"Should the U.S. engage Iran in immediate and unconditional talks?"

[eallen]

That's now the poll question here:

http://edition.cnn.com/

My own view is: absolutely, of course.

:hippie:

[Auntie Bush]

1. How the hell can we have 636 fools who voted "yes"...let's do it militarily?

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yes, "jaw jaw" is better than "war war" but our corporate whorish media LOADED

the question by inserting the world "unconditional." They could have worded the survey question more aptly because many conservatives will inappropriately assume that we will then "unconditionally" offer benefits, which is NOT the case.

We just need to start A DIALOG. It will take time to get enough quality "back and forth" communications in order to *work out* concessions that needs to be made by ALL sides.

When I was in graduate school (way back in history :blush:), I was hired for the summer to assist in crunching numbers in various survey analyses. As a result of that experience and the opportunity to work with psychologists who conduct sound social science surveys and experimentation, I'm here to tell you, The wording of the poll question is all-powerful. ;)

Instead of throwing the divisive word "unconditional" into the question, the poll constructors should have worded the question SIMPLY: Should the USA engage Iran in immediate talks? That question conveys the information in a CLEAR manner. IF this poll question was worded as above, we'd glean a true majority of about 90-95% respondents. Only those who are heavily invested in the Stock Market, and mostly the Military Industrial Complex WANTS to spin up a war with Iran.

IMO, many of these pollsters are pulling out all the stops in order to ease Dear Leader's fall from grace. :shrug:

[Double T]

3. We'll need a new administration to get immediate and unconditional talks.........

going as bushco doesn't comprehend diplomacy.