Heritage damage control .. (enemy, illegal, highway, illegal immigration)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This:
Heritage has stood by its findings that an immigration overhaul would cost $6.3 trillion despite many conservative groups and lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), calling the findings inaccurate.
..and this...
The group has also been fending off attacks over one of the report’s coauthors, Jason Richwine. As part of his Harvard dissertation, Richwine, who is now a senior policy analyst at the think tank, argued that there was a long-standing difference between the IQ of white Americans and immigrants.
Ultimately, all of this type stuff are guesses and opinion - whether the source is right wing or left wing. So yeah, they will be off sometimes.
Here's the problem.
Alinsky RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
If Heritage prides itself on being accurate - the opposition will make a big deal out of anything that's wrong. And how does Heritage respond? They go into full defense mode over this one article.
The liberal think tanks are wrong all of the time. They never claim to be super-accurate - they just put out articles. If someone says they are wrong, so what? Those groups just support liberal causes. They never claim to be all-truth.
Ultimately, all of this type stuff are guesses and opinion - whether the source is right wing or left wing. So yeah, they will be off sometimes.
Here's the problem.
Alinsky RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
If Heritage prides itself on being accurate - the opposition will make a big deal out of anything that's wrong.
The liberal think tanks are wrong all of the time. They never claim to be super-accurate - they just put out articles. If someone says they are wrong, so what? Those groups just support liberal causes. They never claim to be all-truth.
So calling someone out for being wildly inaccurate after they pride themselves for being paragons of accuracy is somehow "liberal?" In what world is holding someone up to their own standards a bad thing?
Ultimately, all of this type stuff are guesses and opinion - whether the source is right wing or left wing. So yeah, they will be off sometimes.
Here's the problem.
Alinsky RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
If Heritage prides itself on being accurate - the opposition will make a big deal out of anything that's wrong. And how does Heritage respond? They go into full defense mode over this one article.
The liberal think tanks are wrong all of the time. They never claim to be super-accurate - they just put out articles. If someone says they are wrong, so what? Those groups just support liberal causes. They never claim to be all-truth.
Quoting Saul Alinsky to attack people condemning a not only incredibly flawed dissertation, but a crazy one, written by a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, has to be one of the goofiest things I've ever seen on this board. There's a difference between saying you believe research is "wrong" because you disagree with it, and condemning something so offensive that it's reminiscent of the propaganda put out by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. This goes way beyond "wrong."
So calling someone out for being wildly inaccurate after they pride themselves for being paragons of accuracy is somehow "liberal?" In what world is holding someone up to their own standards a bad thing?
Didn't say it was liberal. I just noted it as a specific tactic.
The only thing I said about liberals is that they basically don't care if their think tank articles are false.
And yes - Heritage is vulnerable to the scrutiny. I don't disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
Quoting Saul Alinsky to attack people condemning a not only incredibly flawed dissertation, but a crazy one, written by a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, has to be one of the goofiest things I've ever seen on this board. There's a difference between saying you believe research is "wrong" because you disagree with it, and condemning something so offensive that it's reminiscent of the propaganda put out by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust.
I did not defend the article. I said all of these think tanks are wrong at some point because they just guess and make opinions.
I did not defend the article. I said all of these think tanks are wrong at some point because they just guess and make opinions.
And as I said, this goes way beyond "wrong." I think most of the PhD's working for think tanks would disagree with you that their research involves guessing and making opinions. This was the guy's doctoral dissertation--not an op ed piece.
I don't have a strong opinion about illegal immigration, but just on the surface this study sounds like it was planned with an agenda in mind. For example, here's the title of the paper:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
Note the phrase, "U.S. Taxpayer." I think most people would interpret that to mean Federal taxes.
Yet their analysis of "Costs to the U.S. Taxpayer" include state and local expenditures like "public education, police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services." So right off the bat they're trying to inflate the number to maximum size , AND being misleading about who bears those costs. For instance, it assumes that a "U.S. Taxpayer" in Georgia will have to pay for something like California public schools, which is obviously not accurate.
Now, this fellow is a Harvard PhD, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not stupid, but rather that he did this on purpose.
a not only incredibly flawed dissertation, but a crazy one
And isn't it great how critics, because of the nature of the subject, can say things like that and not be expected to back them up. Eeeevil doesn't need to be refuted point for point, only condemed.
I don't have a strong opinion about illegal immigration, but just on the surface this study sounds like it was planned with an agenda in mind. For example, here's the title of the paper:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
Note the phrase, "U.S. Taxpayer." I think most people would interpret that to mean Federal taxes.
Yet their analysis of "Costs to the U.S. Taxpayer" include state and local expenditures like "public education, police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services." So right off the bat they're trying to inflate the number to maximum size , AND being misleading about who bears those costs. For instance, it assumes that a "U.S. Taxpayer" in Georgia will have to pay for something like California public schools, which is obviously not accurate.
Now, this fellow is a Harvard PhD, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not stupid, but rather that he did this on purpose.
It's deliberately vague. ergo, dishonest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
