Go to Calling All Americans!
- Add a comment
- Go to Why are you breaking the law?
whimsy
I just popped in because I had heard there was something interesting going on here, but I guess it's all over. Maybe it's better that way, since I don't know nothin' from nothin' anyway...
posted by
Nautikos
on December 2, 2006 at 10:47 AM
| link to this | reply
LOL
I see both of you are pompous.......people that have to pound their chests and tell everyone about their "achievements" usually prove to be very insecure. But it is a pretty good Rush Limbaugh imitation.....but who is your talent on loan from?
As both you and Blanche choose to do....you give information that is not related to the question....but unlike your honey...you did make the attempt...
The quote was that "in LA most immigrants were from Central America" not the US as a whole.......but you get an "A" for the 30 seconds on Google as you would say.........
I am done participating in the hijacking of Whimsy's blog......it's been....well, it's just been.....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 1, 2006 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Now,back to Whimsy's post
November 30, 2006
Two things have been abundantly clear about Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for quite a while: 1) he’s one of the House’s less-sane members; and 2) he really hates immigration. But even I was surprised to see just how far King is willing to go on both points.
While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Now, as a rule, immigrants to enter the United States illegally are loath to commit crimes — they know that the quickest way to deportation is to get arrested. But let’s put that aside and consider the merit of King’s apparent belief that there’s a rash of homicidal immigrants rampaging through the country.
As this elected member of Congress sees it, there are 12 murders a day committed by illegal immigrants. He’s not talking about car accidents; King is specifically referring to literal murder. He admits that there’s no actual data from law enforcement sources on this, but King insists his report is accurate.
The numbers just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Captain’s Quarters, a very conservative blog that generally supports the Republican line on immigration, took a good look at King’s numbers and wasn’t impressed. For example, Ed found that there were a total of 16,692 murders in the United States in 2005. If King were right, it would mean illegal immigrants commit 26.2% of all murders in the country, despite comprising less than 7% of the overall population.
In fact, the FBI does not categorize Hispanics as a separate racial group in its statistics, but instead includes them with Caucasians. Even so, the numbers demonstrate rather clearly that King and WND are talking out of their hats. Of all the people arrested for murders in 2005 (10,083), only 4,955 were white/Hispanic, and that includes all arrests in that racial category. In order to believe King and WND, every single one of these people would have to be illegal aliens.
Asinine hardly begins to describe this report. Conservative decry junk science; bad statistics are just as bad. It took me all of 10 minutes to check this data, something that Rep. King apparently couldn’t bother to have his staff do, and a standard fact check that [World Net Daily] declined to perform. It seems that some people will believe almost anything as long as it can be used to demonize illegal aliens.
Yep, that’s true. The regular ol’ scare tactics haven’t been as effective as the right had hoped, so King and his like-minded allies have had to ratchet things up a bit by effectively telling the nation, “Support the far-right on immigration reform — or some Mexican guy might kill you.”
And as long as we’re talking about Steve King, I thought I’d remind readers that this guy really is mad as a hatter. We are, after all, talking about a lawmaker who:
* compares immigrants to cattle.
* told reporters, “There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell [al Zarqawi is] at. And if there are, they probably all look like [White House correspondent] Helen Thomas.”
* described Joseph McCarthy as “a great American hero.”
* argued that the civilian violent death rate in Washington, D.C., is actually higher than it is in Iraq, and cited bogus data while making the case.
* told Newsweek that federal courts “have defied federal law,” and he has a plan to “put the courts back in their appropriate constitutional place,” though he wouldn’t say what the plan is.
* was one of only 11 lawmakers to vote against emergency relief funds for Hurricane Katrina victims.
And now he wants people to believe that illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans a day. The mind reels.
This is the source that Joe (?) Farah quotes in Worldnetdaily. I have mixed feelings about illegal immigation; they not only take American jobs (and not just the ones Americans won't due) but they also drive down wages. But to demonize people just trying to feed their family and make a better life for themselves is wrong. Why don't we demonize the corporations that hire them? Why don't we demonize the companies (like Haliburton) who incorporate overseas or move their productions facilities there? That's what REALLY costs American jobs.
Don't blame the brown-skinned people forour trouble; blame the fatcats in pinstriped suits.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on December 1, 2006 at 7:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Corby, corby, corby
So now you have sunk to flagrant dishonesty. I have never, ever been chastised by "Blogit" for anything. And I never used profanity on your blog, you lying s.o.s. (BTW it's spelled delete, not deleat) You blocked me because I pointed out the paucity of your rhetorical skills.
You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that Blanche & I are two different people; we have separately explained it to you, but it didn't sink in. (BTW, what difference does it make?)
Block me from your site if you wish, but please, do me the courtesy of not making your little snide, junior-high comments ABOUT me on other peoples'.
As far as "Inane tangents", you've gone to the well far too often with that one. Anytime you have no argument, you claim the other person is "off topic" or "irrelevent". It's not just me, I've seen that little ploy on many of your other posts & comments. It's lame.
If you really don't fear my debate prowess, come on over to my site. I will thrash you to within ani nch of your life! Or are you going to carry on this lame "he doesn't fight nice, so I'm going to take my ball and go home"?
I don't expect any "flurry" of posts indignant about your comments; unlike some weaklings, I don't run to mommy (blogit) if my little feelings are hurt. Take your best shot; get as personal as you like. I'm a big boy (or big girl, since you seem comfused about that issue).
I think my post MUST have proven something; Whimsy acknowledges that her figures were wrong.
Oh, BTW, here are the statistics you asked for some months ago.
(From the 2002 census)
Sources of Immigration by nationality:
Mexico: 30% (9.2 million)
Asia: 28% (8.2 million)
Other Latin American countries: 22% (6.9 million)
Europe & Canada: 16% (5.7 million)
Africa & other: 3% (1.0 million)
So you see, most immigrants don't come from mexico; less than a third do. I was off by 2 percentage points: I thought it was 30% Asia, 28% Mexico. But this is old data.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on December 1, 2006 at 7:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Corby, corby, corby
You have sunk to a new low; flat-out lying. I have NEVER
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on December 1, 2006 at 6:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Does this mean that you.....the self-professed crusader against "Vague, unverifiable sources, studies, & statistics.".....are also not going to provide a link to the question I provided to you? Actually, I knew you wouldn't.....
Two points.....
One, you proved nothing on that post except to yourself....but my lord you need to ask yourself why you're allowing something like to to still severely influence your behavior.....how many months ago was that?
Two, after the huge amount of name calling that seemed to get you in a bit of trouble with blogit...and since I had to constantly deleat you comments because of profanity.....I decided that you would not have access to my site.....that's something I can do....unless you'd like to pay my monthly Blogit fee, then I'll be glad to unblock you....LOL
You see Professor or whoever you are....that's a very weak argument, anyway.....we can debate valid points on other sites....but I'm not going to let you sidetrack each and every post I make with your inane tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the topics of my posts. It's not my fear of your debating prowess....it's my disgust with the tactics you used.......is that clear enough for you?
So Professor, Blanche, Sybil.....whoever you are, I'm sure there will probably be a flurry of posts full of shocked self-righteous indignation regarding you being assaulted by "News and Politics" resident Bully.......and my response to that is a big........Whatever!
**********************
Whimsy.....my deepest apologies for digressing into mud wrestling on your blog. I just don't like the way they try and treat you on a consistent basis......you pay for your blog and you are entitled to post whatever thoughts or feeling you may have about what is going on in the world around you.....you can be as right or as wrong as you choose to be.
People have a right to comment on what you say...but when the go after you personally......to me it's crossing the line.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 1, 2006 at 2:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you Whimsy......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 1, 2006 at 2:17 PM
| link to this | reply
What the heck is going on?
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 1, 2006 at 10:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh Corby, you're just sore
because I embarrassed you when I pointed out that your "source" was using a made-up auto worker (the post about the "job club" paying them to sit around doing nothing). As for facts, why don't you explain to our lovely audience why you blocked me from your site. You can't handle a REAL debate; you just like your little sycophants giving you the ol' blogit reacharound. Let's face it, you yellow-bellied coward, if you won't debate me on my site or allow me on yours, just shut the f up and play to your groupies!
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on November 30, 2006 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
I am so glad we have someone around to teach us a thing or two.....
And your dedication to fighting vague claims, unverifiable sources, studies, etc.....is to be admired......
Perhaps you can help us in one claim that has gone unanswered.....a blogger here claimed the following......
WST, EXCUSE me, yourself, check your own facts: most immigrants in LA
are from Central America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the statistics are there, Professor Peabody does homework. It takes 30 seconds on the web to look up this stuff, rather than pulling it out of your hindquarters.
Perhaps you could show us evidence of this claim....I've asked for it numerous times and only get vague unverifiable responses....so could you take 30 seconds...hell, use a minute if you have to.....to show us where this data is located???
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 30, 2006 at 3:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for the correction...
I took the stats from another article and never attempted to calculate them, so thanks for letting me know.
posted by
whimsystoryteller
on November 30, 2006 at 1:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Critical Thinking 101
I'm going to teach you bloggers how to think for yourselves if it KILLS ME! Let me de-construct this post, so that we may all learn:
1) Your math is pitiful. If illegal immigrants murder 12 people every day, the annual death toll would be 4,380 (12 X 365 = 4380) NOT 9,800! You hurt your own credibility when you exaggerate (by over 200%!) you statistics.
2) Even the actual numbers are incredible. Illegal aliens murder 4,380 people? That means that 1 in 5 murders (I think our annual murder rate is about 22,000 but correct me if I'm off) are committed by illegal aliens. The most generous estimates put the number of illegals in this country at 12 million, which put them at about 4% of our population of 300 million. (12/300 = 1/25 or 4%) So you mean to tell me that 4% of the population accounts for 20% of the murders? That is 5 times the statistical average! A hard stat to swallow, unless you have airtight evidence and sources, which brings me to...
3) Vague, unverifiable sources, studies, & statistics. Look at your own quote:
"a study recently proved that illegals murder 12 people every day"
"A" study? by whom? Pat Buchanan? David Duke? Joseph Mengele?
"Recently" ? This year, last year, 1776, or 1492? If Columbus & his Spaniards (who, by Native American standards, were "illegal immigrants") killed 12 Indians a day, that is reprehensible, but doesn't affect us NOW.
"proved"? Really? What is the study's methodology. Which means, how did they reach that conclusion? Did they blame all unsolved murders on illegal aliens? Sounds ridiculous, but the reader has no way of knowing how your "study" reached these conclusions.
I actually read Farah's editorial. It says:
"Though no Federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports & independent research" (Worldnetdaily.com, November 28th, 2006. Italics added)
A "number of groups"? Which groups? The KKK? John Birch Society? The boy scouts? "Estimates"? how large a sample group? From prisons? Oh, I can hear that interview now: "Did you kill your wife & family?
Convicted murderer: "Oh no. It was them illegals!"
Researcher: "OK, tally that as 5 more killed by illegals."
4) Biased, unreliable sources. Joe Farah is a nut job. I don't like to resort to name calling, but he's a wacko. He doesn't believe that abortion is legal, in spite of Roe V. Wade, because of the preamble of the Constitution. He believes that the income tax is illegal, in spite of 125 years of precedent, and that we are all "wage slaves". And he led the crusade to investigate President Clinton for the Vince Foster "murder".
5)Using only one (biased source)
...characteristic of the coverage on WorldNetDaily, a website started by Joseph Farah of the Western Journalism Center (WJC). The WJC funded anti-Clinton investigative journalism throughout the '90s and was especially involved in promoting conspiracy theories about the suicide of Clinton associate Vincent Foster. Turning his fortunes to the Internet, Farah continues to nurture overtly partisan journalism. One of the lead stories on Nov. 13 was titled, "How Democrats steal elections," and it claimed to detail techniques of hand counting ballots that "have been used for over 20 years to steal elections from Republicans...
Whimsy, I'm not even saying your argument is wrong; of 12 million people here illegally, I'm sure some of them are crooks, criminals & gang members. But to use unreliable sources and poor reasoning doesn't advance your case. It's never too late to learn sound reasoning & debate skills, and to learn to think critically. Vary your sources; don't just quote WorldNetDaily.com. I listen to Air America (Al Franken, Rachel Madow, Thom Hartman) but I also listen to Rush, Medved, Carlson and (rarely) Sean Insanity. The truth is rarely at the far left or right; it usually lay somewhere in the middle.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on November 30, 2006 at 1:33 AM
| link to this | reply