Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: This must not be possible, as per Smitty's source 62

Journal by damn_registrars
Apparently, the readers and writers for outside magazine don't read enough of the writings from Smitty's friends to realize that they erroneously chose a hopeless warzone hell-hole wasteland as one of the "top 15 happiest places to live in the US.

Certainly, Outside Magazine - and the people who wrote for it - must have accidentally visited some other place that they didn't see the "real" Minneapolis where people need to run for their lives and the murder rate exceeds 5,000,000%.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This must not be possible, as per Smitty's source More

This must not be possible, as per Smitty's source

Comments Filter:
  • If you think these marketing materials are valid, you probably think that Judas Joe the ZOTUS had 81M voters in 2020.
    • Outside Magazine has been in print since 1977 [wikipedia.org] . Why would you think they are merely "marketing materials", and why would they be interested in "marketing" for Minneapolis if it is indeed the uncontained hell-hole your friends claim it to be? After all if they want to sell magazines it would be in their best interest not to send people where they will be viciously murdered, wouldn't it? They could just as easily send people elsewhere to find the things they praise in Minneapolis; it is not the only city w

      • why would they be interested in "marketing" for Minneapolis

        One obvious reason would be, like the Menendez indictment, to distract from a larger problem, like the ZOTUS.

        • why would they be interested in "marketing" for Minneapolis

          One obvious reason would be, like the Menendez indictment, to distract from a larger problem

          So you're saying after being in print for over 45 years they suddenly buried Minneapolis in the middle of an article on happy towns (it was one of 15 selected as "happiest") just to run interference for the Biden Administration?

          That might be a little less crazy than your conspiracy about the White House cocaine having been planted to take down VP Harris, but not by a whole lot. I've never heard anyone accuse Outside Magazine of having a political bend before, so it seems really odd that they would sud

          • Happiness does not appear to extend to the police: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/minneapoliss-disappearing-police.php [powerlineblog.com]
            • Your friend should do some navel gazing for a moment (he does seem to spend a fair bit of time patting himself on the back). In the article you linked to he claims that nobody would want to work for the MPD; if that is the case then him railing on them is not at all helpful to the situation. I saw nothing in his article that proposed anything that would increase the applicant pool.
              • So, you tacitly admit the article is accurate?
                • He cited accurate data from a newspaper. That is out of character for him, but indeed that was accurate. Then he went on to editorialize on the matter based on his feelings.

                  In other words, there were some actual facts, and other passages of his feelings.

                  • That is out of character for him

                    Please. The guy's a relatively known lawyer (quoted by Rush Limbaugh, e.g.). You do yourself no honor here.

                    • That is out of character for him

                      Please. The guy's a relatively known lawyer (quoted by Rush Limbaugh, e.g.).

                      The only thing I know of him is through his blog posts, where he usually exhibits at best a loose relationship with facts.

                    • Please. You may not like his editorial opinion, but the shooting is straight.
                    • When he discards facts and passes his opinions off in their place, the shooting is no longer the least bit straight. Considering how many of his readers - including yourself - cannot distinguish his opinions from actual facts, it is important to point out where his editorialization kicks in.

                    • quoted by Rush Limbaugh

                      :-) Hardly an admirable trait!

                    • Considering that he's got 20+ years of relatively popular blogging [wikipedia.org] and appears regularly on at least one Australian newscast, one is inclined to chuckle at your opinion.

                    • Considering that he's got 20+ years of relatively popular blogging and appears regularly on at least one Australian newscast, one is inclined to chuckle at your opinion.

                      Plenty of people with a poor relationship with facts were popular for spreading their opinion for a long time. Just because a lot of people agree with him doesn't mean they - or he - are right.

                    • In the same breath, people rejecting his generally excellent observations is not dispositive.
                    • Is this just a continuation of your war on facts? That seems to be your common theme here this week. We could actually discuss these matters, or you could just tell me who you think is holier than who. You seem to very much have an interest only in the latter right now.
                    • You're simply never as awesome as when you put on the Whole Armor Of Facts and prepare to do battle with the chaos of our day, paladin that you are.
                    • So then fact-free it shall be. You had an opportunity to actually discuss something, and you showed a preference for making stuff up instead.

    • Well, I for one, take the chile wars [outsideonline.com] very seriously!

      you probably think that Judas Joe the ZOTUS had 81M voters in 2020.

      Do you have admissible evidence that he didn't? According to rumor, that's the kind of thing the courts require before there can be a hearing. I mean, I can't really believe that the DNC/GOP ruling party gets over 98% of the vote every cycle, but there it is. Whaddami gonna do?

      • Do you have admissible evidence that he didn't? According to rumor, that's the kind of thing the courts require before there can be a hearing.

        The GOP does not require admissible, credible, or even believable evidence to bring a capital grievance against a democrat. That's the part of the "two-tiered system of justice" that they installed themselves that they would never even consider changing.

        • The GOP does not require admissible, credible, or even believable evidence

          My! How you project!, ya can't single out the GOP faction of the Party, babe. Theatrics aside, you all are one big happy family

      • Do you have admissible evidence that he didn't?

        Everything else is fake, from Covid to climate change to our Congress. By all means, argue that the election was "the most secure ever" or whatever the lying sacks said.

        • Everything else is fake

          :-) What do you mean by "else"? How long has all this fakery been going on? And when did this epiphanous moment occur to you?

          I'm not debating whether the election was botched. I'm just wondering what admissible evidence do you have

          • I would say that, if we take 'fake' to mean 'corrupt', that the ratio of decent-to-corrupt governance has always been something of an 80/20, but it has drifted to 20/80 since WWII.

            You may now quibble.

            • What happened after WWII? I mean, besides relative peace on the European continent? And are you honestly trying to tell me there was less corruption before then? I find that intriguing

              • Well, his team seems to see Hoovervilles as a feature, not a bug. That would suggest that in their unique definition of corruption that they see pre-WWII USA as having been less corrupt.

                And of course if you ignore all the GOP POTUSes that came after WWII you get to ones who screwed up a whole lot less. Not that they would welcome the ideology of Lincoln in their party any more, but if they push the needle back that far they can pretend to bear some sort of resemblance to him.

                • And of course if you ignore all the GOP POTUSes that came after WWII you get to ones who screwed up a whole lot less.

                  Really? How so? Less than what?

                • "Your team" owns the shooting galleries, bruh. Whenever there is freakish news in a major city, check when last it had a Republican governor. Bidding starts at two decades, climbs briskly.

              • What happened after WWII?

                The Military-Industrial Complex and the National Security State kinda took over. As you note, we had relative peace. "Peace sells, but who's buying?"--Mustaine.

                • The Military-Industrial Complex and the National Security State kinda took over.

                  Manifest Destiny, babe... since Andrew Jackson, more or less. Don't tell d_r, but it's kind of a democrat thing, or so the story goes, according to wiki anyway. After WWII? well, I suppose that's when "anything, anywhere, anytime" became a really global thing, though, more likely, the Spanish-American war is what set that in motion.

                  Peace sells, but probably only to people who can't afford to make war

                  Oh, and the Military-Industrial Complex®? How does it feel to play such an active part in that? and in on

                  • How does it feel to play such an active part in that?

                    Well, I haven't been successful in selling the Article V reform of the situation, but I can wish harder.

                    • What does your Article V have to do with anything about your role in the MIC? Are you evading the question again?

                    • What's that phrase that his team likes to use when people are changing the subject to avoid discussing things they don't like? I suspect it might apply here, as well as in other threads currently open where he's attempting to argue sans facts.
                    • First of all, I'm not saying that Article V is a magic wand; the net corruption is likely constant over time.

                      But what I'm waiting for from you is a substantive alternative that addresses the collapse into a single federal state that has occurred over the previous century.

                      You seem oblivious.
                    • I've been trying to wrest some sort of actionable plan from fustakrakitch to deal with our collapse, and his argument boils down to "*mumblemuble*Vote them out.*mumblemuble*" with no regard for the fact reality the election system is as rigged as the MIC.

                    • Just like d_r, you only make excuses, passing blame on the "other". I have pointed out ad nauseum that only all of us can "fix" anything. There is no other option available. It is you that is looking for this ethereal "magic wand" (in your religion maybe?) when you already have it incarnate. You just won't accept that we are the cause of this "collapse", that we do the rigging, just by passively playing along, and it won't stop until we do.

                      This "actionable plan", obviously you are looking for some divine au

                    • I'm not saying that Article V is a magic wand

                      Yes you are. It is precisely what you are saying, all with the usual vague tabloid talking points.. It doesn't stop

                      You seem oblivious.

                      Oy! the projection!

                    • Yes you are. It is precisely what you are saying

                      No. It is NOT precisely what I'm saying. It's a tremendous amount of work, fraught with peril, and if we start now, we *might* have something to ratify by 2037. But go on with your hogwash.

                    • I agree with you that it will require a consensus to make any improvements. I also scoff at your non-grasp of the basic truth that, just as it took a George Washington to father the country, it will require a modicum of leadership. The Eminence Orange is kind of a dodgy vessel; I was a Cruz aficionado, but he fell short.

                    • we *might* have something to ratify by 2037

                      You will not, unless the incumbent ruling party is voted out, that simple. I find your faith in them disturbing. It has blinded you. You want authority, not service. The hogwash is yours.

                    • I was a Cruz aficionado

                      potato/pot-ah-toe. These are the people that make your Article V so dangerous. And your admiration of Washington is weird. If he was the father, who was the mother?

                    • I find your faith in them disturbing.

                      The only proper object of faith in this sense is the Almighty. All else is idolatry.

                    • I've said the only thing likely to affect the status quo is Article V.

                      This is due to the feedback loops of the status quo.

                      You affect a blindness thereto.

                      Which seems tantamount to embracing the status quo, in my view.

                    • Call it what you like, it's your malfunction

                    • I've said the only thing likely to affect the status quo is Article V.

                      Which is crazy stuff. You don't need it. In the hands of the incumbents that you always reelect it is most dangerous

                      This is due to the feedback loops of the status quo.

                      *sigh* repeating the same old excuses.

                      You affect a blindness thereto.

                      Because it's bullshit

                      Which seems tantamount to embracing the status quo, in my view.

                      - In your projection, complete fabrication, boilerplate stuff, so old..

                    • It is neither my malfunction nor proper, but go on.
                    • I love how you accuse me of "repeating the same old excuses" when they are the plainly visible state of affairs. Possibly you're excusing your own inactivity?

                    • You need not project anymore. You are the one denying responsibility and making excuses for your personal choices, not me. I face mine head on

                    • You are the one denying responsibility and making excuses for your personal choices

                      Voting? Paying taxes?

                      I face mine head on

                      This is why we need Your Coolness for Speaker of the House.

                    • You are indeed responsible for voting for the incumbency, while in denial of that very thing. As you like to say to your doppelganger here, "it makes your butt look big"

                    • Proposals to eject the incumbency via an enforceable ejection rule for failing to get the budget done, or the admittedly riskier Article V, have not passed muster with you, alas. Incentives matter. Intentions don't. [youtube.com] But you seem deliberately, obtusely, amusingly incapable of tracking fundamental of organizational behavior. But I guess that this is just "excuses", or something.

                    • Incentives matter...

                      No, personal choice matters, incentives and your "organizational behavior" are bullshit excuses. Your choice to follow the herd is personal. Stop the blame passing

                    • All I can say is that your Political Science approach did not serve the Native Americans in good stead.

                      I can agree that our Constitution is implicitly opposed to a professional political class.

                      The revolting truth is that a professional political class, with private corporations in the form of the RNC/DNC that support their oligarch masters, not the voters, are calling the shots.

                      I'm confident that you're not a dummy, and know all of this full well.

                      Your motives for the Polyanna shtick remain unknowabl

                    • The revolting truth is that a professional political class, with private corporations in the form of the RNC/DNC that support their oligarch masters, not the voters, are calling the shots.

                      Utter nonsense, 98% of the voters go along. The voters are definitely calling the shots. That's the "revolting truth" right there. You're just passing blame instead of assuming responsibility for personal choice

                    • the voters go along. The voters are definitely calling the shots.

                      You contradict yourself. To your credit, this is a compact formulation.

                    • The voters choose to go along. They are most definitely in charge. Choosing to follow is still a personal choice, with humans anyway. Where's the contradiction? Why are you still in denial?

                    • Again, again, again: what you say is sort of true. But people do not consciously, explicitly make choices all day long. You rarely consciously choose to blink or take a breath. Breathing is delegated to your autonomic nervous system.

                      You do not explicitly choose public road maintenance. Your vote for some county officials, who maintain a budget, and contract with a firm to keep the roads tidy.

                      Sure, you choose to boot an OS, but you are not bothered with the details and pedigree for the source code.

                      We ex

                    • ... people do not consciously, explicitly make choices all day long.

                      *sigh* Another excuse. This is what you get for not reading the small print. Voting is a very conscious choice, with plenty of time to plan ahead.

                      Breathing is delegated to your autonomic nervous system.

                      So is politics evidently. All part of our animal heritage

                      To say that the voters are accountable is strictly, essentially, simplistically true. The assertion also truncates a vast swath of crucial detail required to understand the situation above the level of a bloody-minded simpleton.

                      Yes, making excuses is a complex project, but it's apparently worth it. You have piled on so many abstractions that you have completely lost sight of the fundamental.

                      You speak with highly conditioned personal bias, which appears to preclude you from comprehending what I have written, to the point of reading

                    • Cheers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.

Close