| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | Matty
The wall isn't $5 billion. To do a complete wall is $25 billion. This is what is lost in this discussion is that this partial wall funding is strictly political. What needs to be addressed are all aspects of border security just as the Democrats and sensible Republicans have proposed.
ICE's total budget is less than $5 billion. How about providing them more funding so they can really do their jobs?
My question for you Matty is "Have you been to the US/Mexico Border? I've crossed that border more than 40 times. Do you even understand what you are proposing? |
Not that complicated...Walls slow down activity to the tune of 95%, people are forced to check points where the proper laws will be applied, where does that confuse you?
5 billion would go a long way, with more to come down the road. 25 billion was the cost of a concrete wall 2000 miles....old news , no one is proposing that now. Focus on high activity areas and start to fix this disaster.
Again no one that works for BC, ICE or HS would agree with you. This is about Trump and the scum on the left trying to deny a duly elected president a campaign promise...nothing else...every hair brain excuse the left makes is a load of shit... |
I guess once the wall is built, 95% of the BP agents will be laid off. Maybe that's a promise Trump can make to induce the Dems to agree with it. Big money savings. |
The savings moron is keeping the criminals and entitlement seekers out of our country... 130 billion a year is what illegals cost the nation. |
Is that figure something you just heard somewhere?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No need to actually have a fact at hand. Like his hero—just make stuff up. “People are saying.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | No need to actually have a fact at hand. Like his hero—just make stuff up. “People are saying.” |
Or like your hero, Dean, who with his last post on this thread says "I hear". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vientomas wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | Matty
The wall isn't $5 billion. To do a complete wall is $25 billion. This is what is lost in this discussion is that this partial wall funding is strictly political. What needs to be addressed are all aspects of border security just as the Democrats and sensible Republicans have proposed.
ICE's total budget is less than $5 billion. How about providing them more funding so they can really do their jobs?
My question for you Matty is "Have you been to the US/Mexico Border? I've crossed that border more than 40 times. Do you even understand what you are proposing? |
Not that complicated...Walls slow down activity to the tune of 95%, people are forced to check points where the proper laws will be applied, where does that confuse you?
5 billion would go a long way, with more to come down the road. 25 billion was the cost of a concrete wall 2000 miles....old news , no one is proposing that now. Focus on high activity areas and start to fix this disaster.
Again no one that works for BC, ICE or HS would agree with you. This is about Trump and the scum on the left trying to deny a duly elected president a campaign promise...nothing else...every hair brain excuse the left makes is a load of shit... |
I guess once the wall is built, 95% of the BP agents will be laid off. Maybe that's a promise Trump can make to induce the Dems to agree with it. Big money savings. |
The savings moron is keeping the criminals and entitlement seekers out of our country... 130 billion a year is what illegals cost the nation. |
Is that figure something you just heard somewhere? |
Common knowledge retard. But keep doing everything you can to defend illegal immigration and proving what a clueless liberal DB you are.
http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzKTlg7Hy3wIVGsDICh0pIQfXEAAYASAAEgLXsvD_BwE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | No need to actually have a fact at hand. Like his hero—just make stuff up. “People are saying.” |
No shortage of facts or studies on the subject, you just choose to ignor them because they don't suit your airhead agenda.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kinda like you ignoring this:
That estimate appeared based on a paper by FAIR, which released an updated report in 2017 that claimed taxpayers “shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens” at the federal, state and local levels, with “a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664.”
The $116 million figure included services like health care and education, as well as spending on agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, minus the $19 billon the group concluded those who are living in the country illegally pay in taxes. But it also included costs associated with the children of those immigrants in its tally, even when they are U.S. citizens. The estimate was criticized for making broad generalizations and other major methodological flaws.
Michelle Mittelstadt of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute said that advocacy groups’ numbers on both sides of the issue are notoriously flawed because “they don’t look at the other side of the ledger.”
“Doing a rigorous analysis that fully captures costs and economic contributions to come up with a net fiscal impact is quite complicated, because it is far easier to assess the cost side of the ledger, particularly uncompensated medical care and education, than it is to capture the full economic activity generated by unauthorized immigrants,” she said via email, pointing to “their roles not just as workers and taxpayers but also as consumers.”
https://www.apnews.com/1e597a4896884da08bef0a8f8134c6be |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matty’s incredibly biased source: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can’t get any further to the right: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Can’t get any further to the right: |
Fact checkers are just plain ol' people also mac.
MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”
WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”
Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”
From ~ https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW diverts--without providing any evidence that the articles Matty cited are accurate. I guess he hasn't read this:
| Quote: | Low-quality, extremist, sensationalist and conspiratorial news published in the US was overwhelmingly consumed and shared by rightwing social network users, according to a new study from the University of Oxford.
The study, from the university’s “computational propaganda project”, looked at the most significant sources of “junk news” shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why.
“On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”
|
Or this, from Scientific American:
| Quote: | “Fake news” is Donald Trump’s favorite catchphrase. Since the election, it has appeared in some 180 tweets by the President, decrying everything from accusations of sexual assault against him to the Russian collusion investigation to reports that he watches up to eight hours of television a day. Trump may just use “fake news” as a rhetorical device to discredit stories he doesn’t like, but there is evidence that real fake news is a serious problem. As one alarming example, an analysis by the internet media company Buzzfeed revealed that during the final three months of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the 20 most popular false election stories generated around 1.3 million more Facebook engagements—shares, reactions, and comments—than did the 20 most popular legitimate stories. The most popular fake story was “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President.”
Fake news can distort people’s beliefs even after being debunked. For example, repeated over and over, a story such as the one about the Pope endorsing Trump can create a glow around a political candidate that persists long after the story is exposed as fake. A study recently published in the journal Intelligence suggests that some people may have an especially difficult time rejecting misinformation. Asked to rate a fictitious person on a range of character traits, people who scored low on a test of cognitive ability continued to be influenced by damaging information about the person even after they were explicitly told the information was false. The study is significant because it identifies what may be a major risk factor for vulnerability to fake news.
Ghent University researchers Jonas De keersmaecker and Arne Roets first had over 400 subjects take a personality test. They then randomly assigned each subject to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition, the subjects read a biographical description of a young woman named Nathalie. The bio explained that Nathalie, a nurse at a local hospital, “was arrested for stealing drugs from the hospital; she has been stealing drugs for 2 years and selling them on the street in order to buy designer clothes.” The subjects then rated Nathalie on traits such as trustworthiness and sincerity, after which they took a test of cognitive ability. Finally, the subjects saw a message on their computer screen explicitly stating that the information about Nathalie stealing drugs and getting arrested was not true, and then rated her again on the same traits. The control condition was identical, except that subjects were not given the paragraph with the false information and rated Nathalie only once.
The subjects in the experimental condition initially rated Nathalie much more negatively than did the subjects in the control condition. This was not surprising, considering that they had just learned she was a thief and a drug dealer. The interesting question was whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favorably after being told that this information was false. It did: subjects high in cognitive ability adjusted their ratings more than did those lower in cognitive ability. The subjects with lower cognitive ability had more trouble shaking their negative first impression of Nathalie. This was true even after the researchers statistically controlled for the subjects’ level of open-mindedness (their willingness to change their mind when wrong) and right-wing authoritarianism (their intolerance toward others), as assessed by the personality test. Thus, even if a person was open-minded and tolerant, a low level of cognitive ability put them at risk for being unjustifiably harsh in their second evaluation of Nathalie.
One possible explanation for this finding is based on the theory that a person’s cognitive ability reflects how well they can regulate the contents of working memory—their “mental workspace” for processing information. First proposed by the cognitive psychologists Lynn Hasher and Rose Zacks, this theory holds that some people are more prone to “mental clutter” than other people. In other words, some people are less able to discard (or “inhibit”) information from their working memory that is no longer relevant to the task at hand—or, as in the case of Nathalie, information that has been discredited. Research on cognitive aging indicates that, in adulthood, this ability declines considerably with advancing age, suggesting that older adults may also be especially vulnerable to fake news. Another reason why cognitive ability may predict vulnerability to fake news is that it correlates highly with education. Through education, people may develop meta-cognitive skills—strategies for monitoring and regulating one’s own thinking—that can be used to combat the effects of misinformation.
Meanwhile, other research is shedding light on the mechanisms underlying the effects of misinformation. Repeating a false claim increases its believability, giving it an air of what Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness.” Known as the illusion of truth effect, this phenomenon was first demonstrated in the laboratory by Hasher and her colleagues. On each of three days, subjects listened to plausible-sounding statements and rated each on whether they thought it was true. Half of the statements were in fact true, such as Australia is approximately equal in area to the continental United States, whereas the other half were false, such as Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office (it was William Henry Harrison). Some of the statements were repeated across days, whereas others were presented only once. The results showed that the average truth rating increased from day to day for the repeated statements, but remained constant for the non-repeated statements, indicating that subjects mistook familiarity for verity.
More recent research reveals that even knowledge of the truth doesn’t necessarily protect against the illusion of truth. In a 2015 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Lisa Fazio and her colleagues asked subjects to rate a set of statements on how interesting they found them. Following Hasher and colleagues’ procedure, some of the statements were true, whereas others were false. The subjects then rated a second set of statements for truthfulness on a six-point scale, from definitely false to definitely true. Some of the statements were repeated from the first set, whereas others were new. Finally, the subjects took a knowledge test that included questions based on the statements. The results revealed that repetition increased the subjects’ perception of the truthfulness of false statements, even for statements they knew to be false. For example, even if a subject correctly answered Pacific Ocean to the question What is the largest ocean on Earth? on the knowledge test, they still tended to give the false statement The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth a higher truth rating if it was repeated. When a claim was made to feel familiar through repetition, subjects neglected to consult their own knowledge base in rating the claim’s truthfulness.
These studies add to scientific understanding of the fake news problem, which is providing a foundation for an evidenced-based approach to addressing the problem. A recommendation that follows from research on the illusion of truth effect is to serve as your own fact checker. If you are convinced that some claim is true, ask yourself why. Is it because you have credible evidence that the claim is true, or is it just because you’ve encountered the claim over and over? Also ask yourself if you know of any evidence that refutes the claim. (You just might be surprised to find that you do.) This type of recommendation could be promoted through public service announcements, which have been shown to be effective for things like getting people to litter less and recycle more. For its part, research on individual differences in susceptibility to fake news, such as the study by De keersmaecker and Roets, can help to identify people who are particularly important to reach through this type of informational campaign.
At a more general level, this research underscores the threat that fake news poses to democratic society. The aim of using fake news as propaganda is to make people think and behave in ways they wouldn’t otherwise—for example, hold a view that is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus. When this nefarious aim is achieved, citizens no longer have the ability to act in their own self-interest. In the logic of democracy, this isn’t just bad for that citizen—it’s bad for society. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
