No Police for the Peons, but City Council Get Private Security! (Minneapolis: 2013, violent crime)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Actually, that is not the entire article. You missed the last half which I copied here:



The link so you can check for yourself.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/27/minnea...vate-security/

I am not particularly interested in your labels. Would you mind pointing out which specific words or sentences in the article are inaccurate and explaining exactly why?

Are you saying that you find this to be an honest assessment of what occurred?

“Security for me but not for thee.”

It’s a charged statement which bears no resemblance to reality. To the casual observer, sources like the New York Post have pushed the narrative that the city council has eliminated the police department altogether and there is nothing protecting us. This is not at all the case. You live here and can attest that the police haven’t gone away. Some city council members allegedly receive death threats and get security detail as a safety precaution and now the narrative is that they protect themselves while removing the police and thus leaving residents without any police protection. This could not be further from the truth. I would argue that a drastic change to the police department is being considered with the intent of better protecting residents as the police in their current form seem to have a nasty habit of killing unarmed people. Again, you are aware of this.

This news article reports this story in an exaggerated and sensationalistic way that paints an inaccurate picture of actual events. Frankly it is sad that you force me to explain this to you.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

Are you saying that you find this to be an honest assessment of what occurred?

“ Security for me but not for thee.”

Can you explain how it is inaccurate? Are they providing private security for everyone in the city?

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Can you explain how it is inaccurate? Are they providing private security for everyone in the city?

Should they be?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

Should they be?

We are discussing whether or not the article which you termed “yellow journalism” is accurate. You cited the lead sentence as inaccurate. The sentence doesn’t discuss whether or not the city should provide private security to all citizens. It only states that they are not. So please explain how that statement is inaccurate.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

We are discussing whether or not the article which you termed “yellow journalism” is accurate. You cited the lead sentence as inaccurate. The sentence doesn’t discuss whether or not the city should provide private security to all citizens. It only states that they are not. So please explain how that statement is inaccurate.

Nah, go split somebody else’s hairs. Also noted that you defend garbage tabloid news sources along with obviously racist posters.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

Nah, go split somebody else’s hairs. Also noted that you defend garbage tabloid news sources along with obviously racist posters.

Same old pattern as always. You make an unfounded statement. I ask you to back it up. You can’t so you get nasty with a thinly veiled personal attack. What a crock.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Same old pattern as always. You make an unfounded statement. I ask you to back it up. You can’t so you get nasty with a thinly veiled personal attack. What a crock.

It was founded, you just can’t see the forest from the trees, or you can and you’re just messing with me, not sure which. This is your MO though. I’ve seen you do the same thing with others. You employ bullying tactics and it isn’t pleasant for anybody involved.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

It was founded, you just can’t see the forest from the trees, or you can and you’re just messing with me, not sure which. This is your MO though. I’ve seen you do the same thing with others. You employ bullying tactics and it isn’t pleasant for anybody involved.

It’s because you can’t answer the challenge. You never did substantiate the charge of inaccuracy. I can’t help it if you get frustrated and resort to name calling. That’s on you.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

It’s because you can’t answer the challenge. You never did substantiate the charge of inaccuracy. I can’t help it if you get frustrated and resort to name calling. That’s on you.

I explained in post #31.

Now please substantiate where I “name-called” or made a “personal attack.”

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

I explained in post #31.

Now please substantiate where I “name-called” or made a “personal attack.”

I missed that because I responded in post 32 at 12:55 pm and you edited your post to add the last section at 1:01 pm. but fair enough. I do not see where you cite any inaccuracy in their article. What you say is:

.... It’s a charged statement which bears no resemblance to reality. To the casual observer, sources like the New York Post have pushed the narrative that the city council has eliminated the police department altogether and there is nothing protecting us. This is not at all the case....

No where in the article does it say, “...that the city council has eliminated the police department altogether and there is nothing protecting us.”

So the inaccuracy you cite does not exist.

And when quoting, please quote accurately. I accused you of “... a thinly veiled personal attack...” I am referring to post 35 you continue to refer to one poster here as a racist. That you continue to do so in exchanges with me, but lack the courage to call him a racist directly has greatly diminished the respect I once had for you. And at one time, I did respect you.