1
14

[–] Vvswiftvv17 [S] 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

In unrelated news, the asterisks to italics command does not work for titles. Good to know.

7
9

[–] refuch 7 points 9 points (+16|-7) ago 

Breitbart calling any news organization biased , be it corporate owned broadcast or print, and citing dubious studies is the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black. If I could roll my eyes any harder I'd be swallowing my tongue and convulsing from the seizure that's directly related to the cancer that this post gave me. Breitbart's well documented antics are the laughing stock of real journalists for their astroturf horse shit and child-like behavior. When there's at least one Snopes article that details how your reporting is less than trash, you forfeit your privilege to criticize.

1
12

[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Breitbart has improved by leaps and bounds since its namesake passed away. They still have a distinct political tone, but they're also one of the only media outlets that will actually criticize the SJW agenda.

5
-4

2
5

[–] o_V_o 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Why not, instead of writing all that out, just link to the evidence that supports your opinion and be done with it? (being on your phone isn't an excuse, but I'm sure you'll try it).

1
0

[–] refuch 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Because it's really not hard to actually find the controversial trash they sling as news. In less than 15 seconds, I found their wikipedia article which cites all the big, fun crap they've done. Their most recent screw up was last month, where they ran a story about California's flag, but they've also invested in smear campaigns. I'd go find more, but that'll serve as a simple aggregate to a biased news aggregates on a news aggregate forum.

0
2

[–] Vvswiftvv17 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Right, because Breitbart has been the one forced to demote a major journalist based off of laying to the public about war heroics.....oh wait that was NBC.

0
4

[–] p0ssum 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

yeah, breitbart, the bastion of checking sources:

RETRACTION: EARLIER TODAY, WE SHARED A RED-FLAG NEWS ALERT that turns out to either be false or BASE SPECIFIC regarding no travel within fifty miles of base. Many of our military readers have told us this is not something they've been told. We would like to apologize for this and have taken the post down. In this time of chaos, it is inevitable that we will from time to time get things wrong. Apparently this time, Red Flag news was the start and finish to the story and we apologize. Thanks for your understanding.

[–] [deleted] 9 points 6 points (+15|-9) ago 

[Deleted]

3
3

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

In my experience people that dislike breitbart dislike the truth.

1
2

[–] TheCubeIsALie 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Or they don't have the same views and opinions as you. It's closed minded to assume to that they simply "dislike the truth". Not to say that liberals don't have closed minded people, but still.

2
0

[–] Pawn 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

britbart is not the truth. It is the complete oposite of the truth and known to be incorrect. Take everything posted with a hugeeee grain of salt.

2
5

[–] 052615 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago  (edited ago)

1
3

[–] One_Wing_Angel 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Fascinating! Thanks for submitting that.

From the summary and conclusion:

Common belief holds that immigration creates more crime and violence. This belief is rooted in the notion that either individual immigrants have a greater propensity for violent criminal behavior than natives or that an influx of foreigners disrupts existing mechanisms of social regulation. While this belief has held firm in the public conscience, an accumulated body of research has tested the idea that the foreign born and/or their offspring are more involved in criminal behavior than natives. Findings on this question of “immigrant criminality” generally contradict the popular belief that immigrants are particularly crime prone. In fact, much work suggests that first-generation immigrants engage in less criminal activity than natives.

And later:

On face value these findings support some tentative conclusions. One is that violent crime is not a deleterious consequence of increased immigration.Rather the results are consistent with Sampson’s (2006) recent speculation that immigration may be a key factor contributing to the crime drop of the 1990s. Thus, in line with the individual level finding that immigrants are less inclined to commit crime than the native born, our work suggests that the macro-level process of immigration may have notable protective effects with regard to crime. A second conclusion is that immigration also may have beneficial impacts on important social institutions. While our findings do not indicate any clear influence of immigration on city economies, there certainly is evidence to support the notion that immigration may bolster the family by increasing two-parent families and lowering divorce rates in U.S. cities.

Note, however, that the authors recommend more studies.

1
0

[–] 052615 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Holy smoke....immigrants actually help decrease crime? I know it's not conclusive but still. Just goes to show that people are full of shit. Long Live Peer Reviewed Journals!

0
1

[–] Wise-Old-Man 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Why isn't this higher in the thread? Why isn't it getting upvoats? It's an actual study on what is being discussed here.

0
0

[–] WhoFramedReaderRabit 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Does this study look at the crime rate between those immigrants who came here legally and those that came here illegally, or does it lump them all together?

0
0

[–] wolfsktaag 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

a couple of issues i see, and someone correct me if im not reading/understanding this right:

the other studies they reference early on control for poverty. thats great and all, but the fact is, the mexicans flooding this country like rats are poor. if we were getting flooded by wealthy mexicans those studies might be more relevant

and the authors' work seems to focus on (just) cities overall crime rate. cities are where black americans are concentrated, and they have an extremely high crime rate. immigrants displacing native blacks (as the immigrants get their jobs and eventually their housing) could reduce the city's crime rate, but that just means the immigrants are less violent than the city's residents (which isnt saying much that is relevant, if a large portion of that citys residents were black)

0
5

[–] drewwest_press 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Immigration crime wave, yep first ones came to my nation in the 1600s and started raping, murdering, and stealing from my people. Crime wave never ended and I'm not talking about Mexicans, I'm talking about Europeans.

1
5

[–] Vvswiftvv17 [S] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Even if you guys are pissy about Breitbart reporting this you can't dismiss the government authored report that demonstrates a link. Therefore NBC was blantently lying. So what say you?

1
3

[–] p0ssum 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Therefore NBC was blantently lying. So what say you?

Were they blatantly lying, or incompetent. What some seem to attribute to malice, I attribute to stupidity/apathy. Is there ANY evidence, even in this article, that they covered up the information? None you say, that's what I thought.

0
2

[–] One_Wing_Angel 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is plausible.

Journalists are all too often vapid airheads, good at talking and nothing else. This is probably because they rarely have any experience in the areas that they report on...because they are full-time journalists, and not lawyers, doctors, engineers, farmers, or whatever else it is that they are bloviating about.

I've come to suspect that most journalists do very little research of their own, and that they usually just repeat what other journalists say.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] jollycynic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They were blatantly lying about having looked for any evidence.

0
0

[–] Vvswiftvv17 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A ten second Google search. If you are making a claim that "we could find no evidence" I would think doing a five second Google search would be in your purvey as a BASIC courtesy to viewers before making that statement.

2
4

[–] aileron_ron 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

News media not reporting facts, That's a first. sarcasm

1
5

[–] gosso920 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

"All the news that fits our agenda."

1
3

[–] gosso920 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Because that won't help them advance their Amnesty agenda.

0
0

[–] kirkis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

As long as it's not the right wing ethnic cleansing agenda.

load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)