Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: 29% of Registered Voters, Revolution Necessary in Few Years. Public Mind Poll

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    29% of Registered Voters, Revolution Necessary in Few Years. Public Mind Poll

    Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University. http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...t-be-necessary
    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/
    BELIEFS ABOUT SANDY HOOK COVER-UP, COMING REVOLUTION UNDERLIE DIVIDE ON GUN CONTROL
    Democrats and Republicans continue to be divided over the need for new gun control laws, and the most recent national survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds that attitudes regarding the perceived likelihood of an armed revolution to protect liberties and the truth about the Sandy Hook shooting are helpful in explaining this partisan divide. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Democrats say that Congress needs to pass new laws to protect the public from gun violence, but the views of Republicans are almost completely opposite: 65 percent don’t think new laws are necessary. Overall, registered voters are divided over the need for new gun control legislation. Fifty percent agree it is needed, with 39 percent who disagree.
    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/keyquestions/current.pdf

    Key Questions, Longitudinal graphs for recurring questions asked in multiple surveys over time.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The Washington Times: Will this happen? 65% YES

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls...ublicans-thin/

    Yes 21(65%)
    No 7(21%)
    Undecided 4(12%)
    Other 0(0%)

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls...ublicans-thin/

    Yes 21(65%)
    No 7(21%)
    Undecided 4(12%)
    Other 0(0%)
    They surveyed 32 whole people!! Quite a representative cross section. What is their margin of error....50 - 60%?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    66 citizens as of this posting. The MOE must be down to 48% ±3% by now.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

    First is the fox article on this subject. The second is the actual survey results. It was done with 863 registered voters and has an error range of 3.4 percentage points. It was NOT done with just 32 people like some are claiming.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Somebody call the palm beach sheriff's office

    http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/...tion-un/nXbs4/

    "Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed."
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    This percentage seems to fit with the 26% of of people in the US who self-identify as members of "Evangelical Churches."
    http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

    Or with the 23% who definitely believe that Jesus will return and walk the earth in their lifetime(s).
    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...turn-to-earth/

    Or the 27% who are very sure that global warming isn't happening. Or the number of folks who still think the Iraq war was a good idea.
    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kg...raph-8424.html

    Now I'm not saying it's so, but this steady base of reality-challenged Americans does seem to correlate with the percentage of the population living in the Bible Belt.
    Last edited by beebobby; 05-03-2013 at 01:19 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

    First is the fox article on this subject. The second is the actual survey results. It was done with 863 registered voters and has an error range of 3.4 percentage points. It was NOT done with just 32 people like some are claiming.
    The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 863 registered voters was conducted nationally by
    telephone with both landline and cell phones from April 22 through April 28, 2013, and has a
    margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points.


    from non-Fox summary ...

    I'm sure that 20% of the US population will agree to ANYTHING if asked but the % of this one is too high to be just general polling error.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Hate much ?
    Truth=/=Hate

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    This percentage seems to fit with the 26% of of people in the US who self-identify as members of "Evangelical Churches."
    http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

    Or with the 23% who definitely believe that Jesus will return and walk the earth in their lifetime(s).
    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...turn-to-earth/

    Or the 27% who are very sure that global warming isn't happening. Or the number of folks who still think the Iraq war was a good idea.
    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kg...raph-8424.html

    Now I'm not saying it's so, but this steady base of reality-challenged Americans does seem to correlate with the percentage of the population living in the Bible Belt.
    So being a member of Evangelical Churches means one is reality-challenged? Or believing in your religion and thinking that these are the days talked about for the second coming makes one reality-challenged? Or that "climate change" isn't really being caused by humans like it's stated (after all, the world was supposedly warmer before the Ice Age so things could just be trying to go back to that)? Or that going into Iraq based off of the information available at that time (regardless of how the war ended being run or anything found out after-the-fact) means one is reality-challenged?

    While I don't agree with three of the four things you listed, your attitude towards those you disagree with is arrogant and dismissive.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Hate much ?
    Must be a FBI employee lol ... just quoting agency opinion

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    So being a member of Evangelical Churches means one is reality-challenged? Or believing in your religion and thinking that these are the days talked about for the second coming makes one reality-challenged? Or that "climate change" isn't really being caused by humans like it's stated (after all, the world was supposedly warmer before the Ice Age so things could just be trying to go back to that)? Or that going into Iraq based off of the information available at that time (regardless of how the war ended being run or anything found out after-the-fact) means one is reality-challenged?

    While I don't agree with three of the four things you listed, your attitude towards those you disagree with is arrogant and dismissive.
    Evangelical Churches dismiss evolution and support creation. Evolution is a tested and proven scientific fact, those who dismiss it and instead cling to the myth that the Earth is 6000 years old is being 100% reality challenged.

    Every Generation of Christians has claimed their times to be the "end-times" in fact even the Bible assures us that he shall return before the end of his disciples lives. Continuing this long standing trend of being wrong is being reality challenged.

    Climate change isn't being CAUSED by humans, humans are INTERFERING with climate change. If you don't think that releasing abundant amounts of carbon dioxide into the air can and will cause the greenhouse effect then you might want to read up on Venus and just why it's so hot. -Reality challenged.

    He said "people who STILL think the Iraq War was a good idea" not "those who thought it was a good idea at the time". Anyone who STILL thinks it was a good idea is definitely reality challenged.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    This thread enjoys a tenuous place in the Social Lounge at best. The discussion regarding a poll will not become a place to attack religion nor insult fellow posters/users.

    Speak directly to the OP or don't post. Again I find the need to remind that there are limits on the Social Lounge - it is not an anything goes zone.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    I went an Evengelical church last week and sure enough, everyone there was being supplied, outfitted and preparing for armed revolution in America.
    Still stirring the pot w/o facts, I see. Just straining the good graces of OCDO.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    SIP
    Climate change isn't being CAUSED by humans, humans are INTERFERING with climate change. If you don't think that releasing abundant amounts of carbon dioxide into the air can and will cause the greenhouse effect then you might want to read up on Venus and just why it's so hot. -Reality challenged.

    SNIP
    It would do one well to do a bit of checking. On Earth, which is where we are, Water Vapor is the most prevalent green house gas. The green house contribution from Carbon Dioxide is insignificant comparatively.

    Use of pseudo science which insults the average intelligence may lead to a feeling that armed revolution is necessary. Especially if the pseudo science is used as a way to tax.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 05-03-2013 at 05:40 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Watts Up With That? "...the world's most viewed climate website"

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Use of pseudo science which insults the average intelligence may lead to a feeling that armed revolution is necessary. Especially if the pseudo science is used as a way to tax.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/0...cal-landscape/

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It would do one well to do a bit of checking. On Earth, which is where we are, Water Vapor is the most prevalent green house gas. The green house contribution from Carbon Dioxide is insignificant comparatively.

    Use of pseudo science which insults the average intelligence may lead to a feeling that armed revolution is necessary. Especially if the pseudo science is used as a way to tax.
    Water vapor is about 100x the heat retention gas that carbon dioxide is ... we don't live on Venus ....

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It would do one well to do a bit of checking. On Earth, which is where we are, Water Vapor is the most prevalent green house gas. The green house contribution from Carbon Dioxide is insignificant comparatively.

    Use of pseudo science which insults the average intelligence may lead to a feeling that armed revolution is necessary. Especially if the pseudo science is used as a way to tax.
    Non-relevant. We NEED greenhouse gases to live, however if more of these gasses are added than removed it can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Which is exactly what has happened on Venus. With excessive gasses, and more deforestation it can and does have a negative effect on the atmosphere. It may take hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years before it becomes a significant problem, but the point is prevention instead of waiting for it to happen and trying to fix it then.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Non-relevant. We NEED greenhouse gases to live, however if more of these gasses are added than removed it can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Which is exactly what has happened on Venus. With excessive gasses, and more deforestation it can and does have a negative effect on the atmosphere. It may take hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years before it becomes a significant problem, but the point is prevention instead of waiting for it to happen and trying to fix it then.
    It is not irrelevant that the contribution of carbon dioxide gas to the green house effect here on Earth is insignificant compared to water vapor. Particularly when considering "man added" carbon dioxide, which is also insignificant when compared to CO2 naturally released. The sky is falling.

    We don't actually know what happened on Venus, but my guess is that it was taxed to the point of armed rebellion.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Truth=/=Hate
    No. It does not. However, name calling does. His post was hateful.

    He might have gotten away with his hate simply by subtly pointing out the (meaninglessly rough) coincidences in the numbers, but he went on to call a name. That is blatant hatred.

    I will take this opportunity to restate a message that has gained some traction: IMO, militant atheists actually believe in God. They just are actively denying His sovereignty. If they were truly atheists, they wouldn't feel the need to jump into a thread that had nothing to do with religion and take the opportunity to bash religion. If they were truly atheists, they would not see belief as any kind of a threat or problem, would shrug their shoulders, and would move on--especially if religion had not even been brought up in the discussion.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Evangelical Churches dismiss evolution and support creation. Evolution is a tested and proven scientific fact, those who dismiss it and instead cling to the myth that the Earth is 6000 years old is being 100% reality challenged.
    Theory.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Non-relevant. We NEED greenhouse gases to live, however if more of these gasses are added than removed it can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Which is exactly what has happened on Venus. With excessive gasses, and more deforestation it can and does have a negative effect on the atmosphere. It may take hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years before it becomes a significant problem, but the point is prevention instead of waiting for it to happen and trying to fix it then.
    So, you're saying that Venus was a man made disaster? That it once had thriving forests and ecosystems?

    Interesting, so with what information are you basing your claims?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Theory.
    This shows your ignorance to what a "Theory" means in science. "In everyday speech, the word "theory" is used as a "best guess". In modern science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out." In scientific terms, the creation belief system would be labeled a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, you're saying that Venus was a man made disaster? That it once had thriving forests and ecosystems?

    Interesting, so with what information are you basing your claims?
    Huh? Erm no, venus' runaway greenhouse effect was caused in large from excessive gas output from volcanoes but had no way of removing any of the gases from the atmosphere. I've never stated that I agreed with everything that is stated about global warming, but the basic principal of humans increasing the release of greenhouse gases, while also deforesting can and will cause an imbalance. There are plenty of studies done that show a slow rise in the temperature, that coincides with the loss of ice at the poles, which coincides with a slight rise in the ocean levels. I have noticed that generally those who say global warming is hogwash are usually the same people who say evolution is "Just a Theory" or some nonsense similar to that. So it's probably best not to spend much time talking to them as they obviously have a much larger problem called being -Reality Challenged.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    29% of Registered Voters, Revolution Necessary in Few Years. Public Mind Poll

    Your definition of a "theory" is flat wrong. Every one of Newton's theories and laws have been proven false. Yet we continue to use them and call them laws and theories? Why? Because, under many circumstances, despite known errors, they still produce usable results.

    It is not the truth of a theory or a law that gives it value. It is its tested and proven utility.

    So, if you are going to condescendingly tell another poster how wrong he is, you might want to be right yourself.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Your definition of a "theory" is flat wrong. Every one of Newton's theories and laws have been proven false. Yet we continue to use them and call them laws and theories? Why? Because, under many circumstances, despite known errors, they still produce usable results.

    It is not the truth of a theory or a law that gives it value. It is its tested and proven utility.

    So, if you are going to condescendingly tell another poster how wrong he is, you might want to be right yourself.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Actually Newtons gravitational theory has been replaced by Einsteins theory of relativity where he corrected some of the mistakes of Newtons theory. Not everything in Newtons Theory was wrong, so it does still have usable applications, but as a whole Einsteins theory is used. Evolution has yet to be faced with a single piece of evidence that contradicts the claim that all current lifeforms evolved over time from simpler lifeforms. It's been tested and proven, tested and proven, to the point that it's almost completely unlikely that any evidence will surface that will be used to disprove evolution. When presented with mounds of evidence in support of something, and instead you dismiss said claim and cling on to your own personal hypothesis you are -Reality Challenged.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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