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

[Disgustipated]

Except Accosta didn't argue that the poem was the law of the land.

If he had, then Ish and you might have a point.

But since he didn't, you don't.

Except for the fact that Acosta wasn't talking about THE LAW nor was miles idiotic butthurt about THE LAW.

But hey, go 45!

Bwahahahahah!

 

[phrodeau]

Does President Trump speak English well enough to be allowed to immigrate?

 

[Disgustipated]

Does President Trump speak English well enough to be allowed to immigrate?

Bigly is right next to Bigot in the Webster.

 

[zipman]

The heated response to the connection isn’t new. As ThinkProgress reported Wednesday, David Duke, former Klu Klux Klan leader and current Trump supporter, spent an entire chapter in one of his books weaving anti-Semitic conspiracy involving the monument and Lazarus.

Duke wrote: “As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America’s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus.”

Lazarus is also a frequent topic on Stormfront, one of the web’s largest white supremacist hubs. One typical post on Lazarus is “Give Me Your Huddled Masses — The Jewess who tried to destroy the US!”

And today, Stormfront’s forums were buzzing about Miller (who was raised in a Jewish home in Southern California). “Miller really did destroy them. It’s pretty much a badge of honour for a jew to jew another jew,” one Stormfront commenter wrote. “And those damn (((journalists))) are insufferable. I say free helicopter rides for them.”

“That cnn jew reporter asked ‘Are we only going to allow immigrants from Great Britian Australia in?'”another said. “It would have been great if Stephen Miller responded with YES! and every other White Country also.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...t-the-statue-of-liberty/ar-AAplaU4?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[Liar]

Also, can someone ask Miller what the heck "cosmopolitan bias" means?

 

[phrodeau]

Also, can someone ask Miller what the heck "cosmopolitan bias" means?

I think it means that you get your news from the left side of the supermarket checkout racks instead of the right side.

 

[Ishmael]

Of course there is.

There is both a history and tradition of the US being a welcoming home to immigrants from around the world.

Go read a fucking history book.

Really? What is it? The 'Open Door' policy prior to 1916? The 'Closed Door' policy (law) after 1916? The limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the early 1950's? The revised limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the mid 1960's?

Just what fucking tradition are you talking about that is NOT based on your imagination?

Ishmael

 

[Disgustipated]

Really? What is it? The 'Open Door' policy prior to 1916? The 'Closed Door' policy (law) after 1916? The limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the early 1950's? The revised limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the mid 1960's?

Just what fucking tradition are you talking about that is NOT based on your imagination?

Ishmael

Dude. We get it. You, as well as the OP, had no idea what this thread was about.

 

[Rightguide]

Also, can someone ask Miller what the heck "cosmopolitan bias" means?

It describes liberals and others stuck in the "Beltway Bubble" which keeps them out of touch with the majority of Americans. The bubble that kept them isolated from the thinking of the American people in the last election for instance.

 

[Rightguide]

Really? What is it? The 'Open Door' policy prior to 1916? The 'Closed Door' policy (law) after 1916? The limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the early 1950's? The revised limited immigration policy (law) enacted in the mid 1960's?

Just what fucking tradition are you talking about that is NOT based on your imagination?

Ishmael

For instance, between 1924 and 1964 the policy was almost zero immigration.

 

[phrodeau]

Dude. We get it. You, as well as the OP, had no idea what this thread was about.

He just wants to do things the way they were done a hundred years ago, because all the geopolitical realities are still exactly the same.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Accosta "asked whether the Trump administration's newly unveiled, merit-based proposal for granting green cards is in keeping with U.S. tradition."

He didn't say the poem was the law of the land.

He said that it reflected the spirit of the US as a beacon of hope around the world. That's why the poem was put on the Statue.

But keep arguing things that weren't said. It seems as though that's all you have.

Except Accosta didn't argue that the poem was the law of the land.

If he had, then Ish and you might have a point.

But since he didn't, you don't.

Except for the fact that Acosta wasn't talking about THE LAW nor was miles idiotic butthurt about THE LAW.

But hey, go 45!

Speaking of arguing things that "weren't said..."

Neither Ish nor I accused Accosta of representing that the Emma Lazarus poem constituted the law of the land. Ish merely represented that the Statue of Liberty itself DOES NOT constitute the law of the land nor the sonnet inscribed on its base immigration policy. Go back and read his initial post.

Secondly, the precise context in which Accosta questioned the departure from U. S. immigration tradition was whether prioritizing the entry of English-speaking immigrants with specific desirable skills (i.e. "computer programming") was in keeping with that tradition.

And THAT is the fundamental fallacy of Accosta's "argument" - that tradition, to whatever degree its historical accuracy is represented by a 19th century sonnet that "was forgotten and played no role at the opening of the statue in 1886." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus), is itself appropriately prioritized over substantive government immigration policies designed to further social objectives while providing the best opportunities for immigrants themselves.

Accosta, and GB forum politicos, should have at least gone here first: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/everything-need-know-raise-act-without-reading/

It simply gets back to Ish's most salient point: "If anyone wants to argue the merits of the proposed policy......fine. But using the Statue of Liberty, and more precisely Lazarus's sonnet, as the basis of said argument is stupid beyond belief."

 

[Liar]

Speaking of arguing things that "weren't said..."

Neither Ish nor I accused Accosta of representing that the Emma Lazarus poem constituted the law of the land. Ish merely represented that the Statue of Liberty itself DOES NOT constitute the law of the land nor the sonnet inscribed on its base immigration policy. Go back and read his initial post.

If nobody argued that, why point it out? Strawman much?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If nobody argued that, why point it out? Strawman much?

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.

All Ish, I and Stephen Miller were trying to do was expose the irrelevancy of Jim Accosta's citation of 100+-year-old sonnet to a substantive debate on proposed immigration legislation.

 

[zipman]

Speaking of arguing things that "weren't said..."

Neither Ish nor I accused Accosta of representing that the Emma Lazarus poem constituted the law of the land. Ish merely represented that the Statue of Liberty itself DOES NOT constitute the law of the land nor the sonnet inscribed on its base immigration policy. Go back and read his initial post.

Secondly, the precise context in which Accosta questioned the departure from U. S. immigration tradition was whether prioritizing the entry of English-speaking immigrants with specific desirable skills (i.e. "computer programming") was in keeping with that tradition.

And THAT is the fundamental fallacy of Accosta's "argument" - that tradition, to whatever degree its historical accuracy is represented by a 19th century sonnet that "was forgotten and played no role at the opening of the statue in 1886." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus), is itself appropriately prioritized over substantive government immigration policies designed to further social objectives while providing the best opportunities for immigrants themselves.

Accosta, and GB forum politicos, should have at least gone here first: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/everything-need-know-raise-act-without-reading/

1) It simply gets back to Ish's most salient point: "If anyone wants to argue the merits of the proposed policy......fine. But using the Statue of Liberty, and more precisely Lazarus's sonnet, as the basis of said argument is stupid beyond belief."

I read Ish's post correctly the first time.

Ish (and you) stating that the poem does not represent the law of the land is as idiotic as Ish stating that the Statue of Liberty is an inanimate object. No one said otherwise so what purpose did it serve? It didn't serve any purpose as even Accosta didn't say it did. It was a straw man fallacy.

2) Accosta simply made an observation. “What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” . He goes on to ask if the President is changing what it means to be an immigrant by requiring immigrants to be able to speak English or have computer programming skills. Miller responded by talking about Naturalization requirements which is certainly different than immigration.

3) Exactly what from that link did you think would change the discussion? Although I did find it interesting that the President's proposal would likely increase ILLEGAL immigration.

4) I disagree with what your and Ish's limitation on what is appropriate to argue regarding this issue.

 

[Emerson40]

http://68.media.tumblr.com/d68e388322a14180816b4650cfc8ac21/tumblr_ok9udpnK9f1tki7xko1_500.jpg

 

[Liar]

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.

All Ish, I and Stephen Miller were trying to do was expose the irrelevancy of Jim Accosta's citation of 100+-year-old sonnet to a substantive debate on proposed immigration legislation.

"No strawman. No strawman. You're the strawman."

The irrelevancy is the argument that it's not law. Yeah it's not law. So fucking what?

 

[Disgustipated]

"No strawman. No strawman. You're the strawman."

The irrelevancy is the argument that it's not law. Yeah it's not law. So fucking what?

The minions can't think for themselves.

 

[Vetteman]

It describes liberals and others stuck in the "Beltway Bubble" which keeps them out of touch with the majority of Americans. The bubble that kept them isolated from the thinking of the American people in the last election for instance.

The majority of people voted for that skank in a pants suit.

 

[Ishmael]

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

 

[Rightguide]

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

Presently, his job seems to be to keep Democrat Party narratives alive and front and center. Maybe the coming merger will initiate a review of the presently failing leftist propaganda oriented business model at CNN and decide upon change. In that case, Acosta might have to ask Tom Perez to find him a new job.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

2) Accosta simply made an observation. “What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” . He goes on to ask if the President is changing what it means to be an immigrant by requiring immigrants to be able to speak English or have computer programming skills. Miller responded by talking about Naturalization requirements which is certainly different than immigration.

Since we at last seem to be on point, I still do not see the relevancy of Accosta's "observation" to his specific QUESTION "if the President is changing what it means to be an immigrant by requiring immigrants to be able to speak English or have computer programming skills." And I, too, noticed Miller's reference to naturalization requirements as being tangential to what the proposed legislation would affect. But that is the problem with questions based on irrelevant analogies and equivalencies. They tend to elicit irrelevant responses in return when a simple "no" would have sufficed.

4) I disagree with what your and Ish's limitation on what is appropriate to argue regarding this issue.

Fair enough, but, as I just said, broadening the scope of any debate is not without peril.

 

[Ishmael]

4) I disagree with what your and Ish's limitation on what is appropriate to argue regarding this issue.

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

 

[Disgustipated]

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

Cool ascription, bro. I'm sure you *know* the mindset of all CNN reporters.

 

[water505]

http://68.media.tumblr.com/d68e388322a14180816b4650cfc8ac21/tumblr_ok9udpnK9f1tki7xko1_500.jpg

More KKK bullshit.