Facebook poll asking ‘Should Obama be killed’ causing stir

If you could speak about the "left" as you do the "right" there would be no need to bring up how this POLL IS NOTHING in the scheme of things.

Just because there is 24/7 news doesn't mean it's all important.

If you could grasp a concept and accept reality instead of automatically searching for the opposing point of view you wouldn't find yourself in infinite circular logic traps.

The poll in and of itself isn't as important as the potential threat it represents. You never know what idiot will fail to see the attempt at humor and take things too far.

You realize President Obama has already received more threats than his predecessor did during his entire term. Sen. Obama was given a security detail larger and faster than any other candidate from either party in history accept incumbents and Sen Clinton by virtue of being a former first lady. That isn't feigned oppression or victimization. That's cold hard fact.

It is not a cold hard fact until I see EVERY SINGLE THREAT and count it myself.

I don't believe you...

I would want to, but you make that far too difficult because you don't accept when you're wrong. And you know exactly what I'm talking about.

So try your BS on someone else.

Everyone is frustrated because no one is listening. Especially people that have to state "I'm being logical and reasonable" as if that makes them any more so than someone else.

You're not alone on that side....there's similarities for all with this.

You really get off on arguing, not debating.

People need to just start ignoring your nonsense, and just like you playing with yourself.
It's sad to see people that are so capable just waste their time and everybody else's time simply because they've made a decision to live a life of indifference.

Apparently you can't do as you want others to.

Proof to a more deeper problem.

the problem, keithponder, is jammer doesn't really argue as much as he just hollers. Just a lot of noise but little substance unfortunately.

And look who isn't on topic any more?

Doesn't even look like you can follow what you state is so important.

HAHAHAHA......

so the "fake" video of Bush being shot is LESS worse than an online poll?

Good lord you people are so retarded the special Olympics wouldn't accept you.

jam-jam, once again you have run headlong into the wall of logic and suffered yet another concussion. A "fictional" film versus a non-fictional poll which may or may not have been earnest are hardly comparable.

With the first there is no intention of killing the president or suggesting it should be done in fact the assassination is a small part of the film that got overhyped.

With an interactive poll, you are actively trying to gather a consensus to condone if not encourage an assassination.

So hardly comparable. Simple logic. Now go treat that concussion.

Fictional film or not there can be animosity that rivals and beats a childish online poll.

It's not even a threat.

Unless you're stating that someone states "he needs to be shot" is a threat. And yet you, if I'm not mistaken, just stated that that's not even a threat.

If you cannot grow with technology and change with how things are stated now days then maybe you shouldn't make comments.

Because if "He needs to be shot" is better than an online poll, that to some people is just like talking to a friend (online things), then you're stuck in the past. Twitter is now small talk and Facebook and Myspace are the water coolers.

Visually compiling images that shows a president actually being shot (no matter if it's fiction or not) shows the deed being done. Asking on a website if he should or should someone....isn't the same. It's a question.

You're not going to pull a minority report as fact here. You can't predict anything that would come form an online poll.

So shove that fraddy cat feeling back in the cave and bring it out when it's necessary.

nice twist of words ala Fox News I wrote he ought to be shot not needs to be - there is quite a difference in the two expressions and leave it to you to manipulate and twist it so that you can launch a tirade of bollocks. You have learned well from your master - Fox News, young apprentice.

The fact is the secret service didn't get their undies in a twist over a low budget film that didn't even gross 1 mil. They did however show concern over this poll which shows that they do take it more serious than a fictional film or some random yahoos saying so-n-so ought to be shot.

But hey far be it for logic to stand in your way, jam-jam

You don't know what they got their undies in a twist over. You don't work for them...and they rarely state what they are looking into. It's not people's business.

And OUGHT and SHOULD don't have a lot of difference when it comes to SHOOTING someone.

Poor justification.

tisk! tisk! you wrote "NEED" not Should. Quit changing your story and going off topic to avoid the illogical fallacies of your "ahem!" arguments.

Regardless of whether I work for the Secret Service or not, the fact remains that they took the poll seriously enough to at least take a look into it which not something they do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that hangs a badly done up caricature of a president, or writes on some message board so-n-so ought to be shot. Obviously they can through experience detect what has potential threat and what is just idiotic bombastic blowheartedness.

I'm sorry....NEED is no different than OUGHT, by the way. You can't really pick a single word that would alleviate the damage SHOOT or SHOT or SHOOTING already does by being uttered.

They can, doesn't mean they take threats against Obama more seriously.

What a joke.

jamy, now is hardly the time to school you in the use and meaning of words. I just thought your sly little twist earlier interesting to note which gave you the confidence to go off on some over-exaggerated tangent.

You have a tendency to avoid directly addressing topics as it is. I said nothing of other threats to Obama nor did I compare those threats with ones to former Presidents (you do love strawmen, don't you?) only that this poll was serious enough for the Secret Service to have a look at

And you don't pay attention.

They check all kinds of things. Seriousness cannot be determined by what they check out.

jam, the simple fact that they did look into it shows some level of seriousness. You want to split hairs over the level of that seriousness fine but it's a pretty weak point.

It's not a weak point. Because every threat towards the President is serious. Meaning this one isn't any more serious than any other threat and therefore it's NOT special.

and you're splitting hairs - what exactly is your point here except to get the last word in every argument?

No I am not splitting hairs. That's something you use as a defense when you can't explain why it's more important than any other threat.

And it looks like you like to get the last word in as you didn't state anything different than your previous post....oh no I just stole that from you. Don't feel too bad.

patriotic dissent should not be equated with assassination

that can't be a liberal....they are far too good to do any wrong what so ever.

the difference right or wrong is that Bush earned that level of animosity over the course of his presidency thru going into Iraq on bad intel, Patriot Act, Guantanimo Bay, FEMA, and basically pisspoor leadership.

In the beginning people were upset over the election fiasco but there wasn't enough about the man himself to truly dislike or want to see him hurt, killed, or impeached.

In contrast with Obama critics, many of them were gunning for him before the election. He's barely been in office and you have crackpots saying he will destory America. It wasn't until late 2003/early 2004 that people started really getting pissed at Bush like that and for things he had actually done whereas Obama hasn't really had a chance yet to save or damn the country.

SamuraiDave,

You mean the same Patriot Act Obama is now pushing Congress to renew? You mean the same Gitmo Obama is now refusing to close? You mean the new illegal spying policies Obama is trying to push through? You mean the unconstitutional bailouts and other forms of corporate welfare and health care bills? Etc.

You get the point.

and you think those tea baggers are mad at Obama for that or that this poll was put up over that? If you do, you are really living under a rock with your eyes and ears poked out. They are scared of the specter of socialism haunting them.

SamuraiDave,

The Tea Party Protests (by the way I love how you regurgitate left wing media garbage to demonize honest protests) were denouncing bailouts and the stimulus plans. They were also protesting Bush who led the charge for these plans.

being that I live in Japan I am not inundated by either media sources so your little clever barb missed I'm afraid. All I had to do was see amateur videos of tea baggers with signs like Impeach the Kenyan, Obama=Socialism to see where a number of them were coming from.

And I demonized honest protests? Oh, please spare me the melodramatics! That was just corny, dude.

Excellent rationalization! I love rationalizations. It helps us feel correct even when we're one bit short of a byte.

Right, I totally agree - because this is the only time in history that the government would ever consider investigating perceived threats against the president's life. I want to go back to the good ole days when civilians and the federal government would gather together and travel door to door singing assassination carols.

One is totally free to talk about killing the president. You are free to say you have a bomb while you're on an airplane, but there are consequences to that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence.

ouch! agentc, you got slammed! Logic wins again thanks to noxidereus.

trea⋅son
  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn]
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Does this clear it up for you AgentC. This is a symptom of a much bigger problem and no President should let these things go without proper investigation and punishment if necessary.

First off, no you don't know a lot of gun toting right wing nuts who said they would like to take out hte President. You are simply making things up to try to make a point online. If you know "a lot" of people who said that then I'd suggest you call up the SS because threats against the President are illegal.

Secondly, the people carrying guns to places around town hall meetings are in no way doing anything illegal. So your point about people legally carrying guns is irrelevant and just another Chris Matthews-esque smear attempt against gun owners.

You don't know me punk. Second, not only do I know several crazy ass x-skinhead wingnuts that still have swastikas on their back who would love to kill Obama, I have two uncles with what you could almost all "arsenals" who talk about civil war and Helter Skelter. Thats not even counting the random acquaintances at the local bars As far as the guns at town hall meetings, you are right, it is legal, I never said it wasnt, but I stick by what I said that the point they are getting across is "we have guns, and we might use them even though you were elected by the people".

Oh yeah, and one more thing. I don't have anything against "gun owners" or guns for that matter. Unlike what you are told by your masters, not all liberals are against gun ownership. My dads liberal, he has guns. I am liberal, and I have a shotgun and a .45. I thoroughly enjoyed firing the 25mm on my ship when I was in the Navy, so I have probably fired bigger guns than you. I'm just against illiterate morons who have their ideas fed to them from tv and radio, and base their main political affiliation on practically gun rights alone.

thecoyote23,

Even if you do know several skin heads who feel that way about the President (which I'm sure you don't) then those skin heads are really on a lunatic fringe of their own. Trying to lump them in with other movements is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

I also have no masters. I am not a Republican or conservative. I'm simply trying to correct ignorance and fallacies that are spread about.

I think there is a difference between people talking about it, and people who actually "want" to do it themselves given the first opportunity. I think the whole point of this facebook poll is that actually there are a great many people out there that would love for Obama to killed, but that doesnt mean they would do it themselves, and I don't think they could be labelled a "fringe" because there are a lot of them. I know people on the right from all walks of life, from all around the country, whether they are rich, poor, redneck, skinhead, and just plain ignorant jerks that would all have a beer toast if he was killed. I don't know where you live, or where you have been in this country the last few years, but it seems like you have no idea what's going on.

Yo JJ once again you are totally missing the point. Enough with how much you can't stand President Obama. This kind of stuff goes much deeper than that and no one is taking anything away from the other past President's anyhow. It's about hate and if you can't understand why this is somewhat different then you need a history lesson.

LOL....

as I said... victimization is not only stupid...it's counterproductive.

stop making him an unnecessary victim.

What is happening to him is no different.

Maybe you need a history lesson.

George Washington (you know of him?) had protesters with torches on his lawn...right outside his window. Right in his face....

Zero breathing room.

And you're going to sit there and tell me that an internet poll is more threatening than that?

hahaha....don't make Obama a joke.

missing the point is Jam-Jam's forte. It's not about victimization but the level of hatred that could lead to violence. The Secret Service took it seriously because they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they let this go by without doing anything. Why don't you write them and give your brilliant victimization spiel to them?

The SS are suppose to take it seriously no matter how silly the threat.

So they are not to mocked, that's their job.

The American public, on the other hand, is full of idiots who want to feel victimized and if they can, as seen in this thread, they'll feel and act victimized for someone famous just because.

the victimization effect is the same as the Obama messiah complex - they are more the products of rightwing strawman manufacture than actual reality but they serve as convenient statements that allow you to drag the topic off on some wild tangent so as not to have come up with logical arguments which relate to the topic.

It has everything to do with this topic. Making a big deal about a poll and then trying to use the SS as backing as it's legit. They are not backing. They look into many threats all the time.

I have yet to see a single thread created about Obama's threats that are even worth getting worked up over. It's normal scary President crap that he wanted to have because he wanted to be President.

jam-jam everything about Obama gets you worked up. this is just yet another thing to set you off on another tizzy.

Anyway, you tried to equate this to a fictional film 3 years back and to anti-Bush protests but I and others using logical reasoning have shown that there is a difference between them and this poll.

Stating you use logic is like stating you're being reasonable.

Most likely it's not true when you have to state something like that about yourself.

It's like saying to someone you're humble and the moment that leaves your mouth...is the moment you no longer are.

i know you wished that sounded profound much less coherent but what you said doesn't make sense.

For someone to say "I am logical" is not a fallacy or a hypocritical statement in itself. The statement has to be proven or disproven.

Your Zen nugget of humility is a different kettle of fish because the simple stating of "I am humble" flies in the face of itself without any argument necessary.

It is not necessary to state what you use to give answers.

It should be apparent. Stating you're logical doesn't make it so, Ok number 2?

IDIOT

gotcha (:

Yup because that makes any difference whatsoever to the point he made. Whatever.

Al Sharpton called, he wants his race card back.

Most of the President had slaves? So not only are you unable to form a coherent thought without using the race card, but you have also made one of hte dumbest statements I've ever seen on here.

Actually many former President's did own slaves.

He/she said 'most'.

i understand what you're driving out but over-exaggerating doesn't help. This country was founded on the principle that "All Men are created equal" even if the reality was far from it at the time and the line was written by a slave owner. That very principle was a driving point to end slavery and later to push forward civil rights so the US was not founded on the principle on whites being better - if that were the case we wouldn't have Obama in the White House now would we?

Most former presidents were not slave owners not even many - 12 out of 43 and of them some were for the abolishment of slavery albeit gradually. Also 4 of those 43 white presidents were assassinated and half a dozen had attempts made on them.

And not all Obama's critics are racists - to think so and treat his critics as such only helps to undermine the very system Obama has sworn to uphold,. However, to believe that there isn't racism behind some of the criticism (and that visceral hatred for liberals in general which surfaced during the Clinton Admin) is to be naive. Given that number of assassins and would-be assassins were deranged it was wise to shut down that poll and investigate lest in influence some nutter carrying out what they think is the people's will

Just let the guy have his say. He's obviously sick of this crap as I and many others.

Why would the US be on fire? Unless there is a vast conspiracy from a significant portion of the population why would people set things on fire? Just because they are animals and like to burn things?

wtf??? he calls himself a designer?? all the clothing he sells and the paintings, i could make with sharpie markers and duct tape. oh and what a variety all of his clothing is small. Who sells a shitty cotton t-shirt for 80 bucks??? I could make that myself.....in fact i could make all of his clothing myself....

But you didn't.

despicable.

The difference is you didn't see a poll like this for Mr Bush whether he deserved it or not it's still treason. You can't threaten a sitting President.

If anyone said anything like that they would have been in jail so fast it would make their head spin. People went to jail for cracking jokes in airports. A friend went to jail for a year and a half for telling off a local bank president.

Even now after all the teabagger nonsense that got no push back from police, suddenly it is all starwars weapons and tear gas when liberal protesters show up in Pittsburgh.

Obama would arrest someone for doing the same thing to him as any other President?

He's worse than you care to admit to if that's true.

shut up and start raising your hand to speak

He's just as white as he is black. Just shut up with that bullshit already. God forbid somebody assassinates him and we have to hear about it for the next half century from jackasses like you.

I wonder if this poll had occurred 5 years ago would you all be so quick to condemn it?

It's funny how some whites scramble to claim President Obama's white side now the he's president.

It's equally funny how ALL blacks claim his black side now that he's president.

Whoa whoa whoa.

It is not anyone's place to "claim" a man's race.

Biracial people are completely ignored and this causes some of them to chose a race with which they identify. Obama chose black. Black people didn't "claim" him and white people cannot "claim" him now.

Ugh.

I'm so frustrated.