The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

How many polls have you taken, ATV? How many times have you seen a question that you wished to qualify a response to, but the poll doesn't permit it?

Do you want to be home in:
a. 6 months?
b. 1 year?
c. 2 years?
d. a longer time period?

I spent 32 years in the military. I communicate with several of my friends still serving and still in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly. My son spent a year patrolling the Abu Gharaib area. And there are many more that I speak with when I have the chance. Not ONE of them sounds like your (carefully crafted) Zogby poll. While every one would answer "6 months", everyone would also add... "assuming the job was done" (which, I'll bet, the poll wouldn't accomodate).

You are completely loaded.

Countertrey wrote:How many polls have you taken, ATV? How many times have you seen a question that you wished to qualify a response to, but the poll doesn't permit it?

Do you want to be home in:
a. 6 months?
b. 1 year?
c. 2 years?
d. a longer time period?

I spent 32 years in the military. I communicate with several of my friends still serving and still in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly. My son spent a year patrolling the Abu Gharaib area. And there are many more that I speak with when I have the chance. Not ONE of them sounds like your (carefully crafted) Zogby poll. While every one would answer "6 months", everyone would also add... "assuming the job was done" (which, I'll bet, the poll wouldn't accomodate).

You are completely loaded.

I'll help ATV out here.

Um...that's not what Howard Dean thinks. He thinks the 4 liberal ex-generals willing to undercut the military are more credible then the hundreds who support it.

Howard Dean thinks if you ask troops when they would like to come home that's the same as asking if they believe in the conflict they are in.

Howard Dean thinks if you can find some troops out of the 100K over there who will say what you want to hear that's the general opinion of all the troops.

Howard Dean thinks the polls and liberal blogs provide more accurate reflection of the troops then the people we actually know. Aside, I am not military as you but my brother was (US Naval Academy grad) and cousin is (Airforce MPs) and both were in Gulf War one, what they tell me is what you tell me, not what Howard Dean, I mean ATV says they think.

And what Howard Dean thinks is far more important then what you or I think so STFU.

There you go, ATV, helping out the cause.

He thinks the 4 liberal ex-generals willing to undercut the military are more credible then the hundreds who support it.

Who are the 4 generals that you are referring to?

Sir_Monk wrote:

He thinks the 4 liberal ex-generals willing to undercut the military are more credible then the hundreds who support it.

Who are the 4 generals that you are referring to?

I didn't mean 4 literally, there are a few who are quoted by the liberal media and appear on talk shows who say what the liberal media want to hear.

Just like there are a few families, like Cindy Sheehan who say their kids died for nothing.

Just like out of the 100K+ troops some have low moral and are liberals who say what the liberal media want to hear.

In all three cases all we ever hear are the few who say what the liberal media want to hear and the majority are ignored becuase they don't say what the liberal media wants to hear.

From my discussions with military people (family & family friends) there is no morale issue at all. Sure they want to wrap up Iraq and come home, but I hear nothing of low morale or a desire to leave before the job is done from any of them.

But there are so many people in the military I don't doubt the media can find the few who will say what they want to hear and ask the right skewed poll questions to portray the result they want.

Polls are so manipulatable by how the questions are phrased and no one does it better for their own purposes then the liberal media.

Kazoo, come on man, the liberal media argument is both tired and something of a red herring. Now I will grant, up-front, that Alterman is left-of-center but I have yet to find a more comprehensive study on the subject than "What Liberal Media?" which sets out to demonstrate (and does) that the idea of bias, on either side, isn't grounded in reality.
I have a brother and two brothers in law who served in Iraq, their reports reflect a certain amount of uncertainty about fighting a war with Iraq. In fact, the most common response I got when talking to them and other soldiers is: Iraq was a mess before we got there, it's a mess now, it will be a mess when we leave and why are we there in the first place?
Yes, polls can be biased (and I am not suggesting this one is perfect) but I suggest someone go find the methodology for this one before making assumptions about its validity.

Fios wrote:Kazoo, come on man, the liberal media argument is both tired and something of a red herring. Now I will grant, up-front, that Alterman is left-of-center but I have yet to find a more comprehensive study on the subject than "What Liberal Media?" which sets out to demonstrate (and does) that the idea of bias, on either side, isn't grounded in reality.
I have a brother and two brothers in law who served in Iraq, their reports reflect a certain amount of uncertainty about fighting a war with Iraq. In fact, the most common response I got when talking to them and other soldiers is: Iraq was a mess before we got there, it's a mess now, it will be a mess when we leave and why are we there in the first place?
Yes, polls can be biased (and I am not suggesting this one is perfect) but I suggest someone go find the methodology for this one before making assumptions about its validity.

I don't need to read a book by leftists disavowing the media is left, I only have to read the media to know the media is left.

- The cartoons are probably 90% Republican bashing.
- The oped pages are dominated by Democratic views.
- Republican scandles are driven into the ground even with little evidence. Democratic scandles reported and quickly dropped.
- Information counter to Democratic accusations is ignored, like that Delay was being prosecuted by a Democrat using laws as never used before in that way and that Cindy Sheehan made completely contradictory statements about meeting Bush.
- There are many Democratic columnists, few Republican ones in the oped pages.
- Democratic misrepresentations are ignored like that we have "record" gas prices (only record ignoring inflation) and "record" deficits (only records ignoring economic growth).
- Proposals that are not Democratic like the Fairtax get no reporting.
- Companies are portrayed as greedy and corupt.
- The UN is reported as competent and the criminal stories are downplayed.
- While Fox is conservative, they have liberals on to speak for themselves all the time. You rarely to never see conservatives on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC. Of those I have only seen ABC pursue stories that harm Democrats and even for them it's rare.

And this is across most of the media, there is little differentiation in the reporting of the stories across the liberal media.

Also, the only people who I have ever met who think the media isn't left are liberals. Every libertarian I know personally think the media is as left as Republicans do. It's not their constant attacks on Republicans I dislike but the pass they give Democrats.

I'm gonna let you think what you want on this one, no point in having this argument

edit: that's not meant to be dismissive, I am just tired of having this particular debate

Note that he claims a lot of stuff there, but backs it up with ZERO evidence.

As for the Zogby poll, the question was not "whether you would like to go home within a year", the question was "whether the U.S. should exit within a year" So, again, if our government (led by the Republican Bush administration and the Rupublican led Do Nothing Congress) had followed the advice of the troops, they would already be out of there. Now a Democratic led Congress is, according to the results of this poll (and every other civilian poll) as well as common sense, trying to follow the advice of the troops to begin exiting Iraq. In conclusion, if you truly support the troops (not just the word from your supposed redneck brother-in-law or whoever) then you might want to call or email your Congressman to tell them you want to bring them home.

"Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30. The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.'

Fios wrote:I'm gonna let you think what you want on this one, no point in having this argument

edit: that's not meant to be dismissive, I am just tired of having this particular debate

No offense taken. I wanted to give an idea of how it's biased but pursuing further will get us no where. I'm tired of arguing this one too.

ATV wrote:Note that he claims a lot of stuff there, but backs it up with ZERO evidence.

There's a good argument for left media bias. Thanks ATV!

ATV wrote:As for the Zogby poll, the question was not "whether you would like to go home within a year", the question was "whether the U.S. should exit within a year" So, again, if our government (led by the Republican Bush administration and the Rupublican led Do Nothing Congress) had followed the advice of the troops, they would already be out of there. Now a Democratic led Congress is, according to the results of this poll (and every other civilian poll) as well as common sense, trying to follow the advice of the troops to begin exiting Iraq. In conclusion, if you truly support the troops (not just the word from your supposed redneck brother-in-law or whoever) then you might want to call or email your Congressman to tell them you want to bring them home.

"Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30. The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.'

What conclusions do you draw from this?

That it's not quite the biased poll it was immediately dismissed as

Fios wrote:That it's not quite the biased poll it was immediately dismissed as

I mentioned liberal media polls but not this one specifically, not that anyone said otherwise.

I'm not sure I draw any real conclusion though from this poll. Based on the poll itself and no other data, it only says that at the beginning of 2006 soldiers thought we should be out within a year. Whether they thought so out of optimism the job would be done by then or pessimism it couldn't be done is not addressed in the poll. It is also not addressed if they wanted to be out in a year no matter what or only if objectives were met.

For me leaving Iraq is tricky

- Obviously I want to leave the Middle East (and all other regions eventually except US territory and international waters).

- On the other hand given that neither party wants to leave and we are staying in the Middle East I find the Democrats plan to pull out and let the government fall (at least they hope it will) more scary then the Republicans plan to have a stable government in Iraq.

- I also think that since we did take out Hussein we have an obligation to complete the job we started and pulling out now will harm our credibility as we will appear to be cutting and running because we will be cutting and running.

I see no easy solution since we've not learned that our taking the lead in all these situations is neither recognized nor appreciated by the world and we should screw them by not doing it and bringing our troops home.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Fios wrote:Kazoo, come on man, the liberal media argument is both tired and something of a red herring. Now I will grant, up-front, that Alterman is left-of-center but I have yet to find a more comprehensive study on the subject than "What Liberal Media?" which sets out to demonstrate (and does) that the idea of bias, on either side, isn't grounded in reality.
I have a brother and two brothers in law who served in Iraq, their reports reflect a certain amount of uncertainty about fighting a war with Iraq. In fact, the most common response I got when talking to them and other soldiers is: Iraq was a mess before we got there, it's a mess now, it will be a mess when we leave and why are we there in the first place?
Yes, polls can be biased (and I am not suggesting this one is perfect) but I suggest someone go find the methodology for this one before making assumptions about its validity.

I don't need to read a book by leftists disavowing the media is left, I only have to read the media to know the media is left.

- The cartoons are probably 90% Republican bashing.
- The oped pages are dominated by Democratic views.
- Republican scandles are driven into the ground even with little evidence. Democratic scandles reported and quickly dropped.
- Information counter to Democratic accusations is ignored, like that Delay was being prosecuted by a Democrat using laws as never used before in that way and that Cindy Sheehan made completely contradictory statements about meeting Bush.
- There are many Democratic columnists, few Republican ones in the oped pages.
- Democratic misrepresentations are ignored like that we have "record" gas prices (only record ignoring inflation) and "record" deficits (only records ignoring economic growth).
- Proposals that are not Democratic like the Fairtax get no reporting.
- Companies are portrayed as greedy and corupt.
- The UN is reported as competent and the criminal stories are downplayed.
- While Fox is conservative, they have liberals on to speak for themselves all the time. You rarely to never see conservatives on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC. Of those I have only seen ABC pursue stories that harm Democrats and even for them it's rare.

And this is across most of the media, there is little differentiation in the reporting of the stories across the liberal media.

Also, the only people who I have ever met who think the media isn't left are liberals. Every libertarian I know personally think the media is as left as Republicans do. It's not their constant attacks on Republicans I dislike but the pass they give Democrats.

The media has been almost criminally remiss in giving passes to Bush. The guy has been up to about every bit of nefarious behavior possible for a President for six years and only now is it catching up to him. It's been gullible, bought off, intimidated, without memory, lazy, and stupid while Bush has created the closest thing to a totalitarian government ever created in the US and become the chief threat to world peace as well. Further, his incompetence has been stupifying and he would have lost his office in the last election were it not for the incredible deference he was given in the press, which prolonged the ridiculous Swift Boat affair and gave it a credibility it in no way deserved. Also, for the media to make Bush's draft dodging secondary to Rather and co. screwing up their sources was absolutely unforgivable. It helped a spoiled boy moron be elected President by ignoring an important truth in favor of skewering an anchorman.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The media has been almost criminally remiss in giving passes to Bush. The guy has been up to about every bit of nefarious behavior possible for a President for six years and only now is it catching up to him. It's been gullible, bought off, intimidated, without memory, lazy, and stupid while Bush has created the closest thing to a totalitarian government ever created in the US and become the chief threat to world peace as well. Further, his incompetence has been stupifying and he would have lost his office in the last election were it not for the incredible deference he was given in the press, which prolonged the ridiculous Swift Boat affair and gave it a credibility it in no way deserved. Also, for the media to make Bush's draft dodging secondary to Rather and co. screwing up their sources was absolutely unforgivable. It helped a spoiled boy moron be elected President by ignoring an important truth in favor of skewering an anchorman.

Bush sucks and I'm neither a Republican nor a supporter of his, so I have no interest in defending him.

But what were Democrats thinking offering up compulsive liar, America blaming, military hating, nut job John Kerry? Democrats were insane, the election was theirs and they picked the biggest buffoon of the lot of buffoons. Bush would be gone now, what were Democrats thinking? It's mind boggling.

I suppose they were returning the favor for when Clinton was mired in unpopularity and certain to lose and the Republicans came up with.........Bob Dole. I suppose the parties are even now.

I find the Democrats plan to pull out and let the government fall (at least they hope it will)

Lie. No evidence (by the way, I'm certain the government WILL fail, not that I necessarily believe it should.

compulsive liar

Lie. No evidence.

America blaming

Lie. No Evidence.

military hating

Lie. No Evidence.

nut job

Ridiculous.

when Clinton was mired in unpopularity

As I've previously demonstrated, The lowest approval rating Clinton ever had, from any poll, was nearly TWICE the approval rating Bush now has. I think it was 43 or 48 percent? Clinton's approval rating was usually around 60 percent or higher.

ATV wrote:As I've previously demonstrated, The lowest approval rating Clinton ever had, from any poll, was nearly TWICE the approval rating Bush now has. I think it was 43 or 48 percent? Clinton's approval rating was usually around 60 percent or higher.

Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote in either election. Even against HW Bush who sucked and Dole who sucked. That's pretty bad.

Kerry lost to George W Bush who had been President for 4 years and we knew what a horrible president he was. It took a real nut job to lose to him. I'd a loved to vote against Bush, but for Lurch and Opie? I don't think so.

His running mate was gay, I heard that from a reliable source. Have you Ann Coulter's book "Godless: the Church of Liberalism?" An excellent read. OK, actually I didn't read it but I heard it was good. She's hot too, not like Hillary the dog.

Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote in either election.

And.......? A large contingent of Americans, including myself, voted for Perot in those elections. This has nothing to do with approval ratings. Another desperate attempt to cloud the issue and ignore the facts.

Even against HW Bush who sucked

I wish we had a President who sucked as much as Bush the legitimate.

George W Bush who had been President for 4 years and we knew what a horrible president he was.

I did. Maybe you did. Not everybody did, though. In fact there are still 30% or so "dead-enders" in the U.S......

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

His running mate was gay

Lie. No evidence provided.

ATV wrote:

His running mate was gay

Lie. No evidence provided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8

Ann Coulter said so, I'd take her word for anything, she's hot. She has a nice Adam's Apple too, not obscured by fat like the stubby Hillary's.

ATV wrote:

Media, and uber-humans telling the world how we feel about things.

I agree, we should listen to what the troops have to say....

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Here's what Obama has to say......

http://action.barackobama.com/page/content/iraq/

Don't care. Polls exist for people on the outside looking in. I've been one of the guys you're trying to reference. I've sat around fox holes and floated less than 100 miles off the coast of some of the most dangerous waters in the world. You know what we talked about the most...it wasn't the war itself. That crap only makes your time more miserable. It was either spent discussing our mission, sharing fond memories, and what we were going to do when we got to the rear...stuff the military has done since the Roman times. Here's another fun fact for you...the standard Army/Marine enlistment is 3 years. How long have we been at war with Iraq? (I know you can answer that one.) So, if my math is correct, most people that were in prior to the war starting, have had the opportunity to get out. Anyone else entering after the war has started knows d$mn well what they are getting themselves into. It's still an all volunteer military. And we want to keep it that way. So those who enlist, then complain because they were deployed to hostile territory really need to think about why they enlisted into the military. It isn't because of the great chow or dental...I can attest to that one first hand. So once again I ask, stop speaking for us, because you're wrong.

$.02

Again, the poll's question had nothing to do with whether the soldiers wanted to "go home". The question, again, was whether the U.S. should exit Iraq within a year - The results of which coincidentally mirrored (and continue to mirror) the sentiments of Americans in general. Who woulda thunk it?

Polls exist for people on the outside looking in. I've been one of the guys you're trying to reference.

Interesting. Well, I was a voter. I know lots of other voters and nearly every one of them voted for John Kerry. I guess the polls must've been wrong - John Kerry is the real president. You just can't trust them polls.

My Father was a Lt. Col in the Air Force who was a bomber/navigator on B-52's during the Cuban Missile Crisis and flew rescue missions on C-130s during Vietnam. He voted for Bush in 2000 (regrets it terribly) and considers Iraq to be "the worst foreign policy decision this country has ever made" and that we should exit NOW. I have an Uncle who was in the Navy during Vietnam - He regards it the same way. I have another Uncle who was also in the Navy, though he loves Bush and supports everything he does. Unfortunately, he's (literally) insane. My wife has two cousins who were both deployed in Iraq (with the army) and though I've never asked them directly, knowing them I'd be shocked if either thought we shouldn't exit Iraq.

Anyhow, I'm surprised none of these people received your memorandum notifying that you were now the official spokesman for the troops. In fact beside the dellusional rednecks on here, and my insane Uncle, I don't know ANYBODY personally, military or otherwise, who doesn't think we should exit Iraq.

I didn't say a word until you started referencing what troops wanted through polls, media outlets, etc. All I'm saying is don't believe everything you read. While you have family who has supported many operations, I doubt they openly criticized it while they were actively involved...that's not the way we do business. As for the comment of me being elected "spokesman for the military," or whatever drivel you conveyed...thanks. It's an honor.

Here's an idea. Let's unilaterally withdrawl all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure the government is stable enough by now. Hey, we pulled out of Vietnam, had our knees cut out from under us in Somalia, and under U.N. sanctions was hapless in Haiti. Why not try this. Sounds like a great idea.

When you respond, and I know you will...don't bother looking for a response. My fellow "dellusional rednecks" and I are all busy keeping the sky from falling down around you.

skinz74 wrote:Here's an idea. Let's unilaterally withdrawl all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure the government is stable enough by now. Hey, we pulled out of Vietnam, had our knees cut out from under us in Somalia, and under U.N. sanctions was hapless in Haiti. Why not try this. Sounds like a great idea.

This is what they want. This is the Democrat's OBJECTIVE. When the government falls they get to say "I told you so" when they didn't. They will campaign they knew better then to get a conflict they got us into arm and arm with the Republicans.

If you don't pull out now, the government might not fall and they would consider that catistrophic to their plans. They know that, which is why they are trying to mitigate disaster by trying to get out out sooner and telegraph their intent to the terrorists in Iraq to bolster them.

Your buddies who die over there are just collateral damage to Democrats. They don't want them to die, it's just necessary for their critical need to be behind the steering wheel while driving down the same road the Republicans were.

ATV wrote:Again, the poll's question had nothing to do with whether the soldiers wanted to "go home". The question, again, was whether the U.S. should exit Iraq within a year - The results of which coincidentally mirrored (and continue to mirror) the sentiments of Americans in general. Who woulda thunk it?

And once again, I asked you what specific conclusions you drew from the poll and got no reply. So let's try this again. In early 2006 a poll was taken which said a majority of US said we "should" exit Iraq within a year, and that from that now related to our being in Iraq we can derive...