Obama’s Chicago Now More Deadly Than All of Iraq and Afghanistan

‘Now more deadly than *all* of Iraq and Afghanistan’? You’re making yourself look bad here by deliberately ignoring all the civilian deaths in those places.
Of course, if we want to use your ‘US soldiers only’ metric we can easily reduce our body count to zero by leaving.

vote against giving local police in Chicago automatic weapons to combat the criminals who has more sophistaced weaponry

More sophisticated than what? Than the average police officer’s gear? Than the automatic weapons mentioned? Than the existing SWAT equipment? I guess what I’m getting at is that I’m skeptical of this idea that criminals have really sophisticated weapons (in general; I know that there are exceptions like international drug cartels…). But I’m not even clear what you’re saying in the first place. If you’re claiming that a lot of crimes are being committed in the US with automatic weapons, you’re wrong.
Generally, if I were a lawmaker and the police requested automatic weapons, I’d want some specific scenarios where these were supposed to be useful. They have their place (the Secret Service uses them, SWAT is obviously going to want them in some cases) but for general policework I’m not sure I see the point. Maybe Curt would have more to say on the issue, he obviously has first hand experience.

bbart displays a profound lack of informed knowledge in post #6:

More sophisticated than what?

I guess what I’m getting at is that I’m skeptical of this idea that criminals have really sophisticated weapons

You would be better off to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Obama gave up on his constituents a long, long time ago.

Google Obama’s relationship with Resko and other repugnant characters Obama; you’ll find that Obama praises shady characters as his mentors and then you’ll begin to understand why things in Chicago have not changed but gotten worst.

Here’s a sneak peek into Obama’s judgment on character.

Obama Endorses Kwame Kilpatrick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNvC_-RW2Q

Result: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=71341.

Obama’s judgment sucks! Obama claims to be against pork, but he lives in THE pig sty.

Aren’t handguns banned in Chicago? Kind of goes with the theme “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Just ask Australia……..

I tend to give bbartlog the benefit of the doubt. After all, he’s a recovering Ron Paulbot and after witnessing how cruelly he was misled on that score, I have hopes he will regain his senses.

It may be a slow process but I am hopeful he will rejoin the fold of sensible Americans.

Here’s the test: Bbartlog: you going to vote for McCain Palin?

BB, being a cop in South Central Los Angeles I can tell you we are most definitely outgunned. At least in this area. We carry 9mm’s and a shotgun while we run into many gangsters with assault weapons of differn’t types…most often AK’s, most of the driveby’s we respond to involve those rifles.

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.

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.

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

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. ; )