https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/amer...aboolainternal
Printable View
From the article:
Far be it for us to dent your home state pride, but the fact is that there are ways to objectively measure quality of life, and some states do not measure up as well as others.
Except their "objective" standard measures whether states have protections fo LGBT, etc.
Crime is a good measure. I think that's objective. Labor laws are a political measure, not objective, but the fact the study researchers think that's a given is a great example of the problem. Anyone who disagree with the Left isn't just disagreeing, they're morally inferior and somehow "less" than themselves.
A guy in Connecticut just got 18 months for defending himself and stabbing a mugger in the leg. He got mugged, didn't even kill the SOB, he goes to jail b/c he didn't run away fast enough instead.
In my study, that's a variable that goes on the list. lol
Did they measure homelessness? Ability to start a business with minimal regulation? I think we need to do our own study. :)
Do they measure freedoms? I think highly of the Second Amendment freedoms states like Kentucky offer citizens.
Notice how most of the places mentioned are in the southeastern U.S.?
Why don't they tell us how they really feel about us?
This is hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
I was sure they'd list you and Darrell and darryl as the reasons Alabama is so bad off. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MickintheHam
Their comments were pretty uppity.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Very uppity IMO. Clearly they have their criteria, which they are so myopic about they actually think it's "objective".Quote:
Originally Posted by MickintheHam
Crime is objective. LGBT legislation? that's not objective, that's a point of political discussion, and this is from someone who is about as pro-gay rights as any straight man alive (i have as many gay friends as straight just about). I'm not convinced LGBT legislation is a measure of "inclusiveness" or lack of discrimination in a place, nor am i convinced it's a criteria for ordinally ranking the quality of places when a great many people don't support that position.
Personally i find states that have "must retreat" laws on the books to be somewhere between wrongheaded and insane, and certainly in violation of the basic rights of Man. I'm betting that's not on their criteria thought.
In that sense it would be better to spend their money on a "suitability" chart where states are laid out in more realistic multi-dimensional space and we can talk about where you ought to live based on your personal proclivities. for example if you like going out shooting then New York and Illinois are poor choices for you. If you like to walk the streets unaccosted then avoid San Francisco and large swaths of California (and sadly more and more of Lexington for that matter).
I just hope federal "research" money wasn't used for this sort of thing.
New Mexico at 10? High Crime? Maybe all those illegal immmigrants who don't have sanctuary cities to hide out in has something to with it.
Now I agree obout Indiana. What a turd bowl that is but thatsmostly because who lives there.
Just so everyone knows, I didn't bring this here because I agreed with it. It's pretty obvious their views are skewed.
Oh we knew that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose