. . . 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
. . . 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.
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...
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...
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]
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:
The media loves a good war! They sure as **** beat the drum for war heavily before we went into Iraq.
It's both.Wrong, the media loves Obama and they know he is going to take military action so they are blocking for him.
Someday, you might learn how to use the quote function.
/QUOTE]Or not. Either way, this isn't about me.[
It isn't about any Americans.
It's about Syria and its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
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.
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
From Time:
I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.It isn't about any Americans.
It's about Syria and its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
Harshaw;1062248609[B said:[/B]]No. It's about Time Magazine and their choice of a 7-week old poll that they present as current.
I thought it was about media bias, how silly of me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?