A map showing where US Iraq war casualties are coming from.
http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/extrapages/pageUScasualtyMap.htm
Wow, it’s like the Army is deploying the left-wingers right into the hot zones :o
That is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Though Bren is a close second, for posting it.
There’s another map that looks identical to the casualty map, BTW.
I thought the same thing, Ben.
Admittedly, I was torn. Should I leave conclusions to the reader as an exercise? Or should I, Desslock-style, omit unnecessary information? I decided to go the second route, for fun, knowing full well it would invite juvenile abuse on me.
Thanks for not disappointing, Ben! You’re a big shining star! You are the most respected thinker on Qt3, by far!
Get over it, Bren. You made a disingenous argument, and Ben called you on it. Just because he’s frequently a partisan hack doesn’t mean he always is. You’re frequently a partisan hack, too - wouldn’t you prefer to have your arguments evaluated on their weight, rather than on your personality?
Bren is now hereby anointed as the new Midnight Son!
Does this mean we can throw out the old one? Please?
I’m a partisan hack? I’ve been called a lot of things, but that’s a new one. Just so I’m clear, which way does my partisan hackery swing?
Actually I find the map interesting because you always hear about how the armed forces are reliant on poorly educated southern youths full of piss and vinegar, but low on future prospects.
I did? I just posted a link…
Folks from Montana know how to duck.
Hummm Casualties come from blue states… And as ben shows us casualties come from the most highly populated areas… The most highly populated areas are blue states…and yet some how how the Repubies actualy won the election…
lol just thought id throw in my conspiracy correlation for the day :lol:
(edit to let you guys know im kidding just to be sure)
I posted a link to an informational image.
Additional information, of a commentary nature, could be found by clicking on the image.
I didn’t comment on the additional image. I didn’t say that I agreed with it, disagreed with it, had any opinion whatsoever, or that I even noticed you could click on it.
And yet, look what happened? I’m called dumb, disingenuous, a partisan hack.
This should stand as an example of how quickly some people on this forum will jump at the opportunity to characterize, ridicule and dismiss.
You shouldn’t reach for the flame thrower so quickly and easily. In my view, you’re not cool or smart. You’re an offensive twat.
At least he’s not the new YOU!
Pepsi and my nasal passages are not compatible, damn you.
I’m a partisan hack? I’ve been called a lot of things, but that’s a new one. Just so I’m clear, which way does my partisan hackery swing?[/quote]
Damn it, I’m sorry, Ben. When I read the thread earlier, I thought it was just Ben, not Ben Sones, who posted. I’m easily confused, can’t one of you change your name to Benji or something? Rereading and seeing that it’s you, not just Ben ben, there’s even less reasn for Bren to have responded the way he did.
:roll:
I guess I was just judging based on the weight of the argument, not the personality…
Actually, I think the correlation is much higher than the original poster proposed…Yes, the original map does highlight population centers, but population centers almost entirely went for Democrats…
Well, better dead than red…
That two-color map overexaggerates; it treats a 51% as one party.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
As to population centers vs. the army: not enough draftable young males in the rural areas to even try. Population density variance is much stronger than anyone thinks; see the other graphs on that page.