Jump to content



Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

44% of Republicans Believe "Armed Revolution is Necessary"


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#1 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

http://publicmind.fd...013/guncontrol/

Fucking seriously.
Posted Image

#2 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

That is the best signature on CAG.

Kudos to you.

Posted Image


#3 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:33 PM

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.


#4 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:51 PM

What's significant about the number?

Methodologically, I mean. Specifics would be ideal.

***

Thanks, Casey, wish I could take credit. Totally swiped it from elsewhere.
Posted Image

#5 panzerfaust

panzerfaust

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:52 PM

if you participate in telephone polls you're already a loon

UjCoyFa.png


#6 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:57 PM

They believe armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years. The question did not ask if it is necessary today, right this second.

And necessary is inherently subjective. For some armed revolution would be necessary because of privacy. For others it would be about economic turmoil. Personally, I don't think large groups of people would stage revolutions as long as they are not hungry and have plenty of gadgets to play with.

#7 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:04 PM

And necessary is inherently subjective.


agreed. that doesn't explain the massive disparity between self-identified Rs and Ds, however.
Posted Image

#8 highoffcoffee496

highoffcoffee496

    I gotta believe!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:07 PM

What's significant about the number?


Thanks, Casey, wish I could take credit. Totally swiped it from elsewhere.


It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:
(\__/)
(='.'=)
This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Posted Image

#9 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:09 PM

agreed. that doesn't explain the massive disparity between self-identified Rs and Ds, however.


Democrats might be more likely to consider unarmed revolution, like a bigger and badder Occupy Wall Street.

It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:

Well, you need to pick something between 1 and 300 million people, and I think any survey is going to be closer to 800-1000 participants based on cost considerations alone. Pointing to the sample size if not enough. You would have to argue why the results would change. The classic example is Dewey defeats Truman. The reason that headline was printed is because newspapers relied on telephone surveys. At that time, calling people on the phone did not give you a sample that was representative of the overall population. Had they surveyed people on the street, perhaps they would have gotten a different result. Today, almost everyone has a phone number so it's generally not a problem for that reason anymore.

My only concern about the sample, and this goes for any telephone survey, is that people who participate probably have too much time on their hands, and this might make the sample lean toward more unemployed or underemployed people who are disgruntled in the first place. Working people may be less likely to not have time to this nonsense, and don't have time for revolution either.

#10 Dead of Knight

Dead of Knight

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

That is the best signature on CAG.

Kudos to you.


First time I've seen it, it's just fantastic.
RIP Hiroshi Yamauchi

This is the greatest thing ever. Certainly in the OTT at least.


#11 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

http://publicmind.fd...013/guncontrol/

Fucking seriously.


Nuh-uh, both sides do.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#12 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:09 AM

http://publicmind.fd...013/guncontrol/

Fucking seriously.

And they wonder why some people think we need to keep crazies from buying firearms....:roll:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#13 RealDeals

RealDeals

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 02:08 AM

I'm seriously jelly over that sig. Well played, sir.
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#14 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 04:52 PM

What percentage of Republicans, the earth was created in a week, believe man walked with dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils were created as a big trick by the invisible red man, and/or the red man and the invisible man exist? Is it the same as the ones who believe in armed revolution (for dog knows what)?

Ironic that the gun masterbators (AKA nutz) believe the 2nd amendment is under attack while other amendments ARE under attack such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#15 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 06:12 PM

What percentage of Republicans, the earth was created in a week, believe man walked with dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils were created as a big trick by the invisible red man, and/or the red man and the invisible man exist? Is it the same as the ones who believe in armed revolution (for dog knows what)?

What do you object to, "armed" or "revolution?" What we saw in Seattle on May Day was an unarmed revolt, what for I don't know, but it was no less frightening.

Ironic that the gun masterbators (AKA nutz) believe the 2nd amendment is under attack while other amendments ARE under attack such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th.

Do you think that the majority of 2nd amendment defenders do not also want to defend the other three you mention?

#16 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:31 PM

And they wonder why some people think we need to keep crazies from buying firearms....:roll:



I see people who believe that an armed revolution might be necessary if the gov't were to become tyrannical are called "crazy" and "nutz" here. I wonder what you guys would have said during the Revolutionary War. And its good to know that you feel that holding opposing views to yours deems someone crazy and unworthy of their 2nd Amendment rights...:roll:

#17 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:15 PM

Do you think that the majority of 2nd amendment defenders do not also want to defend the other three you mention?


majority is irrelevant - anyone defending one thing, with Constitutional arguments being the foundation, on one side should not be taken seriously if they are willing to disregard any other aspect of the Constitution on the other.

The very notion of holding that document exalted as a legal/philosophical framework is to hold the *document* exalted, not portions of it. The entire argument becomes fallacious at that point.

Why is that hard to understand?
Posted Image

#18 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 11:15 PM

Where was this poll when Bush was around, but now we happen to have a "black" guy in office all of a sudden its armed revolution...

But of course calling most republican as racist is wrong... maybe they just have bad timing?

#19 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:31 AM

The very notion of holding that document exalted as a legal/philosophical framework is to hold the *document* exalted, not portions of it. The entire argument becomes fallacious at that point.

I agree, but take it to the ones who are doing that, like everyone in the mainstream left-right framework.

#20 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:03 AM

Care to expand on that comment beyond some "both sides are doing it" tripe? How are Democrats doing this, for instance?
Posted Image

#21 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:28 AM

Care to expand on that comment beyond some "both sides are doing it" tripe? How are Democrats doing this, for instance?


Oh I dont know... Maybe invading sovereign nations, bombing civilians, Obamacare, etc.

#22 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:04 AM

Or trying to limit free speech - always one of my favorites.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#23 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:45 PM

But of course calling most republican as racist is wrong...


why? it's accurate.

Oh I dont know... Maybe invading sovereign nations, bombing civilians, Obamacare, etc.



really? equating healthcare with those others? No wonder you're sporting a 'Viva la revolution" (or would be if it were in english). There is such a thing a degree of severity too ya know.

When the Democrats very questionably lost the 2000 election (even O'Connor is having second thoughts now), they dedicated ourselves to winning the next. When the crazy Rs lose 2 legitimate elections by large margins...it's armed revolution time. So forgive it I don't buy all of this

#24 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:48 PM

When the crazy Rs lose 2 legitimate elections by large margins...it's armed revolution time. So forgive it I don't buy all of this


There's a great story on Salon about Alex Jones as a business, and why he caters to such groups. It's a phenomenal read, but listening to Jones, and Beck as well, it's not hard to see why many Republicans feel that they need to revisit 1776. It's absurd, it's propaganda so brazen I can't believe people are dumb enough to fall for it, it's intellectually inconsistent - but it's effective. Appealing to hedonism through fearmongering is what it is.

That all said, if you listen to BS talk radio, the internal dialogue on the right over immigration is hilarious to hear. They've gone soooooo far over the crazy wall that they can't reasonably do anything to gain Latino votes without alienating the die-hard conservative crazy pants base. And if they simply cater to the base, they can't grow the party because they're so far over the crazy wall. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner, and the only thing they can do to win elections (and these are strategies they've been employing) is to Fuck with the electoral college, trying to pass "proportionate electoral vote" laws. They can't win with ideas, so they'll use their state-level political advantage to change the rules of the game to benefit themselves. In the meantime, they do spend a lot of time talking immigration reform, and making no sense at all because they're both everywhere at once and nowhere at all on the issue.

Their race relations are *so* bad that they seem to think that all they have to do is trot out Marco Rubio and that will attract Latino voters. Meanwhile, Senator "Wetback" from wherever he is from is totally cool and a-okay, I suppose. :lol:
Posted Image

#25 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

Can anyone provide stats from a similar survey that was done before Obama was elected (preferably during the Clinton years, but during the Bush years would be interesting as well)?

If we're going to say "Oh, black man is in office - white Republicans want to revolt!", shouldn't we have similar data when "white man" was in office and what people said then?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#26 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:08 PM

It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:


The sample size is a little small, but not extremely. They say 2,000 to 3,000 people is enough to accurately describe the entire nation. Of course, that's assuming a good random sampling. As somebody already mentioned, the fact that these people participated in a telephone poll already means the sample pool is skewed.

#27 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:12 PM

http://opinionator.b...dit_th_20130503

Short answer, republican/conservatives and this includes their leaders as well as the rank and file live in a world of their own making only barely connected to reality.

I am guessing most of these people saw "Red Dawn" to many times.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#28 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

The sample size is a little small, but not extremely. They say 2,000 to 3,000 people is enough to accurately describe the entire nation. Of course, that's assuming a good random sampling. As somebody already mentioned, the fact that these people participated in a telephone poll already means the sample pool is skewed.


It depends if you cherry picked the participants. Randomly polling 800 might give you enough of a diverse sample size where the results would be similar to if you had polled 80,000 however if you only call 800 people and they all happen to live in a conservative county in the South then that's a different story.

#29 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:35 PM

Well, the methodology's on page three, my friend.
Posted Image

#30 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:41 PM

Well, the methodology's on page three, my friend.


Yes but that doesn't tell me what I want to know.

Read this about margin of error and tell me if it makes you feel confident about a study conducted by the "prestigious" FDU. Almost every variable in that equation is derived from the assumption that they are using a large enough sample size and asking the question in a correct and unbiased fashion.

Second saying you conducted a "national" poll doesn't mean you randomly picked 800 participants in all "57" states.