no proof", there are a variety of ways such "proof" is seen.
    Take Stormfront for example.
    If you go to their web-site, you'll see that they are incredibly linked to World Net Daily, relying on them as a resource for their "information".

    There was a news article a little while ago about a woman who was busted scoping out a National Guard station with an assault rifle, a shotgun, and copious amounts of ammunition...
    On her web-page, she repeatedly talked about her agreement with Glenn Beck.

    And when people like Glenn Beck talk so irresponsibly by accusing Obama of being a racist and similar nonsense?
    They simply give a main-stream voice, throwing gasoline on the nuts who are either close to being or already on fire.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    The article talks about those groups relating to constitutional ideas. The biggest "group" I know of is the 10th amendment folks. Not really that extreme.
    At this stage, I really would appreciate it if you would read the article...
    Try to talk about what is ACTUALLY being discussed.

    Cause you talk about the "groups" you know???
    How about talking about the ACTUAL GROUPS that are discussed in the study?
    The ACTUAL CRIMES discussed in the study?

    Cause you not knowing what they're talking about is not a real discussion on the study.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    No, that is an example of him attending one. He makes fun of going to them on this radio and speeches. Perhaps I should say he makes fun of himself for going to them.

    I invite the viewing audience to view the video clip.
    He was NOT just "attending one".
    He was essentially HOSTING one.
    Any person who observes the video can hear the crowd is LISTENING to Glenn Beck.
    CHEERING Glenn Beck as he gives voice to their talking points.

    He is not "making fun" of them at all.
    He is not "making fun of himself" at all.

    I would love to see you QUOTE Beck in what he actually said there that could be said as such, but at this stage I am shocked you actually tried to classify Beck's actions as you do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    Probably because it was to stupid to address.
    Wow.
    So we have documented examples of how Republican inflammatory remarks INCREASE DEATH THREATS AGAINST OBAMA, and you think it's "stupid to address".
    That is truly an amazingly strong debating stance.
    Perhaps the most obvious retort is a raspberry?

    < end sarcasm >

    Look.
    YOU don't want to recognize these threats and the contribution to these threats.
    I get that.
    The EXPERTS disagree with you.
    That's what you don't seem to get. Or rather, you don't care about...


    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve
    The article says "The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks." Does that mean the secret service blamed Palin or that they just told Obama he has had more threats in October and the writer added the "coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks" part? Zero quotes from the SS in the article means that article fails.
    I guess your position is to portray the eternal skeptic, refusing to recognize what is right in front of your face?
    The Secret Service saw fit to note that they "coincided with Mrs Palin's attacks", and you don't recognize the significance of that???

    Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised they were so blunt in the first place. If Obama had lost the election, these people WOULD BE WORKING for Palin.
    Perhaps they saw the dire situation that Palin was creating as necessary to possibly slight their potential future boss?

    But hey. If you want to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative.
    You give ABSOLUTELY NO counter-explanation as to why the death threats rose at THAT particular point.
    You obviously want to ignore people IN PALIN'S CROWD THEMSELVES SHOUTING "DEATH TO OBAMA". But evidently not even THAT much of recognizing an obvious link is something you want to commit to...
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •