MilitaryTimes.com article claiming poll respondents are "[w]ary about Obama" did not note poll was based on voluntary responses
SUMMARY: MilitaryTimes.com reported: "When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey." But according to a separate MilitaryTimes.com article, the poll was based on voluntary responses by subscribers to Army Times Publishing Co. newspapers rather than a random statistical sample of service members. A report on the poll on Fox & Friends also omitted this information.
In a December 29 MilitaryTimes.com article headlined "2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama," staff writer Brendan McGarry reported: "When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey." McGarry further reported that "[t]he responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole," but he did not mention that according to a separate MilitaryTimes.com article, the poll was based on voluntary responses by subscribers to Army Times Publishing Co. newspapers rather than a random statistical sample of service members, and that therefore no margin of error can be calculated for the poll. A report on the poll on the January 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends also omitted this information, as did the Chicago Sun-Times' website, which posted excerpts of McGarry's article.
According to the separate MilitaryTimes.com article, the poll was "based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques." The article added: "The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results."
Additionally, McGarry asserted in his article that the "survey group overall ... over-represents soldiers." Earlier in the article, McGarry described the poll as a "survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers." Presumably, the poll therefore "over-represent[ed]" subscribers to Army Times, not "soldiers" in general, as McGarry suggested.
From the separate article, headlined "Sampling the military":
About 36,000 subscribers received invitations via e-mail to participate. Of those, 5,181 completed the survey. Except where noted, data were filtered to include 1,947 responses from active-duty subscribers.
The responses "no opinion," "declined to answer" and "other" are not shown for all questions. Some charts do not total 100 percent due to rounding.
Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.
The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.
Gannett News Service distributed McGarry's article, and Chicago Sun-Times website also published excerpts. The Sun-Times also did not note that the survey was a voluntary-response poll for which a margin of error cannot be calculated.
On the January 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson reported of the survey: "[I]t was asked how military members, active duty, feel about the next president of the United States as commander in chief. Well, many of them, the majority, say that they feel uncertain or pessimistic. Pretty strong words." Guest co-host Dave Briggs later added that "six out of 10 active-duty service members say they're uncertain or pessimistic about the president-elect, just to not confuse you about that poll." But Carlson and Briggs' suggestion that that the poll was based on a representative sample of "active-duty service members" is false. The hosts did not point out that the poll did not have a random sample, that it was not possible to calculate a margin of error for the poll, or that McGarry reported that "[t]he responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole" and that "[t]he survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members."
From the January 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: Let's talk a little bit about a new poll that has come out. It's from the Military Times, the 2008 Military Times poll. And it was asked how military members, active duty, feel about the next president of the United States as commander in chief. Well, many of them, the majority, say that they feel uncertain or pessimistic. Pretty strong words. Thirty-five percent do say that they are optimistic; 33 percent, pessimistic; 25 percent, no opinion. Eight percent -- I'm not sure exactly what that was. Can we put the full screen back up again, so we can describe this a little bit better?
CLAYTON MORRIS (guest co-host): Yeah, get out your abacus at home and try to figure out all of these numbers. Apparently a little computer crash there. But that -- those are the numbers. It's interesting, though, that of the six out of 10 of these active-duty service members, that they're saying, "Look, we're" -- they're worried about an Iraqi timetable. They're worried about Barack Obama's Iraqi timetable, and they're also worried about his inexperience, having never been in the military. They're worried about that. Those were the two concerns cited in this poll.
BRIGGS: Well, they're also worried about his stance against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Those are the things that he -- they say worries them the most. And again, it's -- I think the numbers confused it a little bit. But six out of 10 active-duty service members say they're uncertain or pessimistic about the president-elect, just to not confuse you about that poll. So, you know, he has time. But his approval rating otherwise among the general public is pretty much through the roof right now, and they are optimistic.
MORRIS: And to be fair, he is not president yet. So, you know, after 100 days in office, maybe do this poll again and see where they feel -- see if they still feel the same way about it.
CARLSON: Exactly. Because a lot of peoples have -- they've changed their mind since he actually won the election. Many people were concerned he was going to govern so far to the left. And so far, at least his picks for his Cabinet posts and such have been very moderate.
Let's talk a little bit about the inauguration, which is coming up in about three weeks from now. And one of the most important things, at least for the ladies, is what kind of dress are they going to wear.
MORRIS: Of course.
CARLSON: And the second-most important question is, Will anyone else have that same dress on?
From McGarry's MilitaryTimes.com article:
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama's lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
[...]
The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year's survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.
The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.
But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes.
In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats.
Guest co-host Dave Briggs later added that "six out of 10 active-duty service members say they're uncertain or pessimistic about the president-elect, just to not confuse you about that poll."
By the same token, 68% of respondents are optimistic or uncertain about Barack Obama as Commander in Chief...while only 25% are pessimistic.
Yeah, and reasonably they would be uncertain...BECAUSE HE ISN'T IN OFFICE YET! Shall we have a voluntary poll about BushieCo?
"By the same token, 68% of respondents are optimistic or uncertain about Barack Obama as Commander in Chief...while only 25% are pessimistic"
Yes, but you failed to note that is based on a voluntary response. So, in reality, the author of this article (MG) should be whining about your use of that data also.
I think the point was that even if you accept the data, it doesn't mean what it's being spun to mean.
How is the spin different than what mmfa is doing? So, the information mmfa is providing is misleading just as they whine about the poll being, huh? That means you support organizations that misinforms the information YOU support but whine about misinformation that doesn't?!? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
How is MMfa's info misleading? I believe the military supported Obama financially over Micky at a 6 to 1 ratio.
The antagonism between liberals and the military is a bogus talking point. The military answers to civilian authority. Rush Co. called for a mutiny against Clinton, is this your dream for Obama?
What the hell are you babbling about? They're not providing it as legitimate information. They're pointing out that the poll is worthless.
Yeah, voluntary polls are worthless. Like the one on Nov. 4th? That's voluntary.
It's not worthless, it's a picture of a non-random slice of the military. it's was not misrepresented - the article stated that it was 'not representative' of the military as a whole. MMFA just doesn't like it so they try to debunk it.
Because you see, if it doesn't agree with the liberal narrative, the "alternate reality," it can't possibly be true.
You are seriously comparing this poll to an election? Holy crap. What's the alternative for elections, calling up everyone of age in the country and asking them how they're voting? We're talking about polling here. That's getting a representative sample for the purposes of reflecting on a larger population. That's not nearly the same thing as the public deciding on candidates and issues.
The problem with voluntary polls is that people who are more motivated are going to be over-represented. For instance, if a majority of people approve of Obama, but aren't enthusiastic, while a small minority are violently opposed to him, the latter group will dominate a voluntary poll.
"The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers."
That doesn't address the voluntary nature of the poll. That's the problem. The article and the mention of it on FOX both failed to note that the poll has no margin of error, so there's no way to gauge how accurate it is at all.
...the article stated that it was 'not representative' of the military as a whole.
Then the poll is meaningless unless it is a representative sampling of the military as a whole. That's the point. Why bother to even report it?
Which is what I say about mmfa...why bother reporting it. The headline of this story is about mmfa whining because Military Times published a poll they did. If this is such a 'non-issue' why is mmfa even bothering? Wait, let me answer that one... because they are whiners. Just like the rest of the folks who attend that site and whine about this poll. MT gave a disclaimer at the beginning of the article, yet mmfa (and all of you) seem determined to whine as much as possible about a poll that was already debunked by the author of the poll.
Because it is evidence that Gannett Co., one of Wall Street's top two favored newspaper companies and the biggest newspaper company by some calculations, is deliberately misleading the public. Even if it had been a legitimate poll, it is inaccurate to lump "uncertain" with either polarity.
Military Times and all the other service "Times" and websites are Gannett holdings. I can tell you from experience, that Gannett Co. has little to no appreciation for objective journalistic standards.
Gannett should have reported that a voluntary poll of xx number of respondents found slightly more are optimistic than pessimistic, although the split was pretty even between optimistic, pessimistic and uncertain.
No one has mentioned that it also is inaccurate to claim the respondents were or weren't soldiers, or even members of the military. Families, friends and people completely unassociated with the military read these publications. It's not likely the Military Times authenticated each name, rank and serial number to make sure their were no false identifications or multiple entries from the same person.
I don't think for a minute that editors didn't know better.
A non-issue being portrayed as an issue is an issue. The media should concentrate on substantive issues and concerns. When they don't, it should be pointed out.
The time for anyone in the military to be worried about the military experience or lack of experience of the president is long past. Where were they with their concerns prior to the invasion?
They had no problem following the orders of a president who evaded service in his generations war
traditionally democrats are not very approving of the military or tha fact that the military draws heavily form the right. Further Obama has been very quick to swing to an opposing viewpoint if he is criticised -- witness Iraq and the palistinean idiots,
Probably not a good idea to bring up Viet Nam. There were draft dodgers in both parties-- Clinton on the left and Bush on the right. There were heroes on both sides --McCain is notable, and I'm sorry but I do not recall the names of democrat Viet Nam vets, but I'm confident they are in our government serving us still.
Clinton opposed the war. Bush didn't. If I recall correctly, Bush's drop-out of the TXANG made him eligible to be sent to Vietnam, but somehow he ended up "serving" in Alabama. There are some differences there. I think the point was that if they're going to follow Bush, there's essentially no standard that needs to be met to earn such loyalty. Therefore Obama's lack of military experience is not an issue.
If there are heroes and draft dodgers on both sides, then what warrants the statement that "traditionally democrats are not very approving of the military"? I guess the heroes on the left and the dodgers on the right are both rare exceptions, is that it?
I'm sorry but I do not recall the names of democrat Viet Nam vets,
John Kerry. He ran for president, remember?
He probably doesn't count. Medals don't matter, you have to crash a bunch of planes and get captured to qualify as a "hero".
It's really interesting watching people repeat that age old meme about republicans being pro military when facts say otherwise. Let's start wth just the list of who did and didn't serve...
Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.
1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments.
Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.
Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
I see you failed to mention Bush Sr. You also failed to mention McCain was POW. You also failed to mention Clinton was classified AWOL. You also failed to mention Hilary's military record. You also failed to mention the military record of our next president: Obama! Why is that?
How about Pelosi? How about KKK leader Harry Byrd- what military did he enlist in? How about Barney Frank? Harry Reid? If you're going to whine about lack of military fullfillment from Republican leaders, how about you include the Democrat leaders? Which I notice you purposely left off your list.
BTW, Pelosi, Byrd, Frank and Reid: did not serve
The remaining SC justices (who you FAILED to mention):
BTW: Other notables you left off your list
There was no failure on my part. It's just your list of republicans is so small it's not worth noting, which supports my point of republicans not being pro military. Nice attempt at trying to regain a little composure for your failed party though.
Oh, know who else we forgot? Sarah Palin. Not only did she not serve, she pals around with illegal drug dealers.
And how can you trust anyone who lives that close to Russia?
Harry Byrd the KKK leader? Jeez, you can't even lie straight.
He was a shipyard welder during World War II, in case you're interested.
"He worked as a gas-station attendant, grocery-store clerk, shipyard welder during World War II"
That's from wikipedia. Also at that site you'll see he joined the KKK in 1942. Uhhh, when was WWII? What it shows is that he couldn't hold a job and then joined the racist fellows that think like he does. I think you lie even worse than I do.
Gee, you're able to deduce an aweful lot of subjective judgment from a couple of random facts. You neglected to mention Byrd long since has renounced the KKK, or that he is from a state where it may have been almost obligatory for a white man to join, or that he worked hard his whole life instead of eating off a silver spoon, as both Bush presidents did.
I don't suppose you want to spout off about what it shows that he Bush family traded with the enemy Nazis during WWII, do you?
.... or, rather, traded with the Nazis until a conviction forced them to stop before WWII, if I remember right.
I noticed Snoopy noted our esteemed senator (from Bahama) Tom Harkin. His political claim is that he served as a fighter pilot in the Viet Nam theater - except that he shuttled planes from the Phillipines to Viet Nam - more like a parking lot attendant. Snoopy also cites that great hero - Murtha - who has yet to apologize for his slander of the troops in Iraq ( I hope they sue him). Also, just to put the record straight, Chambliss questioned Cleland''s voting record, not his patriotism. Hilariously, Snoopy cites John Kerry - scratched hero that he was - lying traitor to the troops that he was (is).
The left loathes the military because the military stands for the Constitution and the rights that document preserves for us.
"The left loathes the military because the military stands for the Constitution and the rights that document preserves for us."
Right, that's why we've all been complaining about Bush's shredding of the Constitution with his illegal spying, torture and rendition. And that's why liberals who have made those complaints have been accused of having a "pre-9/11 mindset" by conservatives, because you care so much about the Constitution.
You can go shove it.
Just a small note about the COnstitution: IT DOESN'T APPLY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES BORDERS.
That is why you can go to another country and not have the right to free speech because you are only guaranteed those rights here.
I'm not sure your point is either relevant to what I said or accurate. Domestic spying violates the Constitution. Torture done on our bases and in our prisons does as well, whether they're within our borders or not. It's not like your rights wouldn't be violated if you were arrested and shipped out of the country for an indefinite period of time.
BUt if the person was arrested in another country and is being detained in another country then Constitutional protection does not apply.
There have been no domestic spying. There has been interception of cell signals relayed through the United States originating outside of the country and going into a another.
Depends on your definition of torture.
"BUt if the person was arrested in another country and is being detained in another country then Constitutional protection does not apply."
How does that apply to anything I've said?
"There have been no domestic spying. There has been interception of cell signals relayed through the United States originating outside of the country and going into a another."
According to who? I've never heard that one, and I'd love to know what you're basing that assertion on.
"Depends on your definition of torture."
You can argue that things like sleep deprivation aren't torture if you like. Those are exactly the sorts of thing that McCain was "tortured" with while he was in captivity.
Also, just to put the record straight, Chambliss questioned Cleland''s voting record, not his patriotism.
Yea...that's why he ran ads with pictures of Cleland and Osama Bin Laden. Chambliss is a shameless piece of dirt...worthy of the Republican Party.
You also failed to mention Clinton was classified AWOL.
Come on philib, Bush Sr lost the 92 election you are 16 years behind. Wake up it is now 2009.
Snoopy had no problem mentioning Ronald Reagan. Are you going to whine about that selection also? FACT is, Clinton was classified as AWOL. Then ran from the country to avoid performing his patriotic duty.
Here's one more for the list: philib: Army 77-80 (all my capable brothers served also, along with my dad and several uncles and aunts. Some in Viet Nam)
Did you serve?
You are a troll .
Whats with the insult?
My husband is in Iraq AS WE SPEAK. You know what he did before he left? Mailed his absentee ballot in for Barack Obama. My husband is also a hard-charging kick-ass Marine, so don't even think of claiming that he voted for Obama just to get out of serving wartime commitments. He just wanted someone who would be thoughtful about how and when to use the resources we have.
The military is full of people from both the right and the left. Don't you DARE continue to claim that somehow liberals can't honorably serve.
Please thank your husband for his service from us. And thank you for your sacrifice as his wife.
Since when does service mean support for the Military?
Since when does lack of or inability of service mean non support of the MIlitary?
There are those that serve only because they want the college money, or because they want job training, or because they saw no other option for them at the time.
Likewise, there are those who choose to serve the country in a different way. Military service is not the only way to serve your country. And those that choose not to serve are no less fervent in their support than those that have. Frankly your suggestion otherwise is dipecable and insulting.
Would you have told the woman who stayed behind during WWII and worked in factories or just stayed home and raised their families that they were not serving their country? Are you suggesting that serving as a Senator, Representative, or even President isn't serving your country? Are you suggesting that building a buisness and helpoing the economy move isn't service?
So serving in the military doesn't mean you actually support the military. You might just be in it for the money. But if you build a business, then you must be doing it out of pure patriotism. There's no financial motive there whatsoever.
Brilliant stuff.
I didn't say that. I used that as an example of a way someone could serve the country.
Just because you serve does not mean you support the military. Look during Vietnam.....hundreds maybe thousands served not because they wanted to or supported the Military but because they were drafted.
"Would you have told the woman who stayed behind during WWII and worked in factories or just stayed home and raised their families that they were not serving their country? Are you suggesting that serving as a Senator, Representative, or even President isn't serving your country? Are you suggesting that building a buisness and helpoing the economy move isn't service?"
You seem pretty shocked at the idea that someone would see building a business as something other than service to their country.
Maybe you should apply your point to Rrastro's original point about how the left hates the military. If service isn't an indicator as to whether someone supports the military or not, what the hell is? What possible basis can there ever be to make such a declaration about someone, outside of an explicit statement to that effect?
oops, that was meant for rrasto. Sorry Brabs!
thank you-- i drew a blank on names as i wrote. A weakness i do not share I see
Max Cleland come to mind immediatelly.
Democrats have always been pro-military but, in recent history, anti-useless wars. Most of those who were strong supporters of the War in Iraq, both in government and it the media are Chickenhawks. They'll stand right behind you as you put your ass or your kid's ass on the line for their cause.
Clinton did not serve and he also did not spin the numbers and cook the books to send this generation to war.
Robert Byrd supports military. Didn't he become the leader of the militant KKK unit?? Byrd is a democrat, isn't he?
He outgrew the KKK, some folks do that.
I've been told that 'once a racist--always a racist'. I think it's more like he moved on to more furtile ground--the democratic party
Furtile for what?
The Southern Poverty Law Center refferences former racists in their work. It does happen. Byrd's actions of recent history show racism in what way?
Rrastro,
I hope that you were making a willfully ignorant comment there. In addition to John Kerry, there is Bob Kerrey (Navy Seal in Vietnam), Jim Webb, Max Cleeland served, Chris Dodd, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed, more here: http://www.usvtc.org/httpdocs%202/Misc/VVIC.htm
see above I blanked on names and i am the only one with this fault
rrastro,
In what way has Obama flip-flopped on Iraq or the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and why are you referring to an entire group of people as "idiots"?
At least that president didn't go AWOL like the one before him. The one who was afraid to send military after Osama Bin Laden. Which allowed 9/11 to happen. You're whining up the wrong tree on that complaint.
Where was Bush when he was supposed to be serving in Alabama?
What about Tora Bora?
You are aware that Bush ignored all warnings of 9/11, and it happened in 2001, right?
And your repeating lies. Three of them in fact.
"allowed 9-11 to happen"? you mean bush? because as the 9-11 report pointed out: "threat reports surged in june and july" of 2001. and then there was the august 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, "bin laden determined to strike in u.s.", and as the 9-11 commission noted: "he [bush] did not recall discussing the august 6 report with the attorney general or whether rice had done so".
so bush gets a dire warning over a month before the attack and makes no inquiries and issues no orders. because the attorney general is the ultimate boss of the fbi, and rice was bush's security chief.
as for democrats and the military, it was roosevelt and the democrats who approved the "lend lease" program which gave aid to the countries like britain already fighting hitler. the majority of republicans voted against it in both houses.
and to follow up on that theme, one of the scenes in abc's propaganda film, "the path to 9-11", had a worried looking condi reading the august 6 pdb and thinking to herself "the president must see this". if he did see it, which is a matter of doubt, he did nothing about it and neither did she. the writer of that revisionist garbage on abc has complained from time to time that they refuse to release it on dvd, but i don't think they want to go through all the negative publicity again. especially since the writer said he had to do his "own research because the 9-11 report only goes back to 1998". which is a complete lie.
Well, you had a very good and well thought out statement prepared. Is that what you're told to tell people who question liberals? However, I notice you had to defense on Clinton being classified AWOL AND not doing anything about OBL.
That would be "no", not "to".
first of all, i think you actually have to be in the military to be awol. which is absent without leave. and no one has to tell me to tell anyone anything or to prepare anything. i "notice" you had nothing to counter what i said.
whatever clinton did or did not do about bin laden, bush did even less. don't take my word, take richard clarke's. he said clinton was involved and bush was not. like it or not, 9-11 was eight months into bush's term. or you can just take bush's word. he said he was "not on point" about bin laden prior to 9-11. are you arguing with his own assessment of what he failed to do?
Link or show proof of someone never in the military being AWOL.
It's common knowledge that he signed the papers and said the pledge. But, you can read what Col Holmes has to say about Clinton.
http://www.marine-family.org/wannabes/bill.htm
"Common knowledge" would be facts we all commonly have the capacity to experience for ourselves, as in "It's common knowledge it's cold today in the Northeast" or "It's common knowledge Michael Phelps won a lot of Olympic gold medals."
The claim Clinton took a military oath isn't known to me, nor is it proved or disproved from this nonprivileged source you link. (Disclosure: I couldn't care less either way.)
Being so well read, you surely read that Clinton's Justice Department successfully prosecuted OBL. It seems inaccurate to say Clinton did nothing.
I think Bush should have indicted and convicted OBL, but he didn't, maybe because his daddy helped empower OBL and the Taliban. A trial, even in absencia, might have revealed too much authentic history for comfort.
In fact, it's my understanding that the reason OBL is on the Most Wanted list, so Bush could have captured OBL -- but failed to do so -- under international law, is because Clinton adjudicated the first World Trade Center bombing and the Bojinka plot (wow, the similarities there to 9/11, yet Bush was just a poor scapegoat for the "unforeseeable"?).
"They had no problem following the orders of a president who evaded service in his generations war"
Oh, you mean Clinton?
No, how bout Chenny and the rest of the no serve Chickenhawks?
I was draft #54, I served. My brother didn't. I know alot of people who didn't. If I have no hard spot with any of them, how do you? Shrub avoided it also, how do you ignore that?
There's real family love coming from a classic-case liberal. You call your brother a chickenhawk because you had to serve and he didn't. Wow.... classic. I'll bet you have some kind of drug being dispensed to you to help you deal with that condition.
Reread, my brother and I have never had even a serious argument. He is about as anti-chickenhawk as you can be. He has never called for our military to be used for the greater glory of neoconservative dreaming. And your deranged, as usual
Then why did you include him in your statement about chickenhawks? You specifically asked about Chenny and "the rest of the no serve Chickenhawks". Then you claimed your brother didn't serve. So... you meant all the other no serve Chickenhawks, except your brother? Perhaps you shouldn't have even mentioned it, if you didn't want him included in your list of chickenhawks.
But, it's good to see you argue like a typical liberal---name calling.
Obviously he's drawing a distinction between people like Cheney and people like his brother. He clarified his point, not as if he really needed to.
"What he said and what YOU think he said are 2 totally different things." Remember that?
good point by mmfa that the poll is unscientific but that is far different than saying the poll was voluntary. all polls are voluntary...after all many people opt out by closing the call on sthe surveyer
What word would you prefer? The distinction is between people making the effort to make their opinions known and people being contacted by those asking the question. I would think "voluntary" makes that distinction rather well.
unscientific is the word i prefer.
It's still unscientific, it's just specific as to why that's the case. The phrasing they used was "based on voluntary responses". Does the phrase "voluntary poll" appear in the article?
That would be like polling 999 republicans and 1 democrat with this question: 'we're calling to see if you will become a democrat'. If 999 republicans hang up before giving an answer and the 1 democrat says 'yes'. Then that unscientific poll will be proudly displayed by mmfa as saying 100% of those questioned say they will become a democrat.
Perhpas you need to think of a different word. How about misinformational or misleading.
That's a pretty wild scenario. Everyone's going to hang up, and then someone would actually publish those results anyway? And on top of that, MMfA would use it as evidence of something? Bizarre.
Yes, that poll would be invalid. Is your only point that MMfA would do something, therefore there's some actual equivalence? That's incredibly weak.
Weak, but accurate and validated by mmfa's complaints of this poll.
No, your failure to grasp the reason for the article does not justify your accusations of dishonesty.
The biggest problem I see with the poll is that it was only conducted from Army Times subscribers, not a general sample of enlisted men/women. The subscribers to the Army Times tend to be much more gung ho, career-military types compared to your average enlisted person.
It's almost like taking a poll of Drag Racer Magazine subscribers and reporting they think the latest Toyota family car is not powerful enough.
The fact that Fox then distorts it as "Poll Finds Most Military are Pessimistic" about Obama is a clear case of misinformation. Like other posters have pointed out, the poll (even among Army Times active duty subscribers) actually had more optimists than it had pessimists. Fox lumps all the "uncertains" in with the pessimists on top of misleading about it being a general poll of active duty military.
Yes, and then have mmfa report that drag racers are giving the impression that all drivers think Toyota is not powerful enough. Duhhh.
The article stated who was polled and mmfa is whining about the poll only being of a select group. Mmfa's complaint on FOX is an afterthought. Their complaint is that the Military Times did the poll using only respondants who volunteered the information. Aren't ALL polls voluntary? Mmfa is creating the misleading aspect by even mentioning this article. Must be a slow news day at mmfa.
After one of the Presidential debates, Fox News ran a voluntary poll that said something like 80% thought McCain won. Meanwhile, scientific polling had McCain somewhere in the 30% range, if I remember rightly. It wasn't anywhere near Fox's numbers, by any means. So no, not all polls are "voluntary".
The complaint isn't about the poll being only "of a select group". The complaint is that the nature of the poll was not revealed. A poll with no margin of error can't be considered in any meaningful way.
You're making that stuff up. Where's your proof of those allegations? You lose another arguement, so now you're going to "remember" things that show you are correct? Bring some facts, not guess's!! You are the most typical liberal. You don't argue with facts you just make things up as you go and expect others to believe you. Maybe the other liberals will, but non-disfunctionaries won't.
I'm not the only one who saw those numbers. Donklephant comments:"The Fox News poll had McCain winning with 82% of the vote."- September 27th, 8:47 a.m. From a McCain supporter at that. "Fox at 80%+ for McCain? Drudge with a roughly 75% poll for McCain?" 7:23 p.m.
Ben Smith's blog, comments:"Yeah, the Fox News polls have it a blowout FOR McCain, like 82% to 18%..."12:12 a.m. "Nothing new as to who people say won. fOXNEWS INSTANT POLL HAD IT 82 PERCENT FOR MCCAIN 16 PERCENT FOR OBAMA." 12:17 a.m. "FOX poll is McCain 82, Obama 16." 12:18 a.m. "Fox had McCain at 82% over 16% Obama." 12:35 a.m.
Whoaaaa...! I just noticed the bottom of the screen graphic...
POLL FINDS MOST MILITARY ARE PESSIMISTIC
That NOT what the poll actually says...it is, typically, what FOX incorrectly says. FOX does this stuff all the time with screen graphics, creating false impressions. Roger Ailes once said that the reason FOX uses so many screen graphics is to grab people who, hypothetically, are walking thrrough the room and see the broadcast without the sound...like those in a doctor's waiting room. FOX gets away with more underhanded bull than anybody I've ever seen.
I missed that too. Funny how they interpreted it to read "most ... are pessimistic" when the percentage being optimistic was 8 percent higher than those who were pessimistic.
Murdoch has probably already contacted this guy McGarry...
Maybe he can be Sean Hannity's sidekick. Brendan...you struck pay dirt!!
Way to start the New Year; Military Times and Fox "News" falsely depict our military as confused defeatists. Frigging America-haters!
Happy New Year, everybody.I've been fighting a little cold, stuck at home a bit, and I had a little wingnut jones during MMFA's break. I'm confessing right here that I did a little posting at Human Events, where the comments on articles by literary giants like Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter and Ted Nugent make the goofiest trolls at this site look like wunderkinds.
Unbelievable site, if you've never been there. I saw one liberal poster manage to horrify the HE regulars by mentioning that Sarah Palin was "stupid", getting himself labeled as childish and hateful. This was on the same thread where I saw, in comments directed at Barack Obama, "burrhead", "F*** the N****", and a prediction involving sales of chicken and watermelon.
Maybe these are the pessimistic and uncertain Americans.
Wow.. what irony to have this- "Way to start the New Year; Military Times and Fox "News" falsely depict our military as confused defeatists. Frigging America-haters!" coming form you. LOL
talk about putting the shoe on the other foot or what?
Attacking someone's patriotism just because you disagree with them? We can always count on you for class.
Flagged.
Aw, Brab, you don't need to flag the clueless pinheads. I consider comments like MissDeeficient's very validating. After all, she pointed out the irony in my comment. Well, didn't really point out any irony, she said it was ironic, but couldn't come up with anything supporting her idea. In place of facts or reasoning, she added her standard "LOL", which is considered "closing arguments" in Simpletontown.
I'm not sure I understand her last line. It looks like she wants to discuss improperly applied footwear, but she may have been directing that question at one of the voices in her head that are "LOL"ing along with her.
I think you should let barbie flag everyone who disagrees with HIS thoughts. That is the typical liberal, isn't it? Only allow the parroted statements by you (and the other lemmings) are allowed and all independent thinking is forbidden?
I think the irony she expressed is that you (a self-proclaimed proud vet) are calling the Military Times "America-haters". But, I understand you're not able to connect that.
I think the irony she expressed was that someone who supposedly hates America is calling someone else an America-hater. Is there some basis for the suggestion that anyone here hates America? If not, then there's pretty obviously a valid reason for flagging it. It's also more than obvious that I don't flag "everyone who disagrees" with me.
Would you really like to defend her comments further? It's not like you have any credibility or respect to lose, so you might as well.
What he said and what YOU think he said are 2 totally different things. He said: "Way to start the New Year; Military Times and Fox "News" falsely depict our military as confused defeatists. Frigging America-haters!" . You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, because he called Military Times and Fox News frigging America-haters. Are you blind in both eyes or just one? He never claimed to be an America hater (himself), so you're inference that he is an America-hater is all your own opinion.
Which makes sense, since you often change actual statements around to fit your whiny complaints.
Wow.. what irony to have this- "Way to start the New Year; Military Times and Fox "News" falsely depict our military as confused defeatists. Frigging America-haters!" coming form you. LOL...talk about putting the shoe on the other foot or what?"
"I think the irony she expressed was that someone who supposedly hates America is calling someone else an America-hater. Is there some basis for the suggestion that anyone here hates America? If not, then there's pretty obviously a valid reason for flagging it. It's also more than obvious that I don't flag "everyone who disagrees" with me."
MissDee suggested that he was an America-hater. That's who I'm talking about. This should be especially obvious since we're talking about the person that I flagged, which was MissDee. Also note the use of the word "she" as opposed to "he" for help with your reading comprehension.
Philib, you seem to be completely confused about everything here, but I'll try to take care of what I can.
I think you should let barbie flag everyone who disagrees with HIS thoughts.
I don't have to let anybody flag or not flag.I don't have those imagined authoritarian tendencies. I was only letting Brab know that MissTweedleDee's posts were no threat to me. Brab simply has a different standard, flagging trolls who make crazy accusations. I have no problem letting them bask in their own idiocy.
That is the typical liberal, isn't it?
I don't have a prototype laid out there. As I stated above, some liberals will flag ridiculous trash just to get it out of the way, others of us prefer to leave it as proof of confused wingnut thought.
Only allow the parroted statements by you (and the other lemmings) are allowed and all independent thinking is forbidden?
Again, I don't think Brab flagged the post because it expressed a different opinion, only because it was a mindless, empty, kneejerk insult with no basis in reality. I guess you could call delusion and hallucination "independent thinking", but it's not my favorite brand.
I think the irony she expressed is that you (a self-proclaimed proud vet) are calling the Military Times "America-haters".
I'm not a vet. If you have any evidence of my "self-proclaiming" otherwise, I'd love to see it.I registered with selective service in the 70s sometime during high school in order to ge my SS card, but that's as close as I got to enlisting. I think on your planet, that would put me in the AWOL category.
You may have missed the real irony here;In promoting their anti-Obama agenda, the sources in the item described a majority of our men and women in the military as "uncertain" and "pessimistic".That is, to serve their own political purposes, they smeared our military as confused and negative.I don't consider criticism of the upper levels of the military "America-hating", but I really don't approve of the collective denigration of those serving in uniform. If you think that's cool, that's your right.
But, I understand you're not able to connect that.
You're absolutely correct on that point. I'm completely unable to connect all of your bewildered brain-farts into any sort of rational thought.
I hope this was helpful.
"I'm not a vet."
That certainly explains a lot.
That's it? really? I'd ask what exactly it explains, but I suppose if you had something, you would have written it down. Fail.
So if they were mandatory responses they would be...
Besides, isn't a solider not allowed to talk bad about a superior officer, which includes Barack Obama, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces?
Jeepers, DaWuss, if "the point" was your bus, you'd be walkin'.
Why does freedom of speech have to be thrown into this? It's got nothing to do with it. The poll in question is meaningless because there's no way of telling how accurate of a representation it is. Soldiers can say a lot of things, we just don't know what they're actualy saying based on this poll.
Any idiot should see that the poll is flawed. But what is offensive is that you can already see how the right wing media will take this poll and run with it. Wait until Sean Hannity and others start talking about it...Hannity will be saying the poll shows that the military does not want to serve under Obama as Commander in Chief. Just wait...
Did I say right wing media? I'm sorry...I meant to say right wing entertainment industry. If media connotes the legitimate reporting and analyzing of news events then the right wing maintains no media presence whatsoever.
We libs want objective analysis! Give us Dan Rather, or Chris (thrill up my leg) Matthews or that ignorant ranter on MSNBC - Keith Olberman. Or try Nina (WTF) Totenburg over at NPR, or George (stiffy) Stephanopoulos, the Clintonista. Or Barbara Walters, who apparently doesn't know how to read; or sweet little Katie Couric - or even that paragon of objectivity - Bill Moyers. Any objectivity that the MSM media brings to their work is completely accidental and deeply regretted by the perps. If you listen to them, you deserve what you get - stupidity.
"Any idiot should see that the poll is flawed."
Mmfa included. But, they still took the poll and ran with it.
How did they run with it when the whole point of the article is to point out how it isn't legitimate? Again, what the hell are you babbling about?
Wow. The category of "Pessimistic" didn't even win a plurality of the vote and they're saying "most" military members are wary of Obama. Very, very, very stupid.
On another note, I don't understand why the military demographic deserves special consideration in their opinions. What about single-mothers? What about manufacturing workers? Social workers? Child-care workers?
And, in anticipation of rrastro's response that my comment proves that Democrats disapprove of the military, all I have to say is that I commend good soldiers for their service. I just don't think we should worship the military above all else.
I just don't think we should worship the military above all else.
In wingnutworld, if you don't think like that you are un-american, un-patriotic and hate the troops.
Tman's quote that you cited is excellent. I still find it interesting that the people who want the troops to be sent into harm's way only when necessary are the ones who "disapprove of the military". My position is that their lives shouldn't be thrown away, simply put. That is not only wrong for the sake of the casualties and their families, it weakens the military. Why would you want to join to be sent into an unjust war somewhere?
All polls are based on voluntary respondents. Readers of the Military Times know that there polls are based on voluntary respondents from subscribers to that periodical.
Maybe FoxNews should have mentioned it but there lack of mentioning it does make faulty reporting.
Media Matters needs to start using common sense and stop underestimating the intelligence of the American public. People are smart enough to know when a paper publishes a poll it is based on voluntary responsive from subscribers.
I make a distinction between polls in which the respondent must take some affirmative action in order to participate in the poll as opposed to a random sampling by the pollster. Would you trust a FOX call-in poll, for example?
All polls ask for some affirmitive action. Otherwise it would be a guess as to what people think.
I don't trust any poll. People lie to pollsters. Plus I do not know one person personally or through extension of a friend or family member that has ever been contacted by a pollster.
All polls ask for some affirmitive action.
What I meant by "some affirmative action" is when a person unknown to the pollsters take the time and effort to voluntarily contact the pollster and submit answers, as opposed to being contacted by a pollster on the telephone or on the street in which case you are asked questions in person on the spot. While participation is voluntary in both instances, IMO the former scenario requires some affirmative action in order to participate. In that case I would submit that it suggests the respondent has something to get off his chest.
These people were emailed and asked to respond. IT is the same as calling them or running into them on the street. They just didn't print the question and wait for responses.
You're joking. You really think that someone is as inclined to respond to an email as much as they are to a phone call?
The intelligence of the American people? The ones that voted for the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, that American people?
That is an opinion. History may judge George Bush as that but we will not truly know the full effect of his presidency for at least a decade, as with any President.
THe following article attempts to point the good parts of the Bush Jr. Presidency as it relates to several key points:
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/george-w-bush-wasn-t-so-bad
"All polls are based on voluntary respondents. Readers of the Military Times know that there polls are based on voluntary respondents from subscribers to that periodical."
"People are smart enough to know when a paper publishes a poll it is based on voluntary responsive from subscribers."
Can you explain how some polls have a margin of error, but this one doesn't? Obviously they're not the same.
Because the polls that have margins of error are national polls. Military Times has a smaller apecific audience base and it's polls are based and geard toward those readers not the nation. It is a pur numbers game.......national polls deal with 300 million man nation and the Military Times deals with only those that subscribe to or read its periodical.
Pure nonsense. You can have a sampling of the opinion of those in the military just as you can do for the general public. If anything that would make it easier to come up with a margin of error, because you're dealing with a smaller population. They're also not restricted to their readership. If they really want a fair picture of what those in the military believe, they should ask a random sampling without consideration of whether they subscribe to the publication or not.
Let's revisit this:"People are smart enough to know when a paper publishes a poll it is based on voluntary responsive from subscribers."
Why is the average person expected to know or assume this, precisely? If the Detroit Free Press runs poll results, I figure that they called people up, because that's typically how a respectable poll is conducted. I don't assume that they got the numbers from a bunch of readers who contacted the paper on their own volition, and I'd like to know why I should.
First, these people did not contact the paper on their own volition. They were contacted by the paper like any poll.
Second, you were right about size not mattering. But according to the following website the margin of error would have only been like plus or minus 2% based on the number of respondents.
http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp
Third, they are very careful in their article associated with the survey to say that it was snapshot of some of the challenges Obama faces. In fact they put the following line inside the article:
"The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers."
"First, these people did not contact the paper on their own volition. They were contacted by the paper like any poll."
What's the significant difference between responding to an e-mail and e-mailing someone in response to questions printed in a newspaper? Or calling a phone number to answer a poll you read about somewhere else?
"Second, you were right about size not mattering. But according to the following website the margin of error would have only been like plus or minus 2% based on the number of respondents."
That relies on randomness, doesn't it?
"Third, they are very careful in their article associated with the survey to say that it was snapshot of some of the challenges Obama faces. In fact they put the following line inside the article"
It's not random sampling, it's not representative, and yet it's a "snapshot" of Obama's challenges? It's great that they put that disclaimer in there, but the poll still has no validity.
Happy New Year to you too Colonel. Hope your late year winter holiday formerly known as Christmas was joyous and merry as you celebrated the birth of our Risen Savior and defended the homefront in the WOX.
I heard the Col. just found Jesus. If nobody claims him in 30 days, he gets to keep him! ;)
A G. Carlin bumper sticker "I found him! I've got him locked in my trunk!"
Just where did The Col find him? In cahoots, insane, in Fargo N.D.?
I found Jesus in credibly well-dressed, and in great shape for his age. He was also a sparkling conversationalist, although he could hardly go a minute without some hateful Christian-bashing.
My encounter wasn't near as good as Mojo Nixon's. Sadly, I couldn't find a version of I saw Jesus at McDonald's at Midnight on youtube.
this'll do
Thweet!
I remember his Elvis tribute, properly identifying him as the Berumda Triangle. "Elvis sinks boats, Elvis sinks boats, Elvis Elvis Elvis Elvis sinks boats."
I be wrong. It was Elvis eats boats..groan.
Ewe never be wrong, even when ewe wrong. :-)
Happy New Year to everyone. And I'm so glad the colonel found Jesus in good condition after being kidnapped by the lunatic fringe righties who tried to keep him captive and change his story of love and peace.
...after being kidnapped by the lunatic fringe righties who tried to keep him captive and change his story of love and peace.
They shaved his head and tried to brainwash him into being a hateful, right wing Republican...but Jesus wasn't playing along. Why do think the Republicans have lost two elections in a row...and their nominal leader at present is a laughingstock hick called Sarah Palin? Jesus has a sense of humor...he can do retribution without spilling blood, despite what Republicans think.
A vengeful god is so 3000 B.C. Somehow it fits thems thoughs.
):(>
Didn't you even read what the col said? He said Jesus is a hateful person. If the col says His message is hatefullness instead of love and peace, then we should suspect he met the anti-christ NOT the Christ.
Irony is wasted on the stupid, Philly. Can't help you out here.
Are you pretending to be this stupid...?
Philib, just for the record, I didn't really meet Jesus or the AntiChrist. It was just a joke. I made the mistake of thinking that comment was too absurd to be taken seriously by even the thickest human on the planet. Sorry, I didn't know you'd be here.
You have reminded me that NeonDesert really needs to get the RemedialMatters site up & running. In the meantime, here's something that you may get a kick out of;
In order for anyone to be AWOL. he'd have had to be inducted into the military. Clinton was never inducted.
Your hero, GW Bush joined the ANG and checked off the box that said he'd prefer not to serve overseas. Anyone who did this during the Vietnam period allowed someone else to go in their stead.
You've been making excuses for draft evaders for years.
er.. Clinton WAS a draft evader, while GWB at least served in the ANG., And CLinton screwed over an ROTC comittment by running to England for his "Rhodes" days.. if anyone was an evader it was Clinton. Let me ask you this- if there was a checkbox on a form that said "I'd rather keep my butt out of Vietnam" are you telling me you wouldn't have marked it, even assuming that your assertion of such is valid or had any relevence.
GWB dropped out of the flight program around the same time that random drug testing began. Then he was supposed to be in Alabama, but nobody has a record of him serving there. Your "at least" isn't even that.
There's also a difference between opposing a war and not serving in it, and supporting it while not serving in it.
Incidentally, I believe WK served in Vietnam, so I'm not sure what relevance your question has. If he had some means of staying out of there, he didn't take advantage of them.
I never doctored intel and sent 4,000 troops to die either . And yes, I'd have checked that box.
But in 1969 when I was drafted, there was no box to opt out of serving in Vietnam. No one and I mean no one joined the NG or the Reserves with the expectation of serving in Vietnam.
Clinton found that box. He had no intention of serving in the NG or Reserves.
Miss Dee,
Perhaps it will occur to you to offer an apology to Worrierking since he did serve in Vietnam. But that would require class and grace, neither of which you seem to possess, based on your spurious comments here.
Why does Miss Dee hate our troops?
Irony, Brab and Juliajane, thanks for the backup. Happy New year to all.
and thanks to Juliajayne too.
Wk, you are so nice to thank me twice! :-)
Happy new Year to you too.
"In order for anyone to be AWOL. he'd have had to be inducted into the military. Clinton was never inducted."
Clinton signed the papers and said the pledge. At least Bush had the balls to join AND serve. Have a nice day
The kicker is if you click around you find under the headline, "Bush reclaims some support for Iraq", that despite the respondents being nearly 5 to 1 Republican to Democrat, the "reclaimed support" still only totals 45%.
Happy New Year everybody!!!! I still haven't come down from the realization that Barack WON!!!!!!A clear rejection of "ignorance" and "irrationality"as virtues to be respected. An uppercut to the midsection of fear as a tool to whip people into compliance, a sober move toward compassion and rationality in dealing with the complex world and crumbling US infrastructure and economy. After the last 8 years it's amazing how anyone could still trot out that dead and stinking lie that Republicans are pro military and Democrats are not!?!?! After the trouncing they received during last years elections you'd think they'd learn but then "Barack the Magic Negro" and this BS. Hey and how 'bout Palin's in-law getting busted for the manufacture and sale of "meth." Talk about "vetting" and who we didn't know enough about????? It almost makes it seem that those in the McCain camp who were calling Palin all those "Terrible" things (hockey mom and $165,000 wardrobe)"rogue" ,"DIVA", not prepared maybe were trying to do the country a favor, maybe in their minds they were being patriotic. HaHaHa in that case I thank them as I do the vast majority of the people of this nation that saw through the BS and came through like a beautiful rainbow after a storm. Lets not go back to sleep theres work to be done, like Obama said "WE are the ones we've been waiting for..." Happy New Year!!!!
Lookslike the Kool-Aid had a delayed effect....
Aww. don't worry. Your posts weren't THAT deranged.
It's embarassing that you display such ignorance and a utter lack of regard for the truth, a condition I'am sure is compounded by you flying your broomstick so close to the moon.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2330
Here's another take on the article and the Military Times, from vets.
Lookslike the Kool-Aid had a delayed effect....
You lost, darlin'...might as well start getting over it. Or perhaps you just prefer wallowing in your own miserable delusions for eight years.
Isn't that what you've been doing for the last 8?
No, because, unfortunately, it is a matter of historical fact that George W. Bush has screwed up practically everything he has touched and, in the process, diminished the standing and integrity of the United States...that's not a delusion. Regardless who had won this election I would still be celebrating come January 20. Good riddance to a an awful chapter in American history...now let's see if the new guy can have any significant success in reversing things.
Good luck with that one.
correction : OxyCotin so-called 'hillbilly" heroin was the drug Palin's in-law was caught selling and being in possesion of not "meth" nor was she manufacturing it...with that correction my point still taken.
76% of troops surveyed are anything but "pessimistic" about Obama!
Can't remember any Democratic VN vets, eh? Guess you didn't notice that the two previous Democratic presidential nominees were VN vets - John Kerry and Al Gore.
How about the most recent attempts at being a nominee? Obama, H Clinton, Edwards. I don't see ANY military service among ANY of them.
Sarah Palin can see Russia...does that count?
And your point is!?!??? By the way "attempts at being nominee..."where have you been, catch up to recent events it's President -elect Mr. Barack H. Obama soon to be inuargurated as 44th President of the United States of America, and our 1st African American President, we didn't elect him as "King" or "Supreme Military Commander Guy". Authoritarians...Geez! There is a reason that we maintain(although this line has blurred in the last 8yrs.)civilian control of the military and not vice or versa.
I guess you didn't look very hard.
Among the 2008 "finalists," Mike Gravel served in the US Army and Chris Dodd served in the US Army Reserve. Of those who "attempted to be the nominee" but dropped out in late 2007, there's Tom Daschle, an Air Force veteran, and retired four-star General Wes Clark.
And of the first-time Democratic candidates for Congress in 2008, at least 50 were vets. Ten of those were veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html
Wow, you brought out the real headliners. I guess my list of Obama, Clinton and Edwards is just silly. BTW, who has even heard of Mike Gravel outside his own state?
Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee. Fred Thompson. Sam Brownback. Tom Tancredo. NONE of these men served. And their deferments are quite telling, as opposed to Hillary, who as a woman would not have been drafted, or Obama, who as a CHILD wouldn't have been drafted.
Should more people serve in our military? Sure. But comparing 3 Democrats to ONE Republican is "just silly".
to claim that the people with the tanks planes and a woring economy are not entitled to live is idiocy.
obama has promised to support israels right to exist while a few day later promising to force israel to negotiate away whateverr is needed to pacify arabs.
Obama has sadi ther e will and willl NOT be a time table for with drawl from iraq.
I'd like to know what your first sentence means. On your second point, how did he promise to force Israel to negotiate away whatever is needed to pacify arabs? Be specific, please.
So while complaining about posters that choose a side and fail to address opposing arguments, you choose a side and fail to address opposing arguments. Is that about right?
There's a big difference between complaining and merely pointing something out. All I've seen on this thread is some sort of quantification of Democrat/Republican qualification and little else. The issue was supposed to be about the veracity of a "poll" that MMFA felt was skewed by virtue of the type of participation yet this thread has back and forth "totals" of military participation or lack thereof. Why is Sarah Palin's family's involvment in some sort of drug scandal relevant or the service of political pundits? You asked me about "choosing a side" yet I don't see any side to choose except whether or not I believe a poll serves a purpose. Take the poll for whatever you think it is worth---few polls ever are totally accurate unless participation is 100%.
"The issue was supposed to be about the veracity of a "poll" that MMFA felt was skewed by virtue of the type of participation yet this thread has back and forth "totals" of military participation or lack thereof."
There's been quite a bit of discussion about the poll on this thread.
"Why is Sarah Palin's family's involvment in some sort of drug scandal relevant or the service of political pundits?"
It isn't, but that hasn't been the dominating theme of the posts.
"You asked me about "choosing a side" yet I don't see any side to choose except whether or not I believe a poll serves a purpose. Take the poll for whatever you think it is worth---few polls ever are totally accurate unless participation is 100%."
Then you are either forgetting what you wrote or you're otherwise confused. "This is the most inane issue MMFA has come up with yet." That's MMfA, not the posters. You declared the entire article to be worthless, now you don't see any "side" to choose? And what exactly do you think the purpose of the article was, if not to put the poll's legitimacy into question? We take the poll for what we think it's worth precisely because the methodology has been exposed. They're also no expectation of "totally accurate". Without a margin of error any measure of accuracy is impossible, and that's the problem.
I melded two options of sentences together. That should be "There's also no expectation" or "They're also not expressing any expectation"
Any and all polls could and should be questioned as to whether they are accurate, relevant or totally useless. I just don't think so much effort should be wasted discussing the veracity of any poll. 100 people can conduct the same poll and get 100 different results. Polls are a waste of time.
Oh, so because MMfA draws a distinction between scientific polls and voluntary polls, instead of dismissing the entire concept of polling, it's the most inane thing they've ever written. Got it.
Sounds like your talking to yourself, brab, but I'm glad you got it, whatever it is. MMFA seems to veer away from it's original concept of challenging consrvative mis-information. Now, they spend much of their talent on disparaging media remarks they simply disagree with and this happens to be one of those moments. The poll in question stated it was a voluntary poll and anything after that should be left up to whoever wants to question it's veracity. I don't need MMFA to parse that out for me but maybe you do.
It stated it was a voluntary poll in a separate article. They're talking about the reporting of the results that didn't mention that, and the relaying of that omitted information to other sources.
I guess you didn't look very hard.
Among the 2008 "finalists," Mike Gravel served in the US Army and Chris Dodd served in the US Army Reserve. Of those who "attempted to be the nominee" but dropped out in late 2007, there's Tom Daschle, an Air Force veteran, and retired four-star General Wes Clark.
And of the first-time Democratic candidates for Congress in 2008, at least 50 were vets. Ten of those were veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html