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

[mpg]

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.

Whether or not we should or will intervene in Syria, also isn't the topic.

 

[MACS-24]

. . . 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

So, what's the point of this thread?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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.

It's not our fight, why would/should we get involved? That never ends well.

 

[shrubnose]

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

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

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

Are you for real? I mean, seriously.

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

Be however you want to be.

Won't cost me a nickel.

 

[shrubnose]

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

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

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

It's not our fight, why would/should we get involved?

That never ends well.

Was the WWII Holocaust our fight?

Would you have supported the USA and its allies doing anything to stop that?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

Was the WWII Holocaust our fight?

Would you have supported the USA and its allies doing anything to stop that?

No, Japan was our fight, Europe was not.

 

[shrubnose]

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

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

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

It's not our fight, why would/should we get involved? That never ends well.

No, Japan was our fight, Europe was not.

If you do just a little research you will find that the USA did a lot of fighting against Nazi Germany and its allies.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

If you do just a little research you will find that the USA did a lot of fighting against Nazi Germany and its allies.

I never claimed that we didn't.... :shrug: context means a lot.

 

[shrubnose]

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

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

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

It's not our fight, why would/should we get involved? That never ends well.

No, Japan was our fight, Europe was not.

I never claimed that we didn't...

. :shrug: context means a lot.

No, what you said was that in WWII the USA's fight was with Japan and I just pointed out that the USA did a lot of fighting against the Nazi Germans and their allies.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

No, what you said was that in WWII the USA's fight was with Japan and I just pointed out that the USA did a lot of fighting against the Nazi Germans and their allies.

And what exactly is your point? Not following you here.

 

[shrubnose]

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

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

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

It's not our fight, why would/should we get involved? That never ends well.

No, Japan was our fight, Europe was not.

]And what exactly is your point?

[/B] Not following you here.

If you don't see the very simple point I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

If you don't see the very simple point I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

You don't have a point to what I actually said.

 

[shrubnose]

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

You don't have a point to what I actually said

.

Man, go peddle your bull**** somewhere else, I just don't have time to deal with you and your repetitive malarkey today.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

Man, go peddle your bull**** somewhere else, I just don't have time to deal with you and your repetitive malarkey today.

I haven't repeated anything. What I find interesting is whenever I ask you an honest question this is what you come back with. Why can't you just answer the question? Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a discussion? You asked me a question, and I answered, then you went off on a tangent, why would you not want to further discuss?

 

[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.

Whether or not we should or will intervene in Syria, also isn't the topic.

Moderator's Warning:

If you have a question or a comment about an in-thread warning, please either PM the mod or use the "Contact Us" button. Commenting on, questioning or debating mod boxes in-thread is against the rules.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

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

And what exactly is your point? Not following you here.

Germany was our fight in world war two because Nazi Germany declared war on the united states several days after the pearl harbor attack.

to say that germany was not our fight, while ignoring the fact germany declared war on us, is complete nonsense.

 

[mpg]

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.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/170508-should-we-go-into-syria.html

 

[Harshaw]

So, what's the point of this thread?

Time Magazine deliberately choosing an out-of-date poll, of course. Question: why? Opinions?

This was all spelled out in my OP and in the subject line, of course. Not sure how that was unclear.

 

[Grim17]

. . . 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

I can explain it in 3 words...

Supporting.... Our.... Messiah...

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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

Germany was our fight in world war two because Nazi Germany declared war on the united states several days after the pearl harbor attack.

to say that germany was not our fight, while ignoring the fact germany declared war on us, is complete nonsense.

We were involved before that, who is to say they would have declared war on us if we weren't already over there?