Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .[W:25]

[Harshaw]

. . . in an article dated August 27th?

More Americans Have Supported Syrian Air Strikes Than Opposed | TIME.com

Note the wording in the actual link itself -- "new poll." That matches the link title when it comes up in a Google search, and given that the story was acknowledged to be changed, it probably matched the original headline.

July 11th was almost 7 weeks ago. There is much, much more recent polling available, and it shows much less support.

Reuters, for example, conducted Aug 23-25, shows a 12% approval for the "air strikes" Time cites a 49% approval for.

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

 

[iliveonramen]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

. . . in an article dated August 27th?

More Americans Have Supported Syrian Air Strikes Than Opposed | TIME.com

Note the wording in the actual link itself -- "new poll." That matches the link title when it comes up in a Google search, and given that the story was acknowledged to be changed, it probably matched the original headline.

July 11th was almost 7 weeks ago. There is much, much more recent polling available, and it shows much less support.

Reuters, for example, conducted Aug 23-25, shows a 12% approval for the "air strikes" Time cites a 49% approval for.

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

The media loves a good war! They sure as **** beat the drum for war heavily before we went into Iraq.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

. . . in an article dated August 27th?

More Americans Have Supported Syrian Air Strikes Than Opposed | TIME.com

Note the wording in the actual link itself -- "new poll." That matches the link title when it comes up in a Google search, and given that the story was acknowledged to be changed, it probably matched the original headline.

July 11th was almost 7 weeks ago. There is much, much more recent polling available, and it shows much less support.

Reuters, for example, conducted Aug 23-25, shows a 12% approval for the "air strikes" Time cites a 49% approval for.

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

It is obvious that you, Russia and China are opposed to the USA and its allies punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Well, you, the Russians, and the Chinese are wasting your breath, because whether you guys like it or not, Syria is going to pay a heavy price for its use of chemical weapons.

Deal with it.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

It is obvious that you, Russia and China are opposed to the USA and its allies punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Well, you, the Russians, and the Chinese are wasting your breath, because whether you guys like it or not, Syria is going to pay a heavy price for its use of chemical weapons.

Deal with it.

What is the objective for using force, and what is the desired outcome? Out of 70M-100M dead during this conflict, we are going to punish Syria for a few hundred deaths? Explain how that makes sense in your world please...

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

It is obvious that you, Russia and China are opposed to the USA and its allies punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Well, you, the Russians, and the Chinese are wasting your breath, because whether you guys like it or not, Syria is going to pay a heavy price for its use of chemical weapons.

Deal with it.

Someday, you might learn how to use the quote function.

Or not. Either way, this isn't about me.

 

[iliveonramen]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

What is the objective for using force, and what is the desired outcome? Out of 70M-100M dead during this conflict, we are going to punish Syria for a few hundred deaths? Explain how that makes sense in your world please...

Exactly...any collateral damage from a bombing campaign in Syria will kill more Syrians than the use of chemical weapons.

Assad needs to be removed but the use of force isn't the method.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

What is the objective for using force, and what is the desired outcome? Out of 70M-100M dead during this conflict, we are going to punish Syria for a few hundred deaths?

Explain how that makes sense in your world please...

If you don't understand it I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

But I will tell you that it is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Deal with it.





"[B]Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
[/B]

 

[polgara]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

What is the objective for using force, and what is the desired outcome? Out of 70M-100M dead during this conflict, we are going to punish Syria for a few hundred deaths? Explain how that makes sense in your world please...

Good evening, AP. :2wave:

The only question I have is... who is the guilty party that should be punished? With all the back and forth accusations flying around, and all the subsequent denials, shouldn't we be sure? We can be fairly certain that the average Syrian probably had no hand in this, especially the women and children. :thumbdown:

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

If you don't understand it I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

But I will tell you that it is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Deal with it.





"[B]Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
[/B]

I know the President feels a bit butt hurt, but what is the endgame for any attack after so many have already been allowed to die?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Good evening, AP. :2wave:

The only question I have is... who is the guilty party that should be punished? With all the back and forth accusations flying around, and all the subsequent denials, shouldn't we be sure? We can be fairly certain that the average Syrian probably had no hand in this, especially the women and children. :thumbdown:

Good evening pg. I'm just interested in the endgame. Is the President doing this to simply save face given his remarks of a year ago? Do we not care about the others who have died, only those who may have died as a result of chemical weapons? This type of response makes no sense at all given how long we have ignored everything else that has been going on...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

The media loves a good war! They sure as **** beat the drum for war heavily before we went into Iraq.

Wrong, the media loves Obama and they know he is going to take military action so they are blocking for him.

 

[mpg]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Wrong, the media loves Obama and they know he is going to take military action so they are blocking for him.

It's both.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Someday, you might learn how to use the quote function.

Or not. Either way, this isn't about me.[

/QUOTE]




It isn't about any Americans.

It's about Syria and its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Someday, you might learn how to use the quote function.

It isn't about any Americans.

It's about Syria and its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

No. It's about Time Magazine and their choice of a 7-week old poll that they present as current.

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

No. It's about Time Magazine and their choice of a 7-week old poll that they present as current.

From Time:

Correction Appended, Aug. 27 12:01 p.m.
...
Correction: The original version of this story incorrectly stated that this poll had been conducted after the most recent reports of chemical weapons attacks in Syria. It has been corrected.

Read more: More Americans Have Supported Syrian Air Strikes Than Opposed | TIME.com

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

From Time:

:roll: Thanks, Pete, but I said in the OP that it acknowledged the story being changed.

It still reads as though it's presenting a current poll, and there is no reason whatsoever to choose a 7-week old poll as the basis of a story published two days ago.

 

[mpg]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

It isn't about any Americans.

It's about Syria and its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

]No. It's about Time Magazine and their choice of a 7-week old poll that they present as current.

[/B]

Believe whatever you want to believe about anything.

Won't cost me a nickel.

I don't have time to waste on those who support the Syrian regime.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.

Believe what you want to believe about anything.

Won't cost me a nickel.

I don't have time to waste on those who support the Syrian regime.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.

:roll: Thanks, Pete, but I said in the OP that it acknowledged the story being changed.

It still reads as though it's presenting a current poll, and there is no reason whatsoever to choose a 7-week old poll as the basis of a story published two days ago.

What is going to happen is going to happen if a thousand polls oppose it.

Deal with it.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Believe whatever you want to believe about anything.

Won't cost me a nickel.

I don't have time to waste on those who support the Syrian regime.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Are you for real? I mean, seriously.

If you are, you provide a brilliant beacon for how not to be.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.

Are you for real? I mean, seriously.

If you are, you provide a brilliant beacon for how not to be.

I am not interested in whether you are for real or not.

Your opinion means less than nothing to me.

And certainly will not change my opinion on anything.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

I am not interested in whether you are for real or not.

Your opinion means less than nothing to me.

And certainly will not change my opinion on anything.

I see no further benefit in interacting with you in the slightest.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.

Are you for real? I mean, seriously.

If you are, you provide a brilliant beacon for how not to be.

I see no further benefit in interacting with you in the slightest.

Whatever makes you happy. That doesn't change my opinion on anything, but it's always up to you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Gina]

Re: Why would Time Magazine cite a poll published July 11th . . .

Moderator's Warning:

Ok, please return to discussing the topic, which is not each other.