You SHOULD be posting as Boxlock the clown.

They finally let you girl, hoaxer Ashley Todd outta jail ya know box.

The little bit of insanity that claimed she was attacked by an Obama supporter? YOU remember. You irresponsibly jumped on the story.

Yeah. She’s free now, pending psychiatric care.

Maybe you cons can get a group rate?

It really is all you have isn’t it? That and repeating the factoid that more citizens of Chicago died from violence than soldiers in Iraq. Fine. I never argued differently. What I said is that the comparison is meaningless, and it is. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn from it. You can’t defend the meaning of it, so you launch into yet another tirade of name calling and whining about me changing your post into something else (and I have done no such thing).

You have EARNED the title, “Box of Rocks”. And get help for your rage. Seriously, there is something wrong with you.

Boy, you are practically sputtering with rage, Box of Rocks.

It doesn’t matter if CBS2 in Chicago makes the comparison (it bleeds, it’s sensational, it leads) and some nitwit from Drudge picks it up, it is still not a valid comparison. CBS2 is comparing the death rate for a city of 3 million to the death rate for a force of 130,000 people. To compare the absolute number of violent deaths between the population of 3 million and a population of 130,000 is not appropriate, it doesn’t matter who does it. 125 people killed out of 3,000,000 is a much smaller ratio and percentage than approximately 62 or 63 out of 130,000. A quick estimation of civilian deaths in Baghdad alone for the same period this year, btw, is approximately 500 civilian deaths out of a population of approximately 7,000,000 people.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad

Ratio of violent deaths over population in Chicago for citizens=125/3,000,000=0.000042

Ratio of violent deaths over population in Baghdad for citizens=500/7,000,000=0.00071

Ratio for Ratio of violent deaths over population for American troops stationed in Iraq=62.5/130,000=0.00048

The ratios, which indicate the proportion for violent deaths out of the total populations of Chicago, Baghdad, and American troops in the entirity of Iraq, are much higher for both the people of Baghdad and the American troops than they are for the people living in Chicago. Sensationalistic facile thinking may be good enough for a local TV news station trying to get attention for itself, but it is not good enough to construct an argument. The ratios indicate, very very clearly, that the chances for a violent death in Chicago is less by a factor of 10 than for a soldier serving in Iraq (although this may vary according to the Chicago neighborhood or where someone is serving in Iraq, of course). And for a citizen of Baghdad, the chances are worse (although for a citizen of Iraq overall, the odds are better than for an American soldier, but still worse than they are in Chicago.

The comparison of absolute the death toll in absolute numbers between Chicago and American troops is meaningless, except that it provides grist for the right wingers who are trying to make Obama coming from Chicago look scary. But because the comparison is meaningless, apples and oranges, any argument generated about how bad Chicago is is meaningless. If you want to talk about how bad Chicago is, compare it with other metropolitan cities in the US, or even Chicago itself in earlier periods of time. But to compare the death toll with the military death toll in Iraq is nothing more than an attention getter. It is not a valid comparison.

It may be much better now, but the hazards for our troops doing their constitutional duty in Iraq is still much higher than the hazards of living in Chicago. Why are you denigrating the bravery of our troops by implying that they are safer serving hazardous duty than they would be safer living as civilians in Chicago, all to score questionable points against Obama (by the way, I don’t think that is in any way your intent, but functionally that is what you are doing)? And why is a Senator from Chicago, Illinois being singled out for responsibility for the death toll?

If that is not what you were doing, what was your point?

Ha, you who? YOU!
Who cares, you can’t even read the posts, and then the links, without changing the point and then arguing that.
The fact remains:
125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq
CHICAGO (CBS) ? An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

In the same time period, an estimated 247 people were shot and wounded in the city.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

Will Obama Support Chicago Surge? Hometown Death Toll Double Iraq’s
“Barack Obama famously refused to support the surge in Iraq, claiming it would “make things worse.” Events have of course proved him very wrong, as Obama had to admit to Bill O’Reilly. Now that he’s acknowledged the efficacy of a surge, will he call for one . . . in his own hometown?

As per this item [via Drudge] from the CBS affiliate in Chicago:

An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/05/will-obama-support-chicago-surge-hometown-death-toll-double-iraqs

Now, you complete A$$, argue that! That is what I’ve said all along…more Americans are killed in Chicago due to violence than in Iraq!
Take your asinine argument up with CBS and the authors of the links posted if you don’t agree.
I will no longer argue with an idiot.

——————————————-

Should US pull out of Chicago? Think about it…

Pull out of Iraq or
Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago ?

Body count in the last six months:
292 killed (murdered) in Chicago;
221 killed in Iraq .
Chicago…. Who Runs it?
Senators: Barack Obama and Dick Durbin
Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Illinois Gov: Rod Blogojevich
Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
Illinois Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike, see above)
Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
Leadership in Illinois? ……. all democrats

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.

Of course, they’re all blaming each other!
Can’t blame Republicans ……..there aren’t any!
State pension fund: $44 billion in debt …….worst in country!
Chicago’s Cook County sales tax: 10.25%, highest in country.
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois
and he’s gonna “fix” Washington politics for us!

————————————————

So, ALL Box of Rocks said was that the absolute death toll was higher in Chicago than for American forces in Iraq. Right, sure.

Do you not understand that you can be held accountable for what you post here?

And by the way, I strongly doubt Box of Rocks actually wrote the above. I am sure he just cut and pasted it from somewhere with his usual attention to detail (that is, none whatsoever).

Once again, nothing much but sputtering and clueless ad hominems. Also factually incorrect. Box of Rocks, you implied that the death toll in Chicago was scandalous because it was higher than the death toll (for Americans) in Iraq, and that the Democrats in Chicago and Illinois were to blame. However, as I pointed out, the comparison of the death rate between a the citizentry for a city of 3 million people and a spcifically American force in an occupied country consisting of 130 thousand people is meaningless. You might as well be outraged that more Americans die violently in America than die violently in Iraq. The comparison makes just as much sense. If more people violently died in, say, Topeka, you might have a comparison. Here you don’t, and that’s a fact.

And then, on top of that, you write sloppily enough to imply (more than once) that more PEOPLE die in Chicago than in Iraq.

It’s amusing that you call me a loser. Do try again, Sir Black Knight.

I’m sure everyone could gather that…..except the ADHD Jaw-less fish.

Again, simply asinine!
The baseline deaths in Iraq before we ever came in was high, and that is in fact a baseline.
There are fewer Americans killed in Iraq than Americans in Chicago….that’s a fact. And that’s all I stated.
The Jaw-less fish comes up with an argument entirely separate from what I ever stated and then maintains that what I should have been looking at.
Now that’s a loser!

The LAST thing I wanted was a response from you.

Besides, you should be busy today burning flags with your buddy JR. Make sure all the children and your preacher are there to enjoy the fun.

Troll? Why Agnes, that’s what you are doing to me right now.

Link please….

Liar.

“You seem very frustrated. I overestimated your intelligence.

“Goodbye.”

And

“Box,

“I declare you the winner of the Chicago/Iraq comparison.”

Translation: Take the baaaaait. Respond to meeeeeeeeee! I insulted yooooooooooou!”

Nope.

Re: Jimbo
Do
Not
Feed
The
Racist
Spam
Troll

You said:

“More people are killed in metropolitan Chicago than in all of Iraq due to violence. That’s all I ever claimed and that is EXACTLY TRUE! So get off your popous high horse, you have yet to give example you can ride there. Obama has done a great job in Chicago….NOT.”

Then, when I pointed out that this was a false statement, you said:

“Imbecile, Americans are all that I have be referring to from the beginning if you would/could read the post carefully.”

Actually, two things:

1) You got off message with the first paragraph, not I. You did not specify Americans in that statement, which is why I said in response to it:

“Box of Rocks, more people do NOT die from violence in metropolitan Chicago than in Iraq. You are not counting the Iraqi citizens.”

2) Secondly, if you go back to your initial post on this subject you said:

“Body count in the last six months:
292 killed (murdered) in Chicago;
221 killed in Iraq.”

So, you did not make it clear from the beginning that you were talking about American deaths. I figured it out pretty easily when I got the statistics (and indeed, was able to determine that the death rate for the LAST six months for American service people was lower than you quoted-you later evidently came up with another source that discussed the death rate for the summer).

So, not only did you not make a meaningful comparison, you did not even make the population of who you were talking about clear like you claimed you did.

I declare you the winner of the Chicago/Iraq comparison.

Obama’s back yard town of Chicago is a disgrace, the armpit of America and the armpit of the World.

Obama proclaims himself to be a citizen of the World, but he sure as he*l won’t brag about being a citizen of Chicago.

You seem very frustrated. I overestimated your intelligence.

Goodbye.

There’s a world of difference between what is expected in a war zone vs what is expected in what is supposed to be a free, civilized, great country – Chicago, Obama’s back yard.

One would not expect more Americans to die in Chicago, then to die in Iraq.

What’s Obama’s excuse for Chicago? Obama blaming Bush for Chicago too?

Once again, an objectively false statement from Box of Rocks, made without any thought as to whether such a statement might be true with regards to what would be a “historical low” for an armed conflict. The Serbian conflict, for example, had fewer Americans lost than the Iraqi conflict by every measurement (1 in combat, 20 total), and yet it was successfully completed. The President at the time? One William Jefferson Clinton. Of course, the nature of the conflicts are not really comparable, but to claim that the number from Iraq represents one that is “historically low for a(n) armed conflict” is objectively false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

And yes, I am glad that the American deaths (and indeed civilian deaths) have declined, and I have seen that widely reported by the press, including the mainstream press that coalition rightwingers decry as “liberal”.

“Imbecile, Americans are all that I have be referring to from the beginning if you would/could read the post carefully.”

Three gratuitous ad hominems in just that short phrase. And I invite anyone to look at the line he quoted. It is clear that I was aware from the beginning that Box of Rocks was referring only to the American dead. My response was to point out the multiple reasons why a comparison between the civilian violent death rate in a metropolitan city and the death rate of service men and women in an occupied nation is inappropriate. Your claim that I haven’t shown awareness since the beginning that you were only referring to American death rates is simply absurd.

“Reason? Not because Iraqis are not human, an asinine statement itself, but because they have been killing each other for thousands of years in even greater numbers, still are now but in lesser numbers, and still will be when we are gone to an even greater extent probably.”

The occupation of Iraq resulted in a substantial increase in civilian deaths, not a decrease (as I discussed and Linda validated). The reduction of civilian deaths now is coming within the context of greater civilian deaths within the populace. The strife between Shia and Sunni, the deliberate stirring up of Sunni violence by Al Queda (importance because our occupation was the reason for the existence of an Al Queda in Iraq), and for that matter violence between different Shia factions, claimed a lot more people after the occupation than during the reign of Saddam Hussein. That’s reality.

If you are going to make a comparison of death rates between localities, at least the populations should be similar (and there are still problems with such a comparison when you are talking about a city of 3,000,000 versus a country of 29,000,000-even Regular made a decent point when he talked about population densities, the denisity of a country is going to vary far more than the density of a city- a better comparison would be civilian death rates between Chicago and Baghdad). However, if one is going to compare a city to a country, a total population to total population comparison has at least minimal surface validity. A comparison between death rates for military persons in hazardous duty and a total population of a city doesn’t even meet the most basic standards for surface validity. Pointing out that your chosen comparison is meaningless is not arguing a different subject. If you can not understand an objective evaluation of your comparison and its merits for supporting an argument, that is yet another one of your shortcomings.

You don’t know what you are doing, Box of Rocks, and that is a fact. And that is why you continue to embarrass yourself even if you are not aware of it.

Imbecile, Americans are all that I have be referring to from the beginning if you would/could read the post carefully.
Reason? Not because Iraqis are not human, an asinine statement itself, but because they have been killing each other for thousands of years in even greater numbers, still are now but in lesser numbers, and still will be when we are gone to an even greater extent probably.
Why, who knows….they’re weird that way seemingly worshiping death. But I am concerned with the number of Americans lost and rejoice that the number is historically low for a armed conflict. Less than under any Dimocrat President sitting a significant armed conflict. The number is decreasing significantly to well below the number of Americans killed in Chicago by violence. Is that bad news for the DimLibs, they sure act like and argue it!
The fact remains, you are the one who started arguing a different subject than the one I brought up. That of course make me suspect you simply are disingenuous by changing the subject and then arguing that being upset things are going rather well in Iraq for our solders, as is well reported by news agencies around the world though not by the liberal, Bush bashing press.

Once again, you don’t even know what you are saying.

The Saddam Hussein regime was horrible, and there were certainly outbreaks of slaughter from that POS. However, the invasion of Iraq, the removal of that strong (albeit evil) central government and the resultant breaking down into religious and ethnic factions, combined with the entrance of foreign combatants and essentially bringing our conflict with terrorists into this country, resulted in a much more violent country.

It is true that things have improved, and the surge appears to have worked in conjunction with developed alliances with local militias, and that’s good. It’s the least we could do both for the people of Iraq and for our men and women who did their constitutional duty in going there (even if it was the wrong conflict for our country to engage in).

But it is outrageously false to claim that more Iraqis were dying in the conditions before the invasion than after, and no one I know of, including those who defend the invasion, make that sort of recklessly false claim.

That being said, it is true that our presence there certainly prevented deaths that would have occurred if we had simply deposed Hussein and left the Iraqi people on their own.

“Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone,”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq

“the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War