See… belief in redemption is a good thing. Bbartlog has saved himself from Ron Paulbot nincompoopery!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh Doug, you can complain about my laziness all you want, but I’m still gonna wear my PJs. All I did was post a link and cite from the article then add some rhetorical points for discussion. The stats come from a Chicago news station-not me.

Yawn, back to sleep now. It’s almost noon.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

…to believe in the powers of Redemption. Bbartlog is worthy of that. …

Funny narrative you’ve constructed… can’t say I’ve changed my underlying views much, but the world does change and I have to make choices based on that.

I await bbartlog’s statement on who he will vote for on Nov. 4.

Still angling for assurance? I think I already posted twice here that I’d be voting for McCain. Best of a bad lot. Frankly I’d probably prefer Palin over McCain if that choice were available, she may not have his experience but her political record suggests she’s more principled.

being a cop in South Central Los Angeles I can tell you we are most definitely outgunned.

Thanks for the input Curt. Seems like gangs add a whole new dimension to crime, and for practical purposes we really don’t have serious gang activity where I live.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I wonder if that’s really the intended interpretation Scott had in mind.

He did throw out some numbers of people that were shot, mentioned Chicago, he posted a part of the article stating some soldiers were killed in Iraq; there certainly appeared there was an analogy being made. Yet he never explained the specifics of this case, developed the piece’s thesis, showed the point regarding the whole matter. He just assumed the truth of the article. In essence he just did a ‘grab ‘n’ post’, with no justification, then cut to sarcasm.

I mean, if I say the whole article is poop, not worth a dime, never even bothering to expose its ills and emptiness, then went on to joke about it, is that anymore worse than what Scott has done? He simply assumed it correct! Shouldn’t I be able to do the opposite: assume it is incorrect! Scott is not it’s author; he didn’t co-author it; he didn’t do the research for it; he’s not affiliated with it in any way. So, why can’t I simply deny its assertions, as he accepts them?

Someone may say, well the article has got an argument. It’s making a case about how Chicago can qualify as safer than Iraq! Scott wants those to disagree with it to tackle it.

I find that strange. First, it’s lazy; it’s one posting something without exploring it; taking it on faith. Second, what if I just did the same thing, posted an article that countered the piece, with no explanation. Would that help us get further along, advance the argument? No, I say. Ultimately, someone must dig inside the piece to interpret what it means.

Practically speaking, in posting something, then adding a sardonic catharsis, if there’s no examination as to why the piece is right, then the poster is simply echoing the article, being an errand boy, deciminating thoughts for play, as game. While that’s cool, and has, perhaps flash, it makes no case rationally, doesn’t push the thesis for any truth on the subject, it leaves it silent on that matter; and therefore, regarding the accuracy of the posted article one must side-step the issue on whether the poster has posted for accuracy or not, as there’s no way of telling.

But maybe Scott thinks this piece really is true. If so, he has to justify it.

So, MH, I had to ask for clarity. ; )

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Okay… I’m wearing my black and white striped shirt and my whistle, now.

Doug, the point in the piece is that the DNC Congress seems to demand a “secure” Iraq using standards they don’t even apply to our own urban areas. No country, no city… no place inhabited by humans… will be sans crime and thugs.

And you can take that a step further with you bring Muslim countries into play with jihad movements walking in their midst.

It is a point I have made myself over and over. Congressional benchmarks as to what they feel is a measure of urban “security” in Iraq is just another talking point with no bearing in reality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, just explain to me what the point is in the piece; or anyone who thinks it is making a sound point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott- I liked your comment. Maybe Obama should spend more time concentrating on his own city before lashing out about whats going on with the rest of the world. I’m glad he finally agreed that the surge has worked. Iraq has such a low death toll right now, thank God. I have friends that just got back today without any casualties in the units!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh come on Doug! Someone who revels in pointing out every weak point in our strategy in Iraq should be first in line to condemn the violent and political quagmire which has resulted from Democrat leadership in these urban areas that you folks hold up as a model for the rest of the country.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

OK, I’m confused. Somebody explain to me what the point is to such a comparison?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott: I continue to believe in the powers of Redemption. Bbartlog is worthy of that. Some of these loons, most noteably Roseburner, are not.

I await bbartlog’s statement on who he will vote for on Nov. 4.

Like or Dislike: 0  0