Troops polled, results no real surprise

unsung wrote:

Oh wait it is Fox News it can't be true.

God, you're like a textbook; it's unbelievable how easy you can be read. You use the same lame line every time you post a fox news article... here's a suggestion... don't use it as a fucking news source in general.

as for your pathetic attempt to try to sway people into thinking that McCain will be better for the guys fighting for our freedom: You do know that the majority of the soldiers in Iraq oppose the war? You do know that they don't want to go into Iran? You do know that logically they wouldn't support a McCain administration as it will not be much different than a Bush admin, except for the fact that Palin is actually an incompetent idiot.

Honestly, the fact that people can be so fooled into thinking McCain will bring "change" is not only laughable, it's scary. Obama's change, while it's not drastic, I admit, is certainly much more noticeable than McCain's plans. The reason why Obama and Biden keep mentioning the fact that McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time is because that's honestly all you need to say to show that McCain should not even be considered to be president. And yet, people who oppose Bush still think to support McCain. Something like this is certainly one of the many drawbacks of our country.

unsung wrote:

Apparently I'm not easy enough to read, at least not for your feeble little mind. Look at my signature and then tell me where it exactly states that I'm voting for McCain. That's the funny thing with you crazy wacky liberals, you get your panties in a bunch so easily.

Apparently you don't even know how to read. Look at my post again and then tell me where I said you were voting for McCain.

And I'm not a "liberal."

And the Fox News thing is called sarcasm, I'd send you a link as to the definition but I don't have all day to explain it to you.

I was trying to tell you why it's a poor attempt at sarcasm, but seeing as how you missed the whole point of my post, it doesn't surprise me to see that you weren't able to get that part either.

jimed14 wrote:

The Military Times offered certain caveats for its poll, which was open only to its 80,000 subscribers. Responses were entirely voluntary and were not focused on a representative sample of the public, as scientific polls are. The troops polled were also somewhat older than average enlisted servicemembers and included more officers than is representative of the military as a whole.

So it's about as accurate as a web poll?

Great... that was worth starting a thread about.

In a related note, according to a Moving Train/fugawzi poll, Obama leads by a 4-1 margin.
(source: http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=306342)

unsung wrote:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/

3 to 1 in favor of McCain.

Oh wait it is Fox News it can't be true.

Yes not much of a surprise or factor because they're a small segment of the voting population.

peace

Oh Yeah Right.
I'm sure they're gonna vote for the guy that wants to keep em' in Iraq for 100 years.

Fox News has no self respect. They might as well be writing Science Fiction at this point. Don't trust a word those pigs say. It's all BS

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Oh Yeah Right.
I'm sure they're gonna vote for the guy that wants to keep em' in Iraq for 100 years.

Fox News has no self respect. They might as well be writing Science Fiction at this point. Don't trust a word those pigs say. It's all BS

Actually they would normally Republicans give more to the military. For instance when Clinton was president the pay raises were few and new equipment was very hard to come by.

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I'm not arguing, but why were the troops that were deployed to afghanistan and iraq lacking sufficient equipment?

Didn't Some people vote against it. I am not saying we were prepared to go but some funding took a long time.

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Didn't Some people vote against it. I am not saying we were prepared to go but some funding took a long time.

3-4 years later? Seems that if the politicians who "support" the troops so much wouldn't send them into a war without proper funding to ensure that they get the equipment they need to make sure they don't get killed. Why couldn't the republicans fast track the funding for basic equipment?

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know. When I was not training to go to Iraq I was out partying enjoying my early twenties. All I know is I rolled from Kuwait to Tikrit in a sof t skinned vehicle. Oh wait we did have sandbags on the floor in case a IED went off it would make us really dirty.

Yea, I was reading an article that was talking about humvess not being able to protect against even small arms fire and they even mentioned that shitty idea of the sandbags being suggested. Pretty fucking disgusting and treasonous.