Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

To be fair, if you were searching for welfare statistics by race, the link Geezer posted is one of the first to appear. Now that I know what it is, I'm not going to peruse the website, but I had zero clue what that magazine was. Seems like someone could pretty easily do the search, click on the link, read it quickly (aha, it supports my point!) and post the link.

But, whatever. This is all denigrating rapidly.

[Da Geezer]

That is what happened. Plus, the statistics were from the 2012 SIPP.

Classic Alinsky though. Attack the source and anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

[Dr. Strangelove]

That is what happened. Plus, the statistics were from the 2012 SIPP.

Classic Alinsky though. Attack the source and anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

Well to be fair, you quoted an article from a white supremacist source. If I quote from Mein Kampf to boost my argument, it's not an 'Alinsky tactic' to criticize my source or call me a Nazi supporter. But I'm willing to believe you found the article without knowing much about the source it was coming from.

[Da Geezer]

Pretty interesting decision out of Federal Court in San Francisco today regarding sanctuary cities. I agree with the judge. Holding folks for ICE "pickup" was not part of the agreement(s) attached to the federal funds. This can be changed in October, but right now, Trump has to honor the letter of the contract. This judge basis his decision on a John Roberts decision.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump people are working on an EO to withdraw from NAFTA. Dumb

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/donald-trump-nafta/

[iam416]

Well to be fair, you quoted an article from a white supremacist source. If I quote from Mein Kampf to boost my argument, it's not an 'Alinsky tactic' to criticize my source or call me a Nazi supporter. But I'm willing to believe you found the article without knowing much about the source it was coming from.

This is mostly correct. It's entirely fair to criticize the source as remarkably biased. For example, the HuffPo has an article on the same topic about how "more white people" take advantage of welfare than any other group. Well, yes, more white people also get killed by the police.

I'm sure Geezer would call bullshit on something from HuffPo. So, I mean it's not that hard to find a semi-credible source on this topic or most topics. One ought to do it, and if they incidentally cited bullshit they ought to go back to the drawing board and find something credible. Especially for points that are easily made!

Makes me think of lawyerpeople stuff. I always worked with my witnesses for trial to not fight the small stuff on cross-examination. There were lines in the sand we couldn't cross, but there were tons of stuff you could agree with. Don't be unnecessarily adversarial on bullshit. You blow you credibility on stuff that doesn't matter and then the jury doesn't believe you on shit that does.

[Da Geezer]

Well to be fair, you quoted an article from a white supremacist source. If I quote from Mein Kampf to boost my argument, it's not an 'Alinsky tactic' to criticize my source or call me a Nazi supporter.

Classic Alinsky. Draw a moral equivalence between a fact and opinion. I'd never heard of the magazine before, and the graphs were drawn from the US Census Bureau 2012 data. If that same magazine gave the score of the Tigers game on Tuesday as 19-9, would that make the fact questionable? If Breitbart has an article on a new development in cancer treatment, does that automatically make the article wrong?

Remember, we were discussing whether more Rs or more Ds are/were on welfare (replying to a point that claimed the numbers were equal). That was the context. The whole matter came up when Crash said that roughly half the country works to support the other half that is on some form of welfare. It turns out that Crash was mostly correct.

[iam416]

Trump people are working on an EO to withdraw from NAFTA. Dumb

I'm still trying to figure out which party I dislike least. I'm going to close my eyes and do a Ryan Assessment -- do I dislike Paul or Tim more? Put the best face on it and pretend total dipshits haven't taken over the Rs or that the Ds aren't run by shrill identity peddling SOCIALISTS!!! (er, I mean, progressives!).

[Da Geezer]

Trump people are working on an EO to withdraw from NAFTA. Dumb

Agreed. I figure this is a negotiation tactic.

Trump opponents take him literally, but not seriously.
Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

[entropy]

ESPN is laying off 100 people today.... tough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[froot loops]

Yeah I'm not going to sweat a trial balloon about an EO to withdraw from NAFTA. They haven't been very good at writing Executive Orders to put it charitably and they back down from a lot of these trial balloons. Lord helps us if we actually renegotiated it, the con man has shown no ability to make good deals, I'd rather have Matt Millen or Phil Jackson negotiating a free trade agreement.

[Ghengis Jon]

Trump opponents take him literally, but not seriously.
Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

And rational people take him both seriously and literally.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Classic Alinsky. Draw a moral equivalence between a fact and opinion. I'd never heard of the magazine before, and the graphs were drawn from the US Census Bureau 2012 data. If that same magazine gave the score of the Tigers game on Tuesday as 19-9, would that make the fact questionable? If Breitbart has an article on a new development in cancer treatment, does that automatically make the article wrong?

Remember, we were discussing whether more Rs or more Ds are/were on welfare (replying to a point that claimed the numbers were equal). That was the context. The whole matter came up when Crash said that roughly half the country works to support the other half that is on some form of welfare. It turns out that Crash was mostly correct.

I'll refer to what Talent said. If you want to be considered a credible voice on the issue, you have at least some responsibility to investigate your sources. It's not an "Alinsky tactic" to call into question an article from a blatantly racist magazine. It's doing a cursory check to make sure what you're reading is a credible source.

Moreover, I directly linked to a 2012 Census report yesterday that had very different numbers than what that magazine had. The data is extremely easy to manipulate by including/excluding certain programs as "welfare" or being vague about how many months out of the year you receive assistance counts as being 'on welfare'.

[iam416]

Referencing The Talent as an authority is an impeccable, unassailable approach. Your best work of the year, jrg98.

[The Oracle]

Or having an * saying "small sample" size in tiny letters.