Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Giving Credit to Fox News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
    Yes, immigrants are workers who compete for jobs, but they are also consumers who create demand and entrepreneurs who create jobs and taxpayers who help build our shared infrastructure. I do believe that our nation's history is ample evidence that immigrants on the whole give more than they take.

    I firmly believe that people are the answer, not the problem. As much as people create problems (and they do), it's human creativity and drive to be better that finds the solutions to those problems. And immigrants have the creativity and drive to be better in spades. I guess it's the same reason that I believe I'm doing good in the world by having four children. Yes, my children are a burden on resources. They take living space and consume valuable resources. But I believe that they will give back more to the world than they take. I don't believe in a fixed-size pie. America has always been about making the pie bigger so there is more for everyone.
    I agree with most everything you wrote, and really appreciate your outlook. I am in general a big supporter of immigrants, I guess some of my concerns are regarding overpopulation/overconsumption as well as some other economic concerns. Which was why I thought a new topic would be a good opportunity for me to hear some different opinions on the subject.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
    ---------------------------------------------
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
    George Orwell, 1984

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
      I agree with most everything you wrote, and really appreciate your outlook. I am in general a big supporter of immigrants, I guess some of my concerns are regarding overpopulation/overconsumption as well as some other economic concerns. Which was why I thought a new topic would be a good opportunity for me to hear some different opinions on the subject.
      I do think specific people get displaced, whether by immigration or technology, and there's a need for a serious national conversation about what to do about that. But I have never seen trying to stop the inevitable, either immigration or technology, as viable solutions. I have experienced an analogue of that in baseball, where people first tried to stop the nerds from coming in and now are desperately trying to hang onto their jobs in the face of the advance of technology. Those are real people with real concerns to be listened to, but stopping the nerds from coming into baseball was never going to succeed, and neither is the desire to stop the advance of technology. The people who try to hang onto the old ways and stop the new always end up losing in the end. Better to have a conversation about how to change more wisely than to try to prevent or slow the change.
      "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
        That would be true if immigration actually significantly depressed wages. The evidence for that is slim at best.

        https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fa...n-reduce-wages
        I’ll beg to differ. The paper you reference notes numerous economists who show a significant elasticity between immigration and wages. In fact, the bulk of the paper takes a detailed look at one specific set, and with the corrections listed, aligns with something very close to the average of a 10% increase in immigration resulting in a 2.0 - 2.2% decrease in wages.
        I'm just here for the baseball.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lurker765 View Post
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#3766beb4a590






          Apple founder Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian immigrant,
          Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is a second generation Cuban immigrant,
          Google founder Sergey Brin was born in Russia, and
          Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin is a Brazilian native.
          I think you totally misunderstood my post. I'm reluctant to post this, but I guess I will. Of the four people you noted I posted info from their Wikipedia Bios. It appears that all four of them either were wealthy and well educated before coming to the United States, or in the case of Jobs and Bezos their connection to immigrants is not really strong. I wasn't trying to say that immigrants don't add value to the United States, in fact I think the opposite. I don't think that these four bios add much to the discussion about immigration policy unless the point is that the more people are in the U.S. the more likely we are to have innovators and CEOs.

          Steven Paul Jobs (/dʒɒbz/; February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011) was an American business magnate and investor. He was the chairman, chief executive officer (CEO), and co-founder of Apple Inc.; chairman and majority shareholder of Pixar; a member of The Walt Disney Company's board of directors following its acquisition of Pixar; and the founder, chairman, and CEO of NeXT. Jobs is widely recognized as a pioneer of the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, along with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.
          Jobs was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who put him up for adoption at birth. He was raised in the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1960s. He attended Reed College in 1972 before dropping out that same year, and traveled through India in 1974 seeking enlightenment and studying Zen Buddhism. His declassified FBI report states that he used marijuana and LSD while he was in college, and once told a reporter that taking LSD was "one of the two or three most important things" he had done in his life.
          ---------------------------
          Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the son of Jacklyn Gise Jorgensen and Chicago native Ted Jorgensen.[3] At the time of his birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was a bike shop owner.[4] After Jacklyn divorced Ted, she married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[5] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Jorgensen, whose surname was then changed to Bezos.[6] The family moved to Houston, Texas, where Mike worked as an engineer for Exxon after he received a degree from the University of New Mexico.[7] Bezos attended River Oaks Elementary School in Houston from fourth to sixth grade.[8]
          Bezos was the maternal grandson of Lawrence Preston Gise, a regional director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in Albuquerque.[9] Gise retired early to his family's ranch near Cotulla, Texas, where Bezos would spend many summers in his youth.[7] Bezos would later purchase this ranch, and grow it from 25,000 acres (101 km2; 39 sq mi) to 300,000 acres (1,214 km2; 469 sq mi).[10][11] His maternal grandmother was Mattie Louise Gise (née Strait), through whom he is a cousin of country singer George Strait.[12] Bezos often displayed scientific interests and technological proficiency; he once rigged an electric alarm to keep his younger siblings out of his room.[13][14]

          ----------------------------------------
          Brin was born in Moscow in the Soviet Union,[9] to Russian Jewish parents, Yevgenia and Mikhail Brin, both graduates of Moscow State University (MSU).[10][11] His father is a mathematics professor at the University of Maryland, and his mother a researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.[9][12][13]
          The Brin family lived in a three-room apartment in central Moscow, which they also shared with Sergey's paternal grandmother.[12] In "The Story of Sergey Brin", Brin told Mark Malseed of Moment magazine, "I've known for a long time that my father wasn't able to pursue the career he wanted", but Brin only picked up the details years later after they had settled in the United States.
          In 1977, after his father returned from a mathematics conference in Warsaw, Poland, Mikhail Brin announced that it was time for the family to emigrate. "We cannot stay here any more", he told his wife and mother. At the conference, he was able to "mingle freely with colleagues from the United States, France, England and Germany and discovered that his intellectual brethren in the West were not 'monsters.'" He added, "I was the only one in the family who decided it was really important to leave."[12]

          ----------------------------------------------------------------

          Eduardo Luiz Saverin was born in the city of Săo Paulo, to a wealthy Jewish Brazilian family,[6][17][18] and his family later moved to Rio de Janeiro. Saverin's father, Roberto Saverin, was a businessman working in clothing, shipping, and real estate.[19] His mother, Sandra, was a psychologist and he has two siblings.[20] His Romanian-born grandfather, Eugenio Saverin (born Eugen Saverin), is the founder of Tip Top, a chain of children's clothing shops.[20] In 1993, the family immigrated to the U.S., settling in Miami.[21]
          Saverin attended Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami. He then attended Harvard University, where he was a resident of Eliot House, a member of the Phoenix S.K. Club, and president of the Harvard Investment Association. While an undergraduate at Harvard, Saverin took advantage of Brazil's lax insider trading regulations and made $300,000 via strategic investments in the oil industry.[19][22][23] In 2006, Saverin graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University with a bachelor's degree in economics.[24] He is a member of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity (Eta Psi chapter of Harvard University).[25]
          ---------------------------------------------
          Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
          ---------------------------------------------
          The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
          George Orwell, 1984

          Comment


          • #35
            Slasher I did misunderstand your post then. Thanks for clarifying

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
              There are several different questions, some legal and specific, some legal and broad, some moral and specific, some moral and broad, some practical/sociological/economic specific or broad, etc. Anyone trying to claim there is a clear and simple and obviously correct response to this caravan, whether legal, moral or otherwise, is flat out wrong.
              One question is preeminent--are we governed by the Rule of Law?

              If the answer is yes, then all the rhetoric is merely an argument for changing the law. So, as a practical matter, the Democrats answer is no. I have aproblem with that.

              Since this thread is about Fox, here is a Mark Penn opinion article.
              Democrats don't understand this surprising secret of Trump's success.

              People know the president said he would move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – and he did. President Trump said would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico – and he did. Trump stands for lower taxes, stronger law enforcement, cutting government regulation and eliminating red tape. The president thinks the Federal Reserve shouldn’t raise interest rates as fast as it is or it will cause a recession.

              If you think about it, you probably know President Trump’s positions on almost every major issue. And obviously, he has doubled down on immigration as the make-or-break issue for him and his party. What exactly does Barack Obama stand for? Bernie Sanders at least has free college as an idea you can remember, albeit vague. What about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.?

              Other than investigations and impeachment, what are the Democrats running on?

              Mark Penn was chief strategist on Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.


              I disagree with him. It is crystal clear where Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama stand. They just cannot openly admit that they oppose the Rule of Law. That would be politically unwise.

              J
              Last edited by onejayhawk; 11-02-2018, 09:52 AM.
              Ad Astra per Aspera

              Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

              GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

              Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

              I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by onejayhawk View Post
                One question is preemminent--are we governed by the Rule of Law?

                If the answer is yes, then all the rhetoric is merely an argument for changing the law. So, as a practical matter, the Democrats answer is no. I have aproblem with that.

                J
                Suggesting a simple answer that fits your worldview again, eh? On the mere question of how to apply existing federal and international law to the asylum seekers in this caravan, there is much ambiguity and difference of opinion. So yes, absolutely we are governed by the rule of law, but there are both open questions of law and open questions of fact that would impact the application of laws, whether on a case-by-case basis for individual members of the "caravan" or collectively.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                  Suggesting a simple answer that fits your worldview again, eh? On the mere question of how to apply existing federal and international law to the asylum seekers in this caravan, there is much ambiguity and difference of opinion. So yes, absolutely we are governed by the rule of law, but there are both open questions of law and open questions of fact that would impact the application of laws, whether on a case-by-case basis for individual members of the "caravan" or collectively.
                  Genius is simple, so that is not necessarily a bad thing. You make it about this case while I was speaking to the larger issue. It's the thread that runs through the caravan, sanctuary cities, existing undocumented persons, etc.

                  I would be interested in seeing their legal basis for grounds to seek asylum, given that Mexico is not persecuting them. Refugee status would seem more likely. In any event, you assume that they all follow the rules. That is not a sound assumption. Far from it.

                  I will also note that the White House positon is that the law is changeable, so long as gaining control is the first priority.

                  J
                  Last edited by onejayhawk; 11-02-2018, 10:43 AM.
                  Ad Astra per Aspera

                  Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                  GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                  Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                  I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Not sure this is relevant, but it seems like it might be ...

                    It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by onejayhawk View Post

                      I would be interested in seeing their legal basis for grounds to seek asylum, given that Mexico is not persecuting them. Refugee status would seem more likely.



                      J
                      Didn’t Mexico create a ‘You are home’ program specifically to aid these folks (albeit with a huge amount of arm twisting by the US I’m sure)?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Suggesting Trump respects the Rule of Law is laughable. He touts those laws that fit what he wants to do, and tries to flout those that do not. His worldview is not governed for respect of the Law. He does not attempt to ask what is truly the law, and work within it. He asks, what does he want to do, and uses the law as a tool to support that when he can, and ignores or manipulates it when he cannot.

                        If the GOP and the country let him, Trump would break any law we have in pursuit of his goals. That is why he is dangerous and needs to be kept in check, and removed from office ASAP.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by nots View Post
                          Didn’t Mexico create a ‘You are home’ program specifically to aid these folks (albeit with a huge amount of arm twisting by the US I’m sure)?
                          Which is why I wonder if asylum is completely off the table. I suspect, given that transportation to the border is not available, that most of the caravan will never reach the border.

                          J
                          Ad Astra per Aspera

                          Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                          GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                          Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                          I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I'll give them credit again for this move, although it is odd they'd pull the fear-mongering ant-migrant ad Trump paid for (the ad is in the article linked), but still let their pundits and guests basically say the same things as the ad: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g?srnd=premium
                            Last edited by Sour Masher; 11-05-2018, 04:25 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I didn't expect to keep piling on praise for a network that I think historically has contributed to the fall of legitimate news and the rise of partisan hatred and misinformation, but here is another pat on the back for them backing CNN's lawsuit against Trump: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ion/ar-BBPHKaf

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Last year Harvard's Kennedy School over Government, Shorenstein Center did a study on media coverage for Trump's first 100 days. Fox was 52% negative/48% positive. For comparison, CNN was 93% negative/7% positive. According to the article, the real lesson is that Trump dominated the amount of coverage.
                                A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main …


                                J
                                Ad Astra per Aspera

                                Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                                GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                                Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                                I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X