400% increase in threats. Guess there is no doubt that those with no ideas and no arguments are heavily involved.

Threating the President

The link is corrupted:
(http://hhttp//) causes problems.

OMG corruption everywhere—fixed it

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/24/secret-service-threats-against-obama-declining.html

Hmmm…are they rising or falling or even changing at all? Is this just more hype to pre-sell another “tell all” book. No where in the article you cite are the threats categorized so how is it you manage to pinpoint them to ones “without ideas or arguments”? Those who make the threats obviously have an idea of what they would like to happen and presumeably would not make threats unless they had an argument against the person they threaten. They may be described as deranged or sociopathic but until they are actually identified their political leanings are at best conjecture.

But of course all threats began at 400% above the norm.. And as the right wing digs deeper into it’s bottom of the barrel conservative base one becomes very much aware that there are No Ideas NO arguments and that is why the right wing is full of mindless morons increasingly reverting to threats.

I am sure if you really believe all these threats are non existent or they all come from left wing extremist secret societies you will find substantiation in the right wing lie factory of blog galour. Please enlighten us!

And really quoting a right wing opinion blog taking a quote out of context regarding a period of time 18 months ago is just typical of a Snake Oil Salesman. Wallowing in your own propaganda will once again get you all tangled up.

Constant danger to our President. Right wing pooh pooh trying to play down there role is something else.. first they claim to know everything better then they claim to no nothing at all ......

Incident Map

“But of course all threats began at 400% above the norm.. “
Do you actually proofread what you write? How could they begin 400% above the norm when the first one made doesn’t even approach the norm.
Since when did US News&World; Report become a right wing blog? The article is dated March 2010. Hardly 18 months ago unless you are using a new progressive calendar of which I am unaware.
Of the total number of threats, how many were actually serious and how many were just some drunk saying “Ah shoot the bastard” and being turned in by the paranoid liberals? Actually I am quite surprised there hasn’t been at least one shooter to actually make contact. I mean come on they even tried to pop Ford and he was less controversial than Obama. Most of these people who make these threats are mentally challenged or as we say down here “just f*kin nuts” and craving their five minutes of fame(infamy). Anyone who is seriously thinking of doing harm to the President or anyone else for that matter does not make a habit of proclaiming their intentions but rather does the deed and hopes to get away. Do I believe arrests have been made? Certainly. Do I believe that most of those arrested were actually capable of carrying out an assassination? NO. Most would probably shoot themselves in the foot or be so amateur that the Secret Service would stop them before they made their first move. I also believe that many of the threats against Obama come from racists who have no political agendas although we know both major parties have their share of racists.Imagine if everyday citizens were arrested for threatening someone using the same criteria.Lots of baseball fans would be in the pokey for yelling “Kill the Umpire”. If you are truly concerned about the president’s health tell him to stop smoking. Tell him the tobacco farms are run by George Bush.That ought to do it.

Here’s another persons view of all this.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Who’s threating whom

Obama’s not so special:  http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

Zombie time eh ... real good JK—I think you will note from the original article that many Presidents were mentioned. The point being that Big O’s threat level achieve the mind boggling 400% above the norm (which by the way I used as a satirical response to your original post)
There is no use in changing the focus point to Bush in the usual conservative change the subject as fast as you can response. No President should suffer death threats whether you believe them to be innocent extremist right wing funny things to say or not. And I do believe unless I miss read that the subject matter was about threats and not arrests or convictions or jailing without trial or anything else.
What’s a progressive calender look like? Now I know we progress from one day to the next, well at least all the non-conservatives eh LOL
Racists have no political agenda? Pleease who would ever suspect the right wing of not being the predominant hang out of such low life.

Funny you should ask about who would not suspect racists to be rightists…
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25759
Indeed many presidents were mentioned in the original article. Trouble is they were mentioned in anecdotes not connected with death threats at all. In your typical biased fashion you seem to think the threats against Obama are more serious than those against other presidents. Where was your outrage when Bush was being assailed? And were those threats all from the right also?  The point of showing the signs protesting Bush is not whether people were arrested or not but whether these events were even recorded as threats and the answer to that is an emphatic NO. However in the case of Obama every sign,mumbled thought or even, it seems, show of displeasure is treated as a threat.That accounts for the 400% rise because there was a rise in reported incidents not necessarily a rise in the total number of incidents.
I agree that no president should be threatened and that all threats should be investigated.Where we disagree is whether knowledge of those threats should be made public and misused by the media to distort the real facts.

LOL So you who would ignore threats to Obama claim I who highlighted threats to all Presidents to be bias because I highlighted threats which were the topic of the article. Right On Mr. Snake.

Where was your outrage when Bush was being assailed? I don’t recall a peep out of you and Please stop changing the subject.

Where we disagree is whether knowledge of those threats should be made public and misused by the media to distort the real facts.

OMG what the hell is he talking about now ......JK I am sure you will disagree with anything I say but when you disagree with something I have never said well…......—okay I’ll bite JK—- What the Hell Are You Talking About?

Jim,
  Where did I say I would ignore threats to any president? What I said was that what is considered a threat today was not reported as a threat when Bush was in office. Hence the increase of 400%. If you tally up all the unreported threats to Bush,whether signs at protests or celebrity quotes that 400% increase will drop dramatically. For reasons unknown,the Secret Service and the FBI appear to have adopted a much more stringent interpretation of the law than they did under Bush.
  You heard no outrage from me about Bush because no matter how abhorrent or outrageous I considered those posters and remarks to be I did not consider them to be legitimate threats. It may very well be argued that they were covered under First Amendment rights but as with all things governmental there is no clearly defined definition and it remains difficult to prove intent unless there is an actual physical attempt.
  By releasing information about threats to the public I feel we are only giving copy cats fodder to feed their own fantasies and the media a chance to stir up a climate of paranoia.
  The article you cited does compare the threats to both Bush and Obama but as far as the other presidents listed the content is more anecdotal and does not go into details about death threats to any of them.The closest would be the reference to the SS agents who felt they could have saved JFK by riding on the tail platform.
I do not necessarily disagree with everything you say. What I disagree with is blanket statements pinning every calamity known to man on the right or conservatives which you claim to be yourself so go figure.