Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (211557)	1/2/2007 3:19:32 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The graph is titled: US Military Fatalities Yearly Averages. One of the data points is titled Clinton Presidency and (I assume) is in fact total US military fatalities, while the other data point is titled Iraq War and is approximately correct for only Iraq war fatalities. It is duplicitous to argue that the later data point is compatible with the graph heading, but aside from that, who in their right mind would try to draw any conclusion from these two odd pieces of data? What for example are you trying to deduce from them? Why not say compare Navy deaths in the Iraq war to total deaths under Clinton, that would look even more startling, and would be equally irrelevant. Or compare say Iraq war deaths to the far higher gun related murder deaths in the USA, and come to the clever conclusion that we should ban guns?

To: mistermj who wrote (211557)	1/2/2007 3:24:56 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are distorting what I said about teachers, so no point in going over that again. The point was about working conditions, and the benefits of working in an office and being able to come and go at will, to the bathroom, for a drink of water, for coffee, whatever. If you don't get that, you don't get that, and you never will, and distorting what I said doesn't impress me very much. The problem with your graph and its methodology is obviously wrong. You aren't comparing things that makes sense. I assumed it was simple error on your part, but now I'm not so sure. If you do understand that graph, and you still put it forward to "prove" anything, then you are very disingenuous. I change my name because I like accessorizing. Nothing more to it than that. There's no nefarious purpose to it- which is why I list all my aliases- I just think of a name like jewelry or shoes, and that's why I change it. I'm not sure what relevance that question has to anything else, nor am I trying to spin anything. You posted something that strikes me as completely illogical- no spin to that. I see that you like to spin though. Spin the thing about teacher's working conditions, attempt to spin my changing my name, spin spin spin- so I'm thinking this "spin" thing has an element of projection to it. So why don't you tell me, why are you spinning everything? Why not just try a little honesty?

To: mistermj who wrote (211557)	1/2/2007 3:31:31 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You're an idiot, not that that's not been amply demonstrated already. Look: siadapp.dior.whs.mil Among other remarkable things, this chart shows there was 1 (one) US Military death due to hostile action in the Clinton years ( though that seems to indicate Blackhawk down was counted as a terrorist attack). Further, the overall US military deaths under Clinton were at a lower rate than any of his recent predecessors or , of course, his successor. I know that you're mightily pleased with your SI graphics capability, but two carefully culled , clearly not directly comparable data points, untraceable but presumably from some "objective" corner of the warblogosphere, doesn't drive anybody nuts, it just shows you're an idiot.