==>>Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings, and no one came close to him. Obama gets elected, and he's got 500+ threats already.<<==

Hate to burst your bubble smittens but threats are made on a fairly regular basis against presidents. and the interpretation of a "threat" is pretty broad anymore. Additionally as the first "black" president he's getting lots of extra attention from the wacko's out there. You're going to have to prove that the extra threats are because hes a democrat not a african american before making claims like that.

(also for the record i know of 5 democrats in my own town that said they would vote for mc-cain before a (ni..ahem) so you also need to prove that all the threts came from republicans.

I also tend to be suspicious of how much attention is being focused on the threats against him because its easy for the news media to spin into a racial thing. If you can find some hard numbers that show how many threats presidents carter through pres-elect obama recieved over a specific period and the threats against the dems are higher than the ones against the repubs you have a case, otherwise you have a hollow extrapolated argument based on nothing.

time to go to work, hi VO later all.

Obviously there are a lot for any president, but even you're admitting there's more for Obama than usual. Again, you just aren't being very um...smart... to think that there's the same number of crazy southern assassins that are democrats as republicans. Also I would make the argument that Republicans as a whole aren't going to support a black president for the next 500 years, so him being a black president is a function of being democrat, and thus prov'd.

Actually smittens i dont ==>> think that there's the same number of crazy southern assassins that are democrats as republicans.<<==

I think that given the south's strong democratic leanings that there are quite likely far MORE crazy southern assasins that are democrats than republicans.

so smittens, you arent bneing very umm... smart ... if you think a declaration of political party is going to outweigh bigotry and racism, which ARE more prevalent in the south.

I (living in OHIO) know democrats who had campaign signs for every local and state democrat planted in thier yards yet also refused to put up one for Obama on the grounds of his race. I dont even live in a particularly racist area.

Also you are trying to put words in my mouth and i dont like it.

I did not admit that theres more for obama than usual, i said hes drawing attention from more wackos. I asked you to prove, with facts, that hes getting more than usual.

Also i think i need to point out that investegations does not equal actual threats. The following story us anecdotal as it was told to me by a friend, and i cant verify the truth of the actual facts (to be totally honest i highly doubt it ever took place, my friend likes to make shit up as he goes along), but the underlying concept I'll point out at the end is valid.

A friend of my friend who is a big supporter of obama went to a rally wearing a home-made t-shirt with the following on the front "As a good democrat i want to hit bush" The secret service saw the slogan and opened a file (an investigation) on him as a potnetial threat to the sitting president. When questioned ar his home by the secret service the next day he showed them the back of the t-shirt which featured a large picture of a can of beer with "but then doesn't everone" written under it.

While (knowing the friend that told me the story) i'd guess the whole thing is complete Bull****, at best the secret service would turn something like that over to a local cop and not bother wasting thier time on it. but the underlying concept is that: The events above would count as an investigation of a threat against the president of the united states, and be filed as such.

now, i'll ask you again, before you throw around some wild assed accusation like "only republicans would try to assasinate a president" which is basically what you stated with

===>>> what separates Republicans from Democrats is that Republicans ACTUALLY will fucking assassinate someone<<<===

i would like you to dig up some statistics about how many actual threats are made to canidates and sitting presidents, and compare them election by election, (while you are at it see if you can find them as a percentage of the voter turnout as well, since elections that more people participated in obviously generated more interest and more likely more attention from wackos)

Also if you were being ..umm .. smart .. You would think for a moment and realize that the long drawn out democratic primary*(which was a good thing, more political process is only good for the country as a whole), gave more media attention to the canidates than usual and even if the number of threats is higher, there was also more time and exposure for the threats to be made in

[[*and he fact that elections in general are starting sooner, i think hillary was campaigning for president when she was running for governer of new york wasnt she?? (that was sarcasm smittens, its meant to be exxagerated)]]

Oh and for the record :

The republicans have fielded several african american canidates over the last several elections, and they got little to no press attention. (ahem, alan keys, ahem)

Btw smittens, since you seem to think that democrats are so pure, i'll invite you to comment on the fact that they caused the housing bust with the law that they introduced, and passed with a veto-proof majority that made it ILLEGAL for banks to refuse to give out those sub-prime loans to people that couldnt afford them and would have never gotten them before that law was passed. i think thier reasoning was "it will make housing availible to everyone" well its done that, since housing prices and property values are falling at record speed.

Oh for one final point, i'm registered as an independant and didnt even bother to vote for a president this year, I only voted on state and local issues and left that box blank. My issue is with the way you are making your argument, not your political views. Saying that because obama had possible threats against him investigated means that republicans are the only ones who will actually assasinate someone is NOT a good jump in logic.

edit (oh and sorry ananzi, we really do seem to have hijacked your perfectly inane trolling thread)

This is all very illuminating. Not about the election, because that's all been speculation, half-truths and distortions. What say we table this until we actually have a new president in office and things actually happen?

Not so very long ago we worried about MY tyranny!

Why you do this whistler?
The race to page 100 thread was far more interesting and had more substance and you made it disappear. Yet you let this abomination that is a political thread live on? ;_;

Just, blind. And determined. :/

But...how many scandals have there been involving republicans in the last few years? And how many involving democrats? I'm not saying we're pure...just the greedy, political big-headedness that leads people to scandalize is more likely to be found in Republicans. We're down a few points in the last year, but if you look at a time period...say Bush's term...Republicans are dominating the field.

I'm not doubting that there are african american republican candidates. But realistically, they're not going to make the ticket for a long time.

And what democratic-controlled south are you looking at? The one from Lincoln's time doesn't count...

Shadoen, I'm surprised that you would ask. I made the reason for archiving that thread quite clear: it was messing up the formatting for the whole Off-Topic forum. I let it go until 100, which I thought was decent, but ultimately its presence could not be ignored. This IS the Off Topic forum, and this kind of thread is fair game here so long as it doesn't get out of hand. Unlike the race to 100, if you don't like this thread you can ignore it with no ill effects. I'm not fond of this thread myself.

greedy, political big-headedness . . . is more likely to be found in Republicans.

Oh yeah, that's a totally valid statement: Republicans like Congressman Moran, who speaks out against the "simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it, and they have an antipathy to the means of redistributing wealth."

Oops, he's a Dem.