| |
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:43:40 AM | I'd love to see a counter article if this is false. The huffington post for whatever it's political leanings did in fact provide a source for their information. The center responsive politics, which is a non partisan organization.
I wouldn't say that the military is going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama, or that this trend would even continue, but it is absolutely amazing the level of denial in this thread. The reality is, as of the time of the articles publication, Obama recieved 6 times as much money in donations than McCain.
Saying Nuh Uh with 0 evidence to the contrary doesn't make it any less true, it just makes you look childish. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 6:40:37 AM | well you're kind of implying that this may be a fluke of the day.
fact is it reflects a current trend which has only grown over the past few months.
and to previous posts: no it is not a red herring to point out that the thread title blatantly suggests figures which have never been stated by the original article. also, its unfortunate that the topic was presented in such a manner, because despite the leftist sites which put their own illogical spin on these findings, the original source referenced (opensecrets.org) is a nonpartisan and reputable source.
so yes, the title is factually misleading and likely incorrect, however it doesnt make the original source some liberal web of lies.
for all we know there may actually be a 6to1 ratio of support for obama, but the source article neither supports of even suggests such figures.
in short: figures dont lie, but liars figure | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 6:46:41 AM | | I agree the thread title could be more accurate, but we have people in this thread posting "It's in a liberal article so it must be false" when the quoted article itself is actually accurate. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 6:50:40 AM | my bad, i kinda misread your post. and i agree wholeheartedly with that point.
after all, if michael moore tells you that the sky is blue does that make it a lestist lie? | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 7:22:33 AM |
while it is clear that obama is squashing mccain in regards to campaign contributions from troops, it is an illogical conclusion that 6 to 1 in cash mean 6 to 1 troops support obama.
I'll conceede that the money is not 6 to 1 because it's 134 that sent over $60,000.00 to Obama and 26 that sent over $10,000.00 to McCain
That would only make it 5.15 to 1 for Obama. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 7:31:14 AM | First, the title to this thread is misleading. It is a fact that of the 1400 people in the miltary that contributed over $200 the ratio was pro Obama was 6 to 1.
Now how anyone can equate that fact to a 6 to 1 ratio of 1.5 million active duty personnel is beyond me. Common sense please. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 7:44:49 AM | no it would not suggest 5.15 to 1
even the author of the sourced article states that these figures do not equate to general support among troops.
it simply states that those donating over $200 support obama over mccain aproximately 6 to 1.
from the sited article:
"CRP's totals based on employer are limited to donors contributing more than $200, since information is not provided to the Federal Election Commission for smaller contributions. So these figures are likely to disproportionately represent the mood of officers, who have more disposable income to spend on politics than do the lower ranks. But because young people tend to be more liberal than their elders, the total dollar figures could lean even more in Obama's favor."
http://opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 34 | |
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 8:12:11 AM | Makes common sense that at least some of them would. McCain would have them, probably within the space of a year after taking office, visiting lovely and scenic Iran. And if real hardliner military-industrialist imperialist pigs like Cheney had their way, probably at a state of near or actual war with Russia as well. (Again, reminds me of a recent Onion headline I saw: US Declares War on Majority of World).  But yes, why would "the troops" (and I realize we shouldn't talk about them as though they are monolithic in opinion -- because after all they are a group of individuals either way), really want to rally the majority of their support behind the party that lied them into the position they're in today in Iraq , and would from the looks of things like nothing better than to put them into harm's way yet again ASAP. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 10:45:49 AM |
interesting. the troops gave more money to Obama but tend to vote for McCain.
Military favors McCain, poll finds
Boston Globe by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor August 19, 2008 12:41 PM
While troops deployed abroad might be giving more money to Barack Obama, a poll released today says that John McCain will get the vast majority of votes from members of the military and veterans.
According to Gallup, McCain leads Obama 56 percent to 34 percent, with 11 percent expressing no opinion or picking someone else.
Obama spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars today in Florida, a day after McCain addressed the gathering.
Gallup said the poll is based on aggregated data from its daily tracking poll between Aug. 5 and Aug. 17, involving more than 11,000 registered voters, including 2,238 military veterans. Veterans are defined as those who are or have been members of the US military. Obama led McCain 46% to 43% among all registered voters during the period.
The military vote could be a difference maker in several traditionally Republican states where Obama is trying to pull off upsets, including North Carolina and Virginia.
And McCain would seem to have the edge because veterans tend to be Republican and because of his experience as a decorated Vietnam War veteran and prisoner of war. Obama did not serve in the military.
In its final pre-election poll in 2004, Gallup said that 60 percent of likely voters who had served in the military backed President Bush, compared with 40 percent who supported Democrat John F. Kerry. Gallup said: "It is notable, then, that McCain is doing only about as well among military veterans as Bush did in 2004, despite the two Republican candidates' varying military backgrounds. (Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, but did not serve overseas.)" | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 11:12:31 AM | To be fair, that poll was conducted in the US, and it indicated veterans tended to support McCain.
Soldiers currently serving are far less likely to support a candidate who wants them to stay indefinitely. Also those now serving tend to be younger - therefor Obama's core demographic. The article used very misleading data to and basically lied about what it meant. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 11:31:13 AM | Look at the sampling quantity in the scenarios (note I didn't call them polls since the first one I was called down on for terming it a poll). That right there gives the answer.
In the deal about giving money... how many were cited.... I believe less than 1500. And, in this who, in the Military, will vote for McCain or Obama... it's several thousand in the study.
People need to look into these studies/citations/polls and understand how each is conducted, the number involved in the sampling, etc. etc.
I believe McCain will take the Military vote very handily. | |
|
| |
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 12:18:16 PM | | Yeah and the even lower approval rate democrat led congress are the reason for the presidents low approval rating my friend.They should have approved drilling when Bush first went in and asked for it . we would be in this mess of high gas prices . the economy was fine until the gas hit the ceiling I'm neither republican or democrat but I do support my country and my president. I also think we need a third party to keep the other two inline .Msybe a Moderate party..think they may win everytime though so that might not work..but its a lot better than these so far to the left Liberals that would let the Devil himself walk right in and take this country..their pushing for it in our schools with our children as we speak ..when they took prayer and butt whippings out of school.Now we have the drive by shootings and kids killing kids at 12 and, kids having babies at 12 and younger and doing drugs also around those ages and younger..cant you see your way did not work .? or was it that your way did work and that is just what you wanted the outcome of your immoral lives to play out on our beloved country..think it may be the latter. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 1:07:04 PM | -costal drilling for oil takes ten years given the most favorable conditions, not 10 days.
-democrats hold a majority by just one seat. therefore congress is 'run' by no party.
...and believe it or not democrats are not solely responsible for everything wrong with the
country and before you say it, no they tend not to eat babies after sacrificing them to satan. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 4:54:08 PM | | Obama can't even get a GS12 clearance with his savory background. Do you think a grunt with boots on the ground to get security clearance (certain MOS's) that had to pass that would vote for him? Coastal drilling taking 10 years? Kennedy promised in 1961 to land on the moon by the end of the decade. Man was om the moon withen 8 years. We are talking about drilling a hole in the ground to get oil. Drop the anti oil talking points. | |
|
| |
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:35:32 PM | "Man was om the moon withen 8 years. We are talking about drilling a hole in the ground to get oil. Drop the anti oil talking points."
wow i couldn't possibly have thought up a more irrelevant talking point with any amount of notice. you have a gift my friend. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:41:12 PM | "man on the moon in 8 years"
I understood every word he said, and it's dead-on relevant. You just ran into some generation gap issue, and you're too young to be intelligent enough to understand, and as well too ungracious and disrespectful to be worth the time to help on this.
| |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:49:57 PM | | yes, his point is completely relevant because i wasnt born when we landed on the moon. this topic has truly blossomed now. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:55:35 PM | Wow. . . . Ummmmm, . . . Dude. . . .
Whatever yer smokin. . . .
Please lay off!
There was so much static in that post, I lost an IQ point or two suffering through it. I have plenty to spare, but as a precautionary measure, try breaking things down into smaller segments, so we can respond. . . | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:57:43 PM | this coastal/anwar drillling thing might be the second biggest political red herring of the last twenty years but it sure brings america into focus.
"hey, I love the environment and that sea to shining sea. no drilling."
"holy cow, gas for my SUV went up to $4 a gallon for a week. the hell with the sea to shining sea stuff."
covering ourselves with glory for future generations. | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 6:05:38 PM | i can lift large heavy objects with my mind
for christ's sake we landed on the moon and you're telling me i can't accomplish this?
 | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 6:28:29 PM | ***sigh****
crap. Okay, let's give it a try.......
building a bridge is better, building a bridge is better, building a bridge is better. fish are friends, not food. fish are friends, not food. fish are....
Okay PVS, Here's the sitch... When JFK (...cough*democrat* cough...) said, "Hey, we're going to the moon! and we're gonna do it in 10 years!", a LOT of Americans, and good ones too, said, "...what is this guy on? what's he thinking? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!.........................Mercury, Gemini, ....oh my god, this thing might happen.....Apollo, ...oh shit! There's Neil standing on the moon! I wouldn't have believed it" And we did the impossible in 8 years (1961 to 1969), not 10.
Those of us who lived through that period not only ended up watching Neil and Buzz walking around on it that night (and with sincere honorable mention to Collins who got to be the one selected to continue floating around in his tin can but still equally a part of the team), but all of a sudden, "the impossible" wasn't so impossible anymore. And it took less time than expected too when the Americans got behind it together.
The whole idea of off-shore drilling taking 7 to 10 years, speaking for myself and probably a lot of those that watched that night in July of 1969, is REDICULOUS!!! It's a g-d hole to be drilled for cripes sakes! You float a platform out, put down some caissons, and get a big ol' auger bit and go for it! What is so complicated? AND on top of all of that, all of this technology already exists! Not one single thing has to be invented! Here in the Catalina Channel off Huntington Beach you can have one of those babies up in less than a month. You can move them around too in no time. And all the way up to Santa Barbara they've been multiplying for the past few years again to be common sights. (not that I like looking at them either....but you wanna drive a car?...everyone has to pay the piper sometime). As for environmental safety???? I've never seen black sand on any of SoCals beaches, nor heard of any leaks or spills. But can you say "Exxon Valdez" or "Prince William Sound"? So much for the idea that land based drilling is any safer...you still gotta transport it. And as for the arguement of "Oh, those d****ed oil companies are endangering our environment".....Sorry sir, if you drive a car (or even buy groceries at your corner grocery store), YOU are endangering the environment.
Now, so what takes 7-10 years in this process? ......................the red tape.
By George, if we elect a president that really means what he says (BOTH candidates are supporting this, at least that's what they both say) then with presidential authority that red tape, and we all know this, starts to evaporate. We CAN do this in less time.
Okay, so I hope I've helped you bridge the generation gap in understanding. When someone says, "oh, that'll take too long" or something like that, well my friend, the generation of "WE CANS" will always know better about what Americans can do, and how long "the impossible" really takes. Generations of Americans have bucked-up before to find their sticking places, maybe it's the younger generation's turn to actually step up and make something work this time.
I've done my best in this post. Much appreciation if you could watch your manners here. Thanks.
o4
ps: thanks exi | |
|
| Troops support Obama by 6 to 1
Posted: 8/19/2008 7:09:29 PM | "But even as oil trades at more than $135 a barrel — up from $68 a year ago — the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig, executives and analysts said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html
its not about whether or not such an engineering marvel can be accomplished, but rather what practical and realistic timeframe can be applied to this, which is -sorry to burst your bubble- about a decade. its not all about what we are capable of accomplishing as the human race, but simply what knowingly available resources, equipment, and bureaucracy will allow us to accomplish. its really a matter of apples and oranges, which is why the apollo missions are irrelevant to this challenge.
maybe we just got off on the wrong foot and i really dont want to be antagonsitic. i'll just retire this exchange between you and me by stating that fact that the idea of instant oil via drilling off-coast is impossible, impractical, and just not worth considering as an immediate fix to our problem. i may not have as much life exprerience under my belt as you, but i assure you that i am getting just as unmercifully raped at the gas pumps as you are and would readily welcome a practical and immediate relief. however im afraid this is not it. | |
|
Home
login 
