CNN's Jim Acosta gets his lunch eaten at press briefing

Welcome, Welcome Emigrante
Buffy Sainte-Marie, Cree (First Nation)

Chorus: Oh welcome, welcome emigrante,
to my country, welcome home.
Welcome, welcome emigrante,
to the country that I love.

I am proud, I am proud,
I am proud of my forefathers and I say
they built this country.
And they came from far away
to a land they didn't know,
the same way you did, my friend.
[chorus]

I am proud, I am proud,
I am proud of my forefathers and I say
about their courage.
For they spoke a foreign language
and they laboured with theirs hands,
the same way you did, my friend.
[chorus]

I am proud, I am proud,
I am proud of my forefathers and I sing
about their patience.
For the work they did was lowly
and they dirtied-up their clothes,
And they spoke a foreign language
and they laboured with theirs hands,
And they came from far away
to a land they didn't know,
the same way you did, my friend.

So welcome, welcome emigrante,
to my country, welcome home.
Welcome, welcome emigrante,
to the country that I love.

Ishmael said:

Returning to the subject of the thread, I wonder how much longer CNN will allow a congenital moron to represent their network at the White House presser's?

Why do I suspect that Acosta will be among the first causalities of the merger if/when it goes through?

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Nah. They'll give him more money and his own show.

Colonel Hogan said:

Because, like most GB debates, people HERE were implying that that's what Ish and I were arguing, which is the quintessential definition of a "srawman" argument that you are appropriately disparaging.

Click to expand...

Just remember every time our leftist friends inject straw men and red herrings into discussions it's simply because they have absolutely nothing else to contribute. It's a knee jerk reaction and an admission of their own ignorance.

It's a habit with them.

Ishmael said:

Fine, then we can now return to figuring out why a REPORTER is trying to engage in an editorial argument? And doing so while asserting that the policy "requires" that which it so clearly does not? While using a stupid, and off subject, basis subject to do so.

Acosta is a fucking moron and so is anyone that bought into his schtick. He had NO intention of trying to find out any facts for the viewer, and every intention of making himself the 'star' of the show regardless of how much of an idiot he had to be to do so.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you think reporters are there to simply act as stenographers? Their job is also to listen and to ask questions, which is what he did.

Perhaps you should save your outrage for Miller who handled the briefing rather poorly. Even a Fox news commentator bashed his embarrassing performance.

zipman said:

Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you think reporters are there to simply act as stenographers? Their job is also to listen and to ask questions, which is what he did.

Perhaps you should save your outrage for Miller who handled the briefing rather poorly. Even a Fox news commentator bashed his embarrassing performance.

Click to expand...

The reporter's job is to ask intelligent, relevant questions at which Accosta failed at least as badly as did Miller with his answer.

Let's revisit that question in full and verbatim:

"What you are proposing...or what the President is proposing here does not sound like it's in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration. The Statue of Liberty says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. It doesn't say anything about speaking English or being able to, uh... be a computer programmer. Aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you're telling them you have to speak English? Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3w3t6DwxPo

Click to expand...

Now it seems to me that Stephen Miller can be excused for thinking that the citation of a poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a fundamentally dumbass premise for the implication that the absence of any reference in the poem to English speaking requirements or desirable labor skills further implies that any past, present or future immigration laws or regulations merely favoring (or even mandating) those specific skills, requirements (or a host of others) represents a departure from American "tradition." It is patently a dumbass linkage. Why would Accosta expect that ANY appropriate United States condition of immigration be reflected in The Colossus poem OR that the absence of any restriction or condition of entry within that literary work signifies a departure from the entire "tradition" of American immigration?

Far worse, where did he get the bankrupt idea that the proposed RAISE Act "tells" immigrant applicants that they "have to speak English" or that even if that mandate existed, it would "change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country"?

Unfortunately, by attempting to school Accosta on the obvious irrelevancy of his example as it specifically related to the RAISE Act vis-a-vis the true and broader historical symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, Miller merely inspired Accosta (WARNING: potential further inappropriate analogy to come) to press the accelerator to the floor of the car, thus, providing greater distance from the face of the cliff he was driving over.

"You're saying that does not represent what the country has always thought of as immigration [sic] coming into this country? That sounds like some Park Service revisionism."

Click to expand...

I suspect, given the advantage of hindsight, Miller wishes he had instead, said something more along the lines of the following:

"The short answer to your first question is 'no.' Nothing about this proposed legislation "changes what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country," the precise definition of which is simply a citizen OF another country MERELY seeking entry INTO this country. At no time in our history am I aware that changes in our immigration laws and policies have CHANGED the very definition of what it MEANS to be an immigrant.

"More substantively, I am perplexed why you seem to think that it would. And when evaluating what you or I believe to be the proper role of an arguable American immigration tradition with respect to current or future national immigration policies and the pressing issues that might drive them, I am at a loss as to why a monument managed by the National Park Service would enter into that discussion at all, alleged revisionist history notwithstanding.

"But allow me to discuss these pressing issues driving immigration policy with respect to your second question "Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here? The short answer to that question is, 'yes.' They most certainly can. Many do, and I have little doubt that if this legislation were to pass that would continue to be the case.

"The mere fact of a merits-based immigration system like that employed by the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, to name but three of nearly a dozen such countries, says nothing about how those various merits and desirable traits are weighted in such a system. I do not know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that in the years following World War II, the decision by the United States to allow entry of Dr. Werner Von Braun and many of the engineers and scientists on his team was only marginally affected by the English language capabilities (or lack thereof) of those potential immigrants. Given future national priorities anything like the circumstances comprising the "needs" of the United States government at that time, I would expect any final merits-based immigration reform act passed by Congress to embrace THAT flexibility and adhere to that tradition that once accommodated Dr. Von Braun and his colleagues and unarguably allowed us to explore the boldest of new frontiers.

"At the other end of the humanitarian/sociological spectrum, the RAISE Act, as proposed, continues to allow for up to 50,000 permanent immigrant residents on the basis of their status as refugees fleeing a failed state or government guilty of human rights abuses. Thus, that tradition is also maintained.

"Throughout our history, immigration policies and regulations have focused on those individuals who manifest behavior we repudiate and which we DO NOT want in this country under any circumstances. United States immigration law boasts a long list of disqualifying conditions and the persons who display those characteristics and backgrounds. That list and the various annual immigration quotas for different immigration classes have undergone constant additions and deletions over the years.

"In that sense, the somewhat novel changes contemplated by the RAISE Act, are, contrary to the premise of your questions, not only in keeping with the constantly evolving face of American immigration, they actually move that tradition in a long overdue direction.

"It is a direction that, among other things, eliminates a capricious lottery that tens of thousands of applicants had no hope of winning and replaces it with a program that celebrates and rewards the skills of those indisputably qualified to, and desirous of, providing themselves and the United States with the brightest possible future while affording them of that specific opportunity.

"It is a direction that is focused on characteristics of inclusion rather than exclusion.

"It is a direction in which this administration is confident most Americans will approve and embrace."

zipman said:

Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you think reporters are there to simply act as stenographers? Their job is also to listen and to ask questions, which is what he did.

Perhaps you should save your outrage for Miller who handled the briefing rather poorly. Even a Fox news commentator bashed his embarrassing performance.

Click to expand...

He immediately began to argue with Miller pressing his own, Acosta's, agenda. Other than the fact that Acosta is a jackass we learned NOTHING from that exchange.

Ishmael

Ishmael said:

He immediately began to argue with Miller pressing his own, Acosta's, agenda. Other than the fact that Acosta is a jackass we learned NOTHING from that exchange.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

We learned that Jim Acosta is a blowhard idiot who likes the sound of his own voice as it echoes round and round in his empty head.

Oh, wait! Sorry, we already knew that about Jim, didn't we?

Colonel Hogan said:

The reporter's job is to ask intelligent, relevant questions at which Accosta failed at least as badly as did Miller with his answer.

Let's revisit that question in full and verbatim:



Now it seems to me that Stephen Miller can be excused for thinking that the citation of a poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a fundamentally dumbass premise for the implication that the absence of any reference in the poem to English speaking requirements or desirable labor skills further implies that any past, present or future immigration laws or regulations merely favoring (or even mandating) those specific skills, requirements (or a host of others) represents a departure from American "tradition." It is patently a dumbass linkage. Why would Accosta expect that ANY appropriate United States condition of immigration be reflected in The Colossus poem OR that the absence of any restriction or condition of entry within that literary work signifies a departure from the entire "tradition" of American immigration?

Far worse, where did he get the bankrupt idea that the proposed RAISE Act "tells" immigrant applicants that they "have to speak English" or that even if that mandate existed, it would "change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country"?

Unfortunately, by attempting to school Accosta on the obvious irrelevancy of his example as it specifically related to the RAISE Act vis-a-vis the true and broader historical symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, Miller merely inspired Accosta (WARNING: potential further inappropriate analogy to come) to press the accelerator to the floor of the car, thus, providing greater distance from the face of the cliff he was driving over.



I suspect, given the advantage of hindsight, Miller wishes he had instead, said something more along the lines of the following:

"The short answer to your first question is 'no.' Nothing about this proposed legislation "changes what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country," the precise definition of which is simply a citizen OF another country MERELY seeking entry INTO this country. At no time in our history am I aware that changes in our immigration laws and policies have CHANGED the very definition of what it MEANS to be an immigrant.

"More substantively, I am perplexed why you seem to think that it would. And when evaluating what you or I believe to be the proper role of an arguable American immigration tradition with respect to current or future national immigration policies and the pressing issues that might drive them, I am at a loss as to why a monument managed by the National Park Service would enter into that discussion at all, alleged revisionist history notwithstanding.

"But allow me to discuss these pressing issues driving immigration policy with respect to your second question "Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here? The short answer to that question is, 'yes.' They most certainly can. Many do, and I have little doubt that if this legislation were to pass that would continue to be the case.

"The mere fact of a merits-based immigration system like that employed by the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, to name but three of nearly a dozen such countries, says nothing about how those various merits and desirable traits are weighted in such a system. I do not know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that in the years following World War II, the decision by the United States to allow entry of Dr. Werner Von Braun and many of the engineers and scientists on his team was only marginally affected by the English language capabilities (or lack thereof) of those potential immigrants. Given future national priorities anything like the circumstances comprising the "needs" of the United States government at that time, I would expect any final merits-based immigration reform act passed by Congress to embrace THAT flexibility and adhere to that tradition that once accommodated Dr. Von Braun and his colleagues and unarguably allowed us to explore the boldest of new frontiers.

"At the other end of the humanitarian/sociological spectrum, the RAISE Act, as proposed, continues to allow for up to 50,000 permanent immigrant residents on the basis of their status as refugees fleeing a failed state or government guilty of human rights abuses. Thus, that tradition is also maintained.

"Throughout our history, immigration policies and regulations have focused on those individuals who manifest behavior we repudiate and which we DO NOT want in this country under any circumstances. United States immigration law boasts a long list of disqualifying conditions and the persons who display those characteristics and backgrounds. That list and the various annual immigration quotas for different immigration classes have undergone constant additions and deletions over the years.

"In that sense, the somewhat novel changes contemplated by the RAISE Act, are, contrary to the premise of your questions, not only in keeping with the constantly evolving face of American immigration, they actually move that tradition in a long overdue direction.

"It is a direction that, among other things, eliminates a capricious lottery that tens of thousands of applicants had no hope of winning and replaces it with a program that celebrates and rewards the skills of those indisputably qualified to, and desirous of, providing themselves and the United States with the brightest possible future while affording them of that specific opportunity.

"It is a direction that is focused on characteristics of inclusion rather than exclusion.

"It is a direction in which this administration is confident most Americans will approve and embrace."

Click to expand...

First off, brevity is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.

Second, I only responded to this thread because I thought the right wing spin was funny and as usual, totally incompatible with reality. Even a Fox news anchor said that this administration should keep Miller out of the Press Briefings.

As to the topic we are discussing, the bottom line is that Accosta's question wasn't anywhere near as bad as Miller's answers, which is kind of the point of representing the administration in the Press room. He should have answered the question in a far better manner than he did.

You and he seem incredibly hung up on the poem, which was never presented as a legal obligation, but rather, was indicative of the tradition of immigration we have had in this country. I have no idea why that is giving you such a problem. Sometimes you have to look at the forest and not the trees.

Ishmael said:

He immediately began to argue with Miller pressing his own, Acosta's, agenda. Other than the fact that Acosta is a jackass we learned NOTHING from that exchange.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Which only reinforces that Miller did a terrible job, contrary to what you hear on Breitbart and Fox and Friends.

The onus of communication is on the presenter, not the person asking the questions. That's true in any presentation of information.

zipman said:

Second, I only responded to this thread because I thought the right wing spin was funny and as usual, totally incompatible with reality.

Click to expand...

Said the most delusional DNC hack on the board next to Hypoxia and GSGS.

Acosta was owned. The Statue of Liberty Law of the Land had me rolling.

zipman said:

Which only reinforces that Miller did a terrible job, contrary to what you hear on Breitbart and Fox and Friends.

The onus of communication is on the presenter, not the person asking the questions. That's true in any presentation of information.

Click to expand...

1. I haven't read or heard anything from the media you are speaking about. I've watched the YouTube video, raw, unadulterated, and commented on by no one.

2. You're delusional if you think what Acosta did was anything but a grandstand play to get a sound bite for the 6 o'clock news while injecting (editorializing) his own opinion into the briefing.

If I want an opinion from a fucking numb-nuts reporter, I'll ask for it. And if those morons want to have their opinion considered for policy they can;

a. Run for office themselves.

b. Wangle and appointment for themselves.

c. become a registered lobbyist.

d. become a contributor on the editorial page.

Other than that they can all fuck off.

Ishmael

zipman said:

First off, brevity is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.

Second, I only responded to this thread because I thought the right wing spin was funny and as usual, totally incompatible with reality. Even a Fox news anchor said that this administration should keep Miller out of the Press Briefings.

As to the topic we are discussing, the bottom line is that Accosta's question wasn't anywhere near as bad as Miller's answers, which is kind of the point of representing the administration in the Press room. He should have answered the question in a far better manner than he did.

You and he seem incredibly hung up on the poem, which was never presented as a legal obligation, but rather, was indicative of the tradition of immigration we have had in this country. I have no idea why that is giving you such a problem. Sometimes you have to look at the forest and not the trees.

Click to expand...

First off, I am not "hung up on the stupid poem." In fact, if you go back and read the 10 paragraph answer I WISH Miller had given, which you apparently are too disinterested to read, you would see that I did not reference the poem at all, and did not even reference the Statue of Liberty by name.

Instead, I specifically answered his question "Aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you're telling them you have to speak English? Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?" in the specific, substantive context of what the proposed legislation would and would not do -- a substantive context that was fully available to Jim Accosta BEFORE he asked his stupid question.

My lack of brevity notwithstanding, I gave the fact-based answer, that in no way personally attacks Jim Accosta, that Miller would have been far better off having given. Isn't that what you wanted? Why would you object to that other than you still don't like the proposed legislation? Or is it your position that my answer does not constitute an "improvement" over Miller's response?

water505 said:

What a sanctimonious, partisan hack. The only other place he could get a job is MSNBC.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H-J4FvxtD9I

Click to expand...

Your words have to be hard enough on the guy....but somebody ate his lunch too?

You guys are really ruthless.

Some of you here should step outside and look at the Moon.

Stephen Miller is a bad ass.

The usual mocking, slanders, and attacks have now predictably started in the media and the liberal trolloverse, but this guy has a future in politics. He's still in his early 30s. I wouldn't be surprised if he's President some day.

Washington Poopst even admits "Stephen Miller is a thinking man's Donald Trump."

Fala said:

Your words have to be hard enough on the guy....but somebody ate his lunch too?

You guys are really ruthless.

Some of you here should step outside and look at the Moon.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Ishmael said:

1. I haven't read or heard anything from the media you are speaking about. I've watched the YouTube video, raw, unadulterated, and commented on by no one.

2. You're delusional if you think what Acosta did was anything but a grandstand play to get a sound bite for the 6 o'clock news while injecting (editorializing) his own opinion into the briefing.

If I want an opinion from a fucking numb-nuts reporter, I'll ask for it. And if those morons want to have their opinion considered for policy they can;

a. Run for office themselves.

b. Wangle and appointment for themselves.

c. become a registered lobbyist.

d. become a contributor on the editorial page.

Other than that they can all fuck off.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Neither points you make above matter, at all.

Just because you didn't see the commentary on it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And even if Accosta did that to get a sound bite for the 6 o'clock news it doesn't fucking matter. That's part of his job you moron. And it doesn't make Miller's answer any less idiotic either.

But thanks for playing.

Colonel Hogan said:

First off, I am not "hung up on the stupid poem." In fact, if you go back and read the 10 paragraph answer I WISH Miller had given, which you apparently are too disinterested to read, you would see that I did not reference the poem at all, and did not even reference the Statue of Liberty by name.

Instead, I specifically answered his question "Aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you're telling them you have to speak English? Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?" in the specific, substantive context of what the proposed legislation would and would not do -- a substantive context that was fully available to Jim Accosta BEFORE he asked his stupid question.

My lack of brevity notwithstanding, I gave the fact-based answer, that in no way personally attacks Jim Accosta, that Miller would have been far better off having given. Isn't that what you wanted? Why would you object to that other than you still don't like the proposed legislation? Or is it your position that my answer does not constitute an "improvement" over Miller's response?

Click to expand...

Did I ask you to write a 10 paragraph response to how you WOULD have answered the question? Or how he should have? Then don't be surprised that I didn't read it in detail. Again, brevity is your friend. Writing a novel doesn't help.

IF the "substantive context that was fully available to Jim Accosta BEFORE he asked his stupid question" then maybe Miller should have fucking read it so he could provide a better answer than the lame assed rambling one he gave. Again, the onus of responsibility in that situation is on the person presenting the information. The exchanges with Accosta and Thrush were yet another Press Room embarrassment for a white house that absolutely sucks at their job. The incompetence of this ever changing group is off the charts.

Lastly, I didn't say you attacked Accosta. I'm not even a fan of his. After skimming over your incredibly long winded response, it was an improvement over Miller's. But again, I didn't ask you to write it.

zipman said:

Neither points you make above matter, at all.

Just because you didn't see the commentary on it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And even if Accosta did that to get a sound bite for the 6 o'clock news it doesn't fucking matter. That's part of his job you moron. And it doesn't make Miller's answer any less idiotic either.

But thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

What matters is Acosta is an advocate, not a journalist.

You hate MIller and worship Acosta

Miller made Acosta look like the partisan fool he is.

The vast majority of American support the Trump policy.

Rightguide said:

What matters is Acosta is an advocate, not a journalist.

You hate MIller and worship Acosta

Miller made Acosta look like the partisan fool he is.

The vast majority of American support the Trump policy.

Click to expand...

Congrats!

You went 4 for 4 on inaccurate statements.

Perhaps a link that supports your claim about the vast majority of americans support the Trump policy would be helpful.

zipman said:

Congrats!

You went 4 for 4 on inaccurate statements.

Perhaps a link that supports your claim about the vast majority of americans support the Trump policy would be helpful.

Click to expand...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._trump_s_litmus_test_for_potential_immigrants

Rightguide said:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._trump_s_litmus_test_for_potential_immigrants

Click to expand...

Except that is a completely different set of requirements/characteristics.

You did read it, right?