I don't think I'd call this more fun than smacking a democrat but it sure as hell comes close.

she's fucking him of her own free will. Goyishe Janitor's shrink has already equated that with his father refusing to breast feed him after the age of 13...

LMFAO

WTF, you are so fucking funny...50% right.....and Obama is not responsible.....you're killing me.

You can have your own opinion (or whatever passes for what you're told to do) but you can't have your own facts. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hey JDipshit... please lecture me more on my own facts.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls...ry?id=20118605

Americans say they don't want the U.S. to strike Syria, but that they could support a limited action that did not risk the lives of American soldiers, according to recent polls.
In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should.
But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.
Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not.

For being a teacher, you sure don't do a very good job of research. You'd be slapped upside the head right after LK, no before. I'd bitch slap you both, just like Patton supposedly did to the soldier in WWII. You for lying and LK to try and knock some sense into her dingy lil head...




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls...ry?id=20118605

Americans say they don't want the U.S. to strike Syria, but that they could support a limited action that did not risk the lives of American soldiers, according to recent polls.
In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should.
But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.
Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not. Originally Posted by WTF

This same poll that you cite also found that 79% of Americans (70% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans) say that Obama should be required to seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Syria for their suspected use of chemical weapons.

didn't you already post this, Ma Barker? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Pay no attention to this disturbed individual.
He missed his TWERKING workout. Usually followed by his 'goose stepping' your way to a leaner body' exercises.
Yes... It's true, this man was born yesterday.

This same poll that you cite also found that 79% of Americans (70% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans) say that Obama should be required to seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Syria for their suspected use of chemical weapons. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

I can read a poll dipshit. JD was the liar in this thread, not me.
I stated that 50% agreed to a limited strike. JD lied when he said I was not presenting facts. I proved him the liar.

I have stated that I would let them kill each other and not lift a hand either way.

But that was not my point, my point is this is not a war and I highly doubt that we escalate into something like Iraq.

Why WTF! Have you been caught "cherry picking" the things you want from a poll? One poll. How about this poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97T0UO20130830

Here, I'll make it easy for you


By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON | Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:10pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans still do not want to intervene in Syria's civil war, although support for such action has increased since the suspected chemical gas attack near Damascus last week, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The poll made clear how much work President Barack Obama has to do to win support for military action from a war-weary public as he makes the case that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be held responsible for the attack that the United States says killed more than 1,400 people.
Some 53 percent of those surveyed this week said the United States should stay out of Syria's civil war, down from 60 percent last week. Just 20 percent said the United States should take action, but that was up from 9 percent last week.
When asked whether the United States should intervene if Assad's government used chemical weapons on civilians, 29 percent of Americans said yes - up from 25 percent last week - while 44 percent opposed intervention even if chemicals have been used, down from 46 percent last week.
Support for U.S. involvement is not likely to climb much higher before any military action because most Americans are now fully aware of the situation in Syria and likely have made up their minds about it, Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said.
The Reuters/Ipsos online poll of 708 adult Americans was conducted Monday through Friday this week. It has a credibility interval, similar to a margin of error, of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points for each result.
Obama's administration has made clear that it will punish Assad for the attack, even as prominent allies such as Great Britain have resisted participation in any military operation.
But many Americans remain deeply reluctant to engage in further conflicts after more than a decade of expensive and inconclusive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Every time we get involved in somebody else's mess, we just get deeper in debt and nothing happens. They go right back to being just exactly as they've been for 200 years," said Dolly Benson, 71, of Romance, Arkansas.
The Obama administration says any strike would be limited in scope and would not in any way resemble the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.
"We know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday. "But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about."
The poll was taken before Secretary of State John Kerry released on Friday an unclassified intelligence report that he said presented detailed evidence that Assad's forces were behind the attack.
Those surveyed in the poll were more likely to support action when they were specifically asked about chemical weapons, which are outlawed under international treaty. Obama has made limiting the spread of chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction a cornerstone of his foreign policy.
Even those who supported a U.S. intervention said they were worried that military action could further inflame a volatile region and expose the United States and its allies to a range of risks, including retaliation from Syria or its allies.
"It's a slippery slope; we have to tread lightly," said Baruch Jabbarr, 60, of Brooklyn, New York. "But I'm all for intervention because something has to be done."

Why WTF! Have you been caught "cherry picking" the things you want from a poll? One poll. How about this poll

." Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I cherry picked the fucking poll that backed exactly wtf I said. I never said that other polls did not exist like you said my poll/facts did not exist you lying sack of shit. I did not lie about there being other polls...polls that asked the question differently.

He will have his missile strike and be done with it IMHO.

50% of the nation supports this option. I'm not one of them but I am just reporting the facts. Originally Posted by WTF

.
The last poll I heard (about two hours ago) said that only 25% of the American people support an attack but ONLY if a case can be made that American interests or lives are in danger. You can have your own opinion (or whatever passes for what you're told to do) but you can't have your own facts. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

For being a teacher, you sure don't do a very good job of research. You'd be slapped upside the head right after LK, no before. I'd bitch slap you both, just like Patton supposedly did to the soldier in WWII. You for lying and LK to try and knock some sense into her dingy lil head...




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls-americans-attack-syria-support-limited-action/story?id=20118605

Americans say they don't want the U.S. to strike Syria, but that they could support a limited action that did not risk the lives of American soldiers, according to recent polls.
In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should.
But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.
Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not. Originally Posted by WTF

I can read a poll dipshit. JD was the liar in this thread, not me.
I stated that 50% agreed to a limited strike. JD lied when he said I was not presenting facts. I proved him the liar.

I have stated that I would let them kill each other and not lift a hand either way.

But that was not my point, my point is this is not a war and I highly doubt that we escalate into something like Iraq. Originally Posted by WTF

I struck a nerve there, didn't I! LMAO!

Your post was just another typical bullshit WTF response.

BTW, Go fuck yourself!