Immigration to U.S., 1820-2007

Yeah? Where's this "proof". And not some statement from a nutty partisan blog. Give me empirical evidence to support this assertion.

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx


http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-new-evidence-of-liberal-media-bias-november-a/


http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081024.asp#1

 

Some do, most don't.

Your prejudice toward immigrants is astounding.

 

It would be more of a bi-directional grace if anything. The employer gets cheap labor and the worker gets paid under the table. Both are criminals but the laws are not severe enough to discourage the crime. I hear some illegals go as far as file tax returns using bogus SSN's.

The problem is there is no way to deport 12 million illegals and the cost would be on the taxpayers. We could try starving them out like you suggest but where there's a will there's a way meaning they'll get by somehow. Many have also birthed children in the states which makes the kids a citizen. This means we'd have to separate families or send the kids as illegals to a foreign land.

 

No one has ever suggested deportation. And in case you have missed the latest reports they have started going home already because they cannot find work. No they can go home and register their kids when they get their.

 

I was just throwing out the situation and yes I did know some are going back home. However there are plenty left to eat up Medicare/Medicaid funds and to suck the social programs dry. It just might behoove us to give them a path to citizenship so we can make tax payers out of them.

What happens when/if we go to 100% health care? How will they receive medical help? Taxpayers...

 

Mitch, nice try. In fact, I'll give you some kudos for trying. However the UCLA article only points out media bias, both conservative and liberal, exists. I'd heartily agree with that. However posting Accuracy in Media and Media Research Center as unbiased research is a laugh. Just look at this ad on AIM's page:


Doesn't look very objective, does it?

I don't think any objective observer could deny that Fox leans so far to the right it about topples over; and MSNBC does likewise to the left. The Washington Post leans left, the Moonie-owned Washington Times leans right. The myth of a purely liberal mass media in the US is just that...a myth.

 

Well I knew you did not have it in you to deal with the content. But instead you just looked for any way you could demonize the sources. In the future any challenge form you will be ignored for this reason.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1003/joe-the-plumber

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp


So in the end the debate is over and it is indisputable fact. The main stream outlets are purely liberal.

 

Yeah, that liberal Fox, liberal Rush, liberal Hannity, liberal Beck. Your assertion is so absurd as to be ridiculous. And now the Weekly Standard? Your sources are like quoting Pravda to prove how wonderful communism is. :laugh: You really do need to expand your horizons beyond the Conservative media you use as sources.

And despite your protests, the credibility and objectivity of sources do matter.

 

You are working so hard to make a failed case you are making irrelevant references.

 

Poor old Mitch...you just don't know when to give up, do you. Just keep comin' back for more. You assert the mass media is liberal. Pointing out conservative examples of media is nothing but relevant. Yet you keep embarrasing yourself. You know, I think part of your problem is that you have so consumed the neocon kool-aid that maybe the sources I quoted appear liberal to your extremist views.

 

Your adhominem attacks only shows your inability to deal with he facts. And your assertions of embarrassment only show your immaturity. I provide evidence you make personal attacks.

 

I am not attacking you. I am trying to point out to you that citing biased publications doesn't make them credible evidence. You have presented no facts to deal with...only neocon sources. The one credible source, UCLA, didn't support your case at all. If I were attacking you, believe me, you'd know it. I don't know you enough to attack you. In fact, you might be a relatively decent guy in a different context. It is your logic that is flawed.

 

This entire post is an attack. And you know it.

 

Pointing out you are embarrasing yourself, and that you hold extreme views is not an attack. I'd give you an example, but then you'd take it as an attack. So time to get off the pity party and get back on topic. IF you care to discuss further, take it to PM.

 

Aside from the fact that it is false it is an attack. As far as being off topic you began that by your adhominem attack on my sources instead of dealing with the content which shows your inability to back up your position.

 

Right wing wack jobs own the radio waves, left wing nuts dominate TV. Big deal.

 

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.