07-10-2019, 07:23 PM
Interesting thread. In some ways. Apparently lots of posters are wearing shoes that fit.
A slightly more oblique question: what do people suppose Carlson's intention was?
E.g., was it simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more partisan intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?
My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")
Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?
He says she "criticizes" the US, and then concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?
But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful?
Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours." Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps. He's "just asking."
Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?
I leave Carlson's argument feeling short changed on specific support. Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions the audience is expected to make or know but, left unstated, could be denied? What does he count on his audience knowing or assuming, if they are to take ungrateful immigrants from certain places as an issue serious enough to warrant public discussion and policy revision?
A slightly more oblique question: what do people suppose Carlson's intention was?
E.g., was it simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more partisan intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?
My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")
Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?
He says she "criticizes" the US, and then concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?
But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful?
Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours." Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps. He's "just asking."
Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?
I leave Carlson's argument feeling short changed on specific support. Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions the audience is expected to make or know but, left unstated, could be denied? What does he count on his audience knowing or assuming, if they are to take ungrateful immigrants from certain places as an issue serious enough to warrant public discussion and policy revision?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
