Again, I wasn't contesting left or right leaning (you really need to work on critical reading comprehension). But the link YOU provided is effectively described as intellectually dishonest. I have not seen criticisms of that nature of the migration policy link.

And "undocumented" or "unauthorized" immigration is the term. It doesn't mean "pro immigrant." Though, bare in mind, the entire United States government is pro-immigrant and has been for nearly our entire existence. I'm not sure what it is about using dictionary definitions that makes something left leaning. Are you implying that speaking correctly is a left leaning idea?

"Spamming" Amazon links to books I have read and was suggesting as sources for future research actually does accomplish something - the sharing of information. You see, this is a key part about research. You share the information so others can read it and provide additional insights or contentions.

Are you trolling me? I have a hard time believing you're this rigid in your beliefs. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to assess this rationally.

As for CNN, you've gone from calling it "fake news" to calling it "very left leaning." So which is it? Fake or left slanted? Have you ever read the Reuters or Associated Press sources for their articles? They don't really distort any of that information.

[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 9:45 AM. Reason : a]

2/8/2017 9:44:46 AM

Quote :

"Again, I wasn't contesting left or right leaning (you really need to work on critical reading comprehension). But the link YOU provided is effectively described as intellectually dishonest. I have not seen criticisms of that nature of the migration policy link."

Nowhere did I see "intellectually dishonest". The quote criticizing it said it focused on the negatives and barely mentioned the positives (of illegal immigrants). No shit? The headline of the CIS website says "Low immigration, pro immigrant".

Left or right leaning, in such a politicized topic, is all that matters with these studies. If you don't know the agenda of the study you won't be able to apply scrutiny in the right direction.

So if a left leaning site criticizes a right leaning site, that doesn't mean the right leaning site is "intellectually dishonest", it means its a political disagreement.

Your source, MPI, is completely left leaning. Like the CIS, they all claim to be "non-partisan", but that is simply not the case. Look at the financial support MPI receives, follow the money. The Ford Foundation, the UN, the Carnegie Corporation, all using money to further an agenda of open borders and leftist ideology.

Quote :

"And "undocumented" or "unauthorized" immigration is the term. It doesn't mean "pro immigrant." Though, bare in mind, the entire United States government is pro-immigrant and has been for nearly our entire existence. I'm not sure what it is about using dictionary definitions that makes something left leaning. Are you implying that speaking correctly is a left leaning idea?"

Speaking correctly isn't a left leaning idea, but telling others what speech is or isn't politically correct is a left leaning/Marxist idea. They are illegal immigrants, because they are here illegally, because they broke the law.

Seeing how they phrase it is a good indicator as to the political agenda of the source.

Quote :

"As for CNN, you've gone from calling it "fake news" to calling it "very left leaning." So which is it? Fake or left slanted? Have you ever read the Reuters or Associated Press sources for their articles? They don't really distort any of that information. "

CNN isn't a reliable or credible source for immigration information, I'll leave it at that

2/8/2017 10:47:43 AM

Quote :

"Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists.[5][6][7][8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies"

That's intellectual dishonesty.

Quote :

"The quote criticizing it said it focused on the negatives and barely mentioned the positives (of illegal immigrants)."

Says that nowhere in the quote.

Quote :

"The Ford Foundation, the UN, the Carnegie Corporation, all using money to further an agenda of open borders and leftist ideology."

I may grant you that. But that is different, again, than being intellectually dishonest. Perhaps left-leaning money sources simply are better at science?

Quote :

"Speaking correctly isn't a left leaning idea, but telling others what speech is or isn't politically correct is a left leaning/Marxist idea. They are illegal immigrants, because they are here illegally, because they broke the law."

It's not, it's literally the definition of "politically correct."

Quote :

"CNN isn't a reliable or credible source for immigration information, I'll leave it at that"

And your proof? Your data to support this?

2/8/2017 11:39:16 AM

Quote :

"Says that nowhere in the quote."

Did you even read the quote?:

""Like all reports emanating from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., the latest one... offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration - even illegal immigration - to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety."

Quote :

"I may grant you that. But that is different, again, than being intellectually dishonest. Perhaps left-leaning money sources simply are better at science?"

First -you said "intellectually dishonest", that isn't from Wikipedia or critics. Unless you have a specific criticism of their methodology, numbers, or process I don't care what your "opinion" is based on partisan bickering. I included the quote to show that the best criticism simply says it focuses on the negatives and ignores the positives, which is hardly negating the research CIS provided, which supports my "net loss" position.

Secondly - Being funded 100% by leftist foundations and claiming you are "non partisan" is actually very intellectually dishonest.

Quote :

"It's not, it's literally the definition of "politically correct.""

I'm not sure what you mean here. Being "politically correct" is a Marxist/leftist mechanism... so like I said, if an organization submits to being "politically correct" it is a great way to tell which way the source leans.

Quote :

"And your proof? Your data to support this?"

This previous election cycle...

2/8/2017 11:56:38 AM

Quote :

""Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists.[5][6][7][8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies""

Here is the quote, again. I have bolded the important parts. That is intellectual dishonesty. Says nothing in that quote about left or right leaning views. If you're referring to another section in that Wikipedia link, then that's fine.

Going off what you added in your post, it says that CIS estimates costs in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety. Given the above quote that I have referred to now three times, that is not "political correctness" nor is it "left leaning." It is objectively describing an organization that has financial ties to extremists and that is incapable of proper scientific research and analysis. That description is not "left leaning," it's a factual statement.

As for "intellectual dishonesty," here is a definition: Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

I'm saying CIS is intellectually dishonest because it fits that definition. It fits that definition because of how it is described in that Wikipedia link which I've already listed.

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you mean here. Being "politically correct" is a Marxist/leftist mechanism... so like I said, if an organization submits to being "politically correct" it is a great way to tell which way the source leans."

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect
p??lid?k(?)le k?'rekt/
adjective
adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect
exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.
"it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"
synonyms: unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate, nonpartisan; informalPC
"the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"
antonyms: offensive


I guess you're saying that defining words is a Marxist thing?

Quote :

"This previous election cycle..."

List examples/proof. Until you grasp this very simple concept I'm done speaking. I will continue when you engage in an evidence-based manner.

2/8/2017 12:12:54 PM

Quote :

" Poor kids in America will generally take more from the system than they pay in"

I don't understand your point here. Isn't that why they are poor? How could someone who is poor pay in more than they take out? What is the threshold where someone pays in more than they take out? It is impossible to define that point really. But you seem to be arguing that we should only have rich people, any society will have rich and poor it is all relative. And I also like how you said generally, because I find it hard to believe there is any example where this really wouldn't be true all the time. If you have no money just simply by existing on the planet you will take more than you give. Even if you are going through a trash can you are taking more trash out then you will have put in. Unless you consider taking a dump in a public park giving back fertilizer.

I don't actually understand why this is such a polarizing topic, immigration, and it shouldn't be to the point that it is bringing our country to a stand-still and distracting from issues such as our underfunded education system, or improving health care for everyone, things that we can all benefit from. Illegal immigration will hardly impact most people's day to day lives. How many people actually lose jobs to illegals? How many have actually been killed by illegal immigrants vs. that same statistic from US citizens? I feel like it has been shown that illegal immigrants aren't coming into our country and killing people? How many of us benefit from the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants, probably unknowingly? Do people want to pay significantly higher prices for jobs done that utilize this labor force?

I don't see how it isn't reasonable for us to put stronger vetting in place during this time period, Trump is suppose to be a job creator so hire more people to examine those coming into the country and make that a priority. You don't have to totally ban everyone including people living here without issue for many years. There is a clear middle ground here between let everyone in and let nobody in. What the fuck is wrong with our country, in fact there is an obvious middle ground on almost all issues and the majority of people would find that middle ground compromise to be reasonable. But there is no money or control in compromise. The control and money is in the hate. The joke is on all of us, because it doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat in a leadership position at the state or federal level, either one is getting rich continually being re-elected while we sit online and argue with each other.

2/8/2017 12:27:47 PM

Here is the quote, again. I have bolded the important parts. That is intellectual dishonesty. Says nothing in that quote about left or right leaning views. If you're referring to another section in that Wikipedia link, then that's fine.

I was referring to the literal quote from that section. Because the part you are referencing is too vague, makes no specific accusations... which for a politicized issue only means "Political opponents don't like it" (unless there are actual specific critiques of the data, which there are not in that section).

Quote :

"As for "intellectual dishonesty," here is a definition: Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. I'm saying CIS is intellectually dishonest because it fits that definition. It fits that definition because of how it is described in that Wikipedia link which I've already listed."

I would say CIS and MPI, like most areas of research for a politicized issue, are intellectually dishonest... they both claim to be non partisan when they clearly are, but at least CIS includes their agenda at the top of their website "low immigration, pro immigrant". MPI and the sources slandering CIS cannot make the same case.

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you mean here. Being "politically correct" is a Marxist/leftist mechanism... so like I said, if an organization submits to being "politically correct" it is a great way to tell which way the source leans."

Quote :

" I guess you're saying that defining words is a Marxist thing?"

No, the concept of "political correctness" is from the Marxist ideology. Adding modifiers to words that don't need modifiers (like "correctness" or "justice") implies you can twist the meaning of the words away from absolute truth and use them to further a backwards political ideology.

Quote :

"List examples/proof. Until you grasp this very simple concept I'm done speaking. I will continue when you engage in an evidence-based manner."

Of CNN's bias during the election cylce?

Coaching "independent" focus group to say pro Clinton remarks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riX0osnLoys

Donna Brazil of CNN leaking questions to Clinton camp before CNN debate
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

CNN editing out Clinton referring to attack as a "bomb" so they could criticize Trump for doing so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0MmMJ2Paq4

Those are 3 clear cut examples of CNN actively working for Clinton, but there are even more examples of when CNN helps Clinton by not reporting things that they otherwise would for a republican candidate, such as the #DemExit walkout of ~2,000 from the DNC.

2/8/2017 1:10:22 PM

Donna Brazeille is not "of CNN" any more than Jeffrey Lord is. They are and were partisan contributors.

If everything Lord or Begala says was thought of as CNN saying it you'd think they were mouthpieces of the candidates.

2/8/2017 1:53:27 PM

^^
Your first example is a YouTube video. So, try again.

Your second example, if I'm reading it correctly (and please help me if i am not) is an email from Donna Brazile sending a question about the death penalty to someone working for the Clinton campaign.

After this occurred, the following happened:
On October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign."[34] CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile

So that looks to me like CNN got rid of her for that.

Your third example, not sure what this is supposed to show. I have no clue who uploaded this and edited it. I'm presuming the Fox News segments are what you're noting. Sounds like whoever put the CNN segment together wanted to make Hillary Clinton look more "measured" than Donald Trump. I don't think you can call this fake news (considering they weren't lying about what the actual news story was, which is that there was some sort of explosion and that no one at either news organization had more details than that, but I'll let other people reading this debate argue over that.

Quote :

"Those are 3 clear cut examples of CNN actively working for Clinton, but there are even more examples of when CNN helps Clinton by not reporting things that they otherwise would for a republican candidate, such as the #DemExit walkout of ~2,000 from the DNC."

So that's like .5 "clear" cut examples of CNN "working for Clinton." As for reporting or not reporting things, CNN (as well as Fox News and all other major television news organizations) are media companies. They post primarily on what draws views which generates advertising money. Nonetheless, both sides choose to adjust where they post articles as well as what articles they post. So if you're gonna go this route, then Fox News is "actively working for Trump."

As for your #DemExit, here is a CNN article covering that. Maybe it's not covering it to the detail you want? I'm not sure how covering that is news. The process itself didn't change because of it. There was no impact to the voting and as far as I know, no convention rules were violated.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/cnnphotos-dnc-protests-van-agmael/


[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 2:21 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/8/2017 2:16:28 PM

For what it's worth, the vast majority of Trump stories on CNN were negative (something like 68%). But considering he was pretty much a lying dick the entire time that's not terribly surprising.

CNN also covered emails into the ground.

2/8/2017 2:35:47 PM

Quote :

"Your first example is a YouTube video. So, try again."

If this is going to be your level of criticism, I won't even bother.

The point is cnn leans left (even hacks would admit this) so it isn't a reliable source for information on such a heavily politicized issue, or certainly not an unbiased one you should report without scrutiny.

2/8/2017 2:58:03 PM

^so in turn, Fox's right "lean" or "full tilt" would similarly disqualify them?

I have thought this for some time, but with all of the bellyaching from the RNC over CNN, they probably did more to elect Donald Trump than any other news organization, including Fox. My contention is that those habitual watchers of Fox News were going to vote for DT regardless of how hard they beat the drum. Not a lot of independents tuning into that level of "crazy" on a daily basis. On the other hand, although I would acknowledge that the base of the CNN audience is left leaning, plenty of middle of the road/independents watch CNN. They went hard after the emails, and gave equal, if not more valuable time to the Trump surrogates on their network, giving people on the fence a lot of ammunition to feel comfortable casting a vote against Hillary. Again, those in the bag for the left who thought Lord and McEnany and Lewandowski were ignorant blowhards were voting for Hillary anyways, but those in the middle likely picked up on their talking points.

[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2017 3:12:03 PM

TRIGGERED

2/8/2017 3:18:11 PM

Your news is not credible. Check out these YouTube videos.....

2/8/2017 3:20:00 PM

Quote :

"^so in turn, Fox's right "lean" or "full tilt" would similarly disqualify them?"

Yes, it disqualifies them from objectively discussing a politicized issue. They may be able to make a good argument but just like the studies Cherokee linked to, it is important to know who is funding who, because at the end of the day that is what determines the result, not pure "science".

2/8/2017 3:26:03 PM

You do realize all issues are politicized right? It's impossible not to cover a politicized issue.

Quote :

"If this is going to be your level of criticism, I won't even bother."

I didn't criticize your second YouTube video now, did i? Your first was a complete waste of time and not credible in any way. So yes, my level of criticism will stand - start thinking and arguing rationally.

Quote :

"Yes, it disqualifies them from objectively discussing a politicized issue. They may be able to make a good argument but just like the studies Cherokee linked to, it is important to know who is funding who, because at the end of the day that is what determines the result, not pure "science"."

Having a "lean" does not disqualify anyone from objectively discussing anything. It's impossible to remove a "lean" from anything. It's the lense through which you view life. What matters is that you are starting with the same data - data that has not been manipulated and data that has been correctly calculated and collected using the scientific method.

Your CIS source does not do that. To my knowledge (find something to prove this wrong) the link I posted does.

Fox News can have an opinion that the President is making a bad decision about something but as long as they post the underlying data and don't lie about it, that doesn't make them less objective. Same with CNN. CIS literally incorrectly analyzes data and posts it with mistakes. That is bad information. That is intellectually dishonest. That may or may not be a product of the "funding" sources but if so, why on earth would you suggest a source that is funded by extremists?

Also, how is someone able to make a good argument without being objective? I think what you mean when you say that is an argument that is emotionally appealing and validates a pre-existing belief. Not sure why you put science in quotes. It's the single most successful method for learning and solving problems that exists. Are you saying we shouldn't be scientific in matters such as these?

Do you actually understand how funding and the organizational decisions work?

I think the big issue I'm seeing now is this - you have a predetermined opinion that globalism, liberalism and anything that goes with that are bad. Therefore you refuse to accept anything that contradicts that and go out of your way to find other people who agree for support. That is a dangerous way of thinking and long term will get you nowhere in life.

I tend to think globalism is good, in the long run, but acknowledge the short term disruptions can be catastrophic to a good number of people. One of those disruptions revolves around immigration policy. Valid point and certainly something that should be improved. But it is nowhere NEAR the problem you are claiming it is and the information you're trying to use to support it is not meeting the standards of rationality.

Here's another point regarding the "fake news" thing and all the CNN Clinton conspiracies. I have no problem accepting that CNN has people and/or owners who would prefer her for president. That is no different than any other company in this country. I haven't seen real strong evidence for it, to imply that the organization itself is structured that way, but I'm open to it (and just because I haven't seen that evidence doesn't mean it isn't out there).

But the same people that think this about Clinton this refuse to believe the SAME thing exists with Trump and some other organization or with people like Vladimir Putin (a far more serious issue).

So when one side screams that the other is in a conspiracy but their side is fine, I find them all to be incredibly misinformed.

[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 3:48 PM. Reason : a]

2/8/2017 3:36:17 PM

Quote :

"Your CIS source does not do that. To my knowledge (find something to prove this wrong) the link I posted does. "

Find something to prove the CIS source does not do that

2/8/2017 3:45:45 PM

Quote :

"Find something to prove the CIS source does not do that"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/15/inside-the-center-for-immigration-studies-the-immigration-false-fact-think-tank.html

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/09/are-half-of-americas-immigrants-really-on-welfare/403657/

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-immigration-study-misleading-negative-2007dec16-story.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108742681731539433

2/8/2017 3:49:43 PM

what if black people went to heaven

2/8/2017 3:49:45 PM

2/8/2017 3:51:54 PM

Thie Cherokee guy is trying to rationally debate JCE, and JCE just won't do it.

JCE has proven to be irrational, delusional, void of logic, and adamantly opposed to ANY news source (or person) that doesn't completely confirm his world-view. He's one of the biggest hacks on this website (yes, there are hacks on the other side too, but he's really taking the cake recently). And I honestly think he has some mental issues.

I'm going to try again to start ignoring him, he's really not worth engaging. I advise others to the same. He truly is a nut-job hack incapable of rational thought.

2/8/2017 4:04:28 PM

I read the entirety of your first 2 sources, nowhere do either of them prove that the data has been manipulated or is inaccurate. All they do is point to the political way CIS presents that and act as if that negates the data, which it does not.

For example, in the 2nd source it claims CIS does a "bad comparison"

Quote :

"CIS compares welfare usage rates for immigrant households to all native-born households—including wealthy ones that don’t need state benefits."

That is the fucking point. We aren't asking "do poor immigrants use welfare more than poor citizens"... they are asking if immigrants use welfare more often than citizens... again, none of these negate the data. They can point to how it is presented and say the organization has an agenda... but that applies to all the liberal studies too.

Edit: Reading those sources has actually increased CIS's rep in my view, since all the articles claim to debunk CIS, and then fail to do so.

Quote :

"I'm going to try again to start ignoring him, he's really not worth engaging"

Yet, despite not even being part of the discussions, you feel a need to come piggy back off of every post I make with an ad hominem? Please ignore me, I hate having to scroll past your spam to read actual replies.


[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2017 4:07:20 PM

Quote :

"I read the entirety of your first 2 sources, nowhere do either of them prove that the data has been manipulated or is inaccurate. All they do is point to the political way CIS presents that and act as if that negates the data, which it does not."

You should try reading again. Then read it again. Then study some math. Then read it again. I'll post ONE example and then I think I'm done because you aren't paying attention. But I do appreciate the debate and you not having resorted to insulting me.

Quote :

"In a statement to The Daily Beast, ICE deputy press secretary Gillian Christiansen highlighted key points that CIS failed to address, such as the fact that convicted criminals are only sent into ICE custody for deportation proceedings once they’ve completed their criminal sentence. Many of the 2013 releases, ICE says, were required by law. For example, as a result of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, the U.S. is required to release detainees whose home country either denies the return of its nationals or has diplomatic beef with the United States, such as North Korea or Cuba. Christiansen says some detainees with less serious offenses were released at the discretion of enforcement officers based on “the priority of holding the individual, given ICE’s resources, and prioritizing the detention and removal of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security.” Immigration court judges, on the other hand, ordered the majority of releases for people with convictions of more serious crimes. “For example, mandatory releases account for over 72 percent of the homicides listed,” ICE said."

Quote :

"Muzaffar Chishti, the New York director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, argues that understanding the circumstances of each release is critical to forming an opinion of the data CIS has shared. Was it an immigration judge’s order? Are they helping law enforcement officials with criminal investigations? In the latter case, Chishti notes, not only are people released but they’re typically also given a green card. Additionally, understanding the type of convictions these people carry is also valuable. “Homicide is a very broad category,” Chishti said. “You can have vehicular homicide. Not everyone is an ax murderer.” “This may sound like a large number, but in our overall criminal justice system people get released all the time,” told The Daily Beast in response to the CIS report. “How does this stack historically? This is a select presentation of a set of facts without any comparative analysis that can lead to misleading conclusions.”"

[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 4:21 PM. Reason : a]

2/8/2017 4:19:50 PM

I'll rephrase since I think you are confused.

You're referencing CIS deliberately excluding the liberal side of an argument, and seem to think that implies the data they reference isn't legitimate as a result.

I'm saying I only care about the data. Which was your initial accusation I challenged you to back up:

Quote :

"What matters is that you are starting with the same data - data that has not been manipulated and data that has been correctly calculated and collected using the scientific method. Your CIS source does not do that."

2/8/2017 4:51:31 PM

That isn't the liberal side of an argument. They are literally ignoring the substance of the data. They are drawing conclusions on data that hasn't been validated. In other words, they are using the larger number because it sounds worse, even though when you actually look at the details of each of those cases, some of them fall out of scope of the very argument they're trying to draw.

Again, that's not a slant. That's misusing data. That is intellectual dishonesty. That is not scientific.

2/8/2017 5:24:42 PM

You're referencing a separate CIS study I wasn't familiar with, so bear with me

So CIS says " The vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law" which is true, right?

Yet your claim is that for homocides, 72% were mandatory releases, and you think CIS not mentioning this is intellectual dishonesty negating their study?

I see that as politics as usual. Such omissions will be readily available in any politicized study. So unless you are saying something else I'm not sure what your point is regarding how the numbers aren't valid still.

2/8/2017 5:36:41 PM

Gotcha.

So, you said to find you an example that proves CIS is misleading people, making errors in their analysis and is presenting conclusions on incorrect data.

I posted four links.

You said you read the first two and that they prove CIS is NOT doing that.

I then went to the first of the four links I sent, one of the two you said you read, and produced examples where in that article they are explaining how CIS IS misleading people, making errors in their analysis and is presenting conclusions on incorrect data.

That example that I used was where ICE highlighted points in a study CIS released that back up my claim in my preceding sentence. The study CIS provided is presented at the beginning of the the article.

CIS said something. ICE said CIS is wrong and that they failed to analyze the data correctly (that is, using statistics and scientific methods) and because of that, the conclusions from their reports (we'll call them anti-immigration conclusions, just to be clear) are faulty because of this.

I think you may either have typed something wrong in your response or confused what you were reading.

Ultimately, at this point we're focusing too much on two specific sources. I think I've made my point about sources in general, though.

Should probably get back to the overall questions regarding illegal immigration, anchor babies, economics, etc.

[Edited on February 8, 2017 at 7:11 PM. Reason : a]

2/8/2017 7:07:43 PM

Quote :

" So, you said to find you an example that proves CIS is misleading people, making errors in their analysis and is presenting conclusions on incorrect data."

No, I said to find an example of what your original claim was, which was worded quite differently:

"What matters is that you are starting with the same data - data that has not been manipulated and data that has been correctly calculated and collected using the scientific method. Your CIS source does not do that."

There is an important difference between critiquing the data, and critiquing how you interpret the data. I think you and your 5 articles are all doing the latter.

My point is, I don't care about CIS's interpretation, I just want the data so I can do my own interpretation. I don't care if their conclusion is biased, I would expect it to be. Even with your 5 articles pointing out how that one study is biased, there is still data there that can be used despite the political agenda directing their conclusion.

Quote :

"Should probably get back to the overall questions regarding illegal immigration, anchor babies, economics, etc."

Right, but to discuss those questions we have to be able to use studies, and to do that we have to be able to account for the biases of each one (especially the ones claiming to be non partisan)

2/8/2017 10:05:39 PM

Quote :

"No, I said to find an example of what your original claim was, which was worded quite differently:"

You literally said the following:

Quote :

"Find something to prove the CIS source does not do that"

I'm done at this point. You can't even keep track of your own statements.

2/9/2017 9:21:42 AM

Your original quote

Quote :

"What matters is that you are starting with the same data - data that has not been manipulated and data that has been correctly calculated and collected using the scientific method. Your CIS source does not do that. To my knowledge (find something to prove this wrong) the link I posted does."

My response to it

Quote :

"Find something to prove the CIS source does not do that"

What you tried to change your original quote to

Quote :

" So, you said to find you an example that proves CIS is misleading people, making errors in their analysis and is presenting conclusions on incorrect data."

2/9/2017 9:41:38 AM

Yes, I said your CIS source manipulates data, doesn't calculate it correctly and doesn't use the scientific method.

You said find something to prove that.

I posted something that proves that. Proving that proves it is misleading people, making errors in their analysis and presenting conclusions on incorrect data.

This is my final post on this. You literally are not understanding your own statements.

2/9/2017 11:32:44 AM

Quote :

"manipulates data, doesn't calculate it correctly and doesn't use the scientific method."

Quote :

"misleading people, making errors in their analysis and presenting conclusions on incorrect data."

These two statements are very different. You tried to change the statement in the middle of the discussion in order to accommodate your sources. I noticed, and now you are trying to deflect/escape/claim I am in error.

I requested the first quote, you are proving only part of the 2nd quote (minus the incorrect data).

[Edited on February 9, 2017 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2017 12:04:00 PM

Manipulating data = misleading people
Not calculating correctly = making errors
Not using the scientific method = presenting conclusions on incorrect data

You have a very difficult time with language. Goodbye.

2/9/2017 12:19:49 PM

There is a difference between:

1. The integrity of data that is gathered (i.e. 36,000 criminal illegals released)
2. The way data is interpreted/presented (i.e. not explaining the release reasons)

I only care about #1, the numbers and data. That is why I challenged you on #1 only. You are trying to change it to #2, which I don't care about as I already explained this is to be expected with any politicized issue.

2/9/2017 1:28:38 PM

9th circuit rules against the travel ban

Conway breaks ethics rules over stupid nordstrom bullshit

what say you, trump nerds

2/9/2017 6:35:01 PM

^she didnt break ethics rules intentionally so cant be punished

2/9/2017 7:37:23 PM

2/9/2017 7:43:28 PM

Quote :

"We’re clearly living in bizarro world when a con man, a liar, a cheater, a misogynist, a bully, a non-intellectual, someone who makes fun of people with disabilities, someone who worries about what SNL thinks about him, someone who gets his news from Faux “News”, someone who doesn’t understand the U.S. constitution, someone who doesn’t understand our system of checks and balances, someone who worries about the ratings of his former television show, a pervert (who walked in on unclothed teenagers), and someone who, for God’s sake, communicates by tweeting, has become the President of the United States. For any and all of you who voted for Trump, the biggest con man in the world just pulled off the biggest con of all time. What in the name of God made you think that Donald fucking Trump gives one shit about you or your life?"

2/11/2017 3:33:02 PM

^^^ That depends on the law (mens rea). Not sure how that one is worded.

2/11/2017 6:42:18 PM

https://gfycat.com/KaleidoscopicHonestArchaeopteryx

[Edited on February 11, 2017 at 6:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2017 6:48:28 PM

strange

2/11/2017 11:07:14 PM

^^^ that was a dig at Hillary supporters

once again, deflection at it's best. two wrongs = right?

[Edited on February 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM. Reason : ]

2/13/2017 10:39:19 AM

^^^that gif is funny, but not for the reason shown. the reason the japanese PM rolled his eyes is the japanese photographers were shouting something, Trump asked the PM what they said, the PM translated "Please look at me", and Trump started looking right at the PM. then the PM pointed at the cameras, then Trump understood

2/13/2017 1:52:09 PM

Your post is funny, but only because your phrasing makes you sound arrogant.

https://g.redditmedia.com/hMd8Be-aP0d6UNTatTPh-abwUdOyKMyoxPM50GKi_i0.gif?fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=9b046b9cd7c13548c4f7fb11df23e35f





[Edited on February 13, 2017 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2017 7:53:47 PM

^how? there's plenty of shit Trump has done to warrant ridicule, that was not one of them.

2/13/2017 8:54:16 PM

how is a violently aggressive handshake not funny to me?

2/13/2017 8:58:45 PM

i was asking how my post sounded arrogant by posting facts, the handshake is definitely funny

2/13/2017 9:04:03 PM

Quote :

"that gif is funny, but not for the reason shown"

2/13/2017 9:12:23 PM

I heard he eats boiled kittens.

I also heard that he is going to gut the White House and install one big trampoline for Barron.

And he is missing his left big toe.

2/13/2017 9:53:00 PM

boiling is the most plebeian method of preparation

2/13/2017 10:04:02 PM