Religions > Atheism > "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Hugo S. Cunningham" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2005 12:24:49 PM |
| Object: |
"Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity.
Bill Bennett was trying to slime economist Steven D. Levitt, who
argued in his book <i>Freakonomics</i> that legalized abortion lowered
the US crime rate. Levitt pointed out that "unwanted children"
(those born to women who realize they cannot raise them properly) are
more likely to grow up to be criminals. He noted that the 1990s
fall-off in crime rates showed up first in New York, which was also
the first State to legalize abortion in the early 1970s. Levitt,
however, made no mention of race -- that was entirely Bennett's doing.
He deserves all the grief he is getting, and then some.
Bennett is not the first anti-abortion zealot trying to stir up racial
animosity for political gain. For the most part, however, their
efforts have been unsuccessful. Most Blacks long ago caught on to the
real agenda of US social conservatives -- as Barney Frank put it,
"Life begins at conception and ends at birth." They can expect no
help once an unplanned child is born.
Charles Dickens must have seen a vision of William Bennett when he
devised the character "Uriah Heep."
This, after all, is the former Drug Czar who scornfully rejected the
argument that people indulging in moderate vices (eg marijuana) could
lead productive lives, even while himself chronically losing money on
high-stakes gambling. Is intellectual dishonesty a requirement for
the job?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
.
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 02:43:23 PM |
|
|
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 09:03:58 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Let the record show that on Oct 1, 2005 I gave Bennet a pass and agreed
with DianaC in the same post. The end must be near.
Very well said, Diana.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 01:27:09 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
DianaC wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Let the record show that on Oct 1, 2005 I gave Bennet a pass and agreed
with DianaC in the same post. The end must be near.
Very well said, Diana.
Why, thank you, but I think that the 'Millenium" has awhile to wait,
yet, before it arives. For instance, I imagine that you would have to
agree with me at least five more times before things get completely out
of hand. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WotTheHell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 06:10:10 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 09:20:11 PM |
|
|
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
Who's Dana? Is my ISP dropping posts?
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
I've called Diana quite a few names but I certainly wouldn't call her a
racist. I hope I never have.
I have a problem with labeling any correct statement as racist. Maybe
you can point out the fallacy in Bennet's statement. Maybe you can show
examples of correct statements as being racist.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 01:24:01 PM |
|
|
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the post to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable, condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that was
the POINT!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 03:48:16 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the post to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable, condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been aborting all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Bennett chose to spotlight a _minority_ group, a group he _knows_ to
responsible for a minority of the crimes committed in this country. The
group he chose to pillory is one that his listeners and constituents have
histroiccally exhibited animosity towards and have historically harmed.
No, It was a Freudian moment. Bennett allowed his true feelings to come
out; unguarded, unfiltered, unsanitized.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 09:27:41 PM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been aborting all babies
to reduce crime.
While that would reduce crime, it would not reduce crime rate (point
under discussion). Further, when people speak of reducing crime, they
almost always mean the rate.
That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Bennett was also using argumentum ad absurdum, which happens to be
politically incorrect by design, in order to provide a shock to the
listener. In fact, aborting just the blacks, precisely because of this
politically incorrect shock value, makes his point the more striking -
to a thinking man. His point being that focusing abortion efforts on
poor people and claiming a reduction in crime as a benefit should be
viewed as morally abhorrent, much like focusing abortion efforts on
blacks would be. Except, as we all know, the pc correct umbrella
doesn't cover the poor, so nobody raises the stink when people suggest
- *seriously*, mind you, not sarcastically or within the context of an
argumentum ad absurdum - that it's OK, even desirable to promote
abortion among the poor to control crime.
One may or may not agree with abortion in general or specific terms,
but suggesting it's beneficial as a crime control mechanism is morally
disgusting. It's sad that so much focus has been on the choice of his
example exposing absurdity, rather than the actual point he was trying
to make. Goes on to show you that the masses by and large are
intellectually stunted by politically correct brainwashing and their
neuron pathways will overload or trip on any mention of race in an
argument and cannot go beyond that in order to process the deeper
issues and the big picture.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
05 Oct 2005 06:25:01 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the post to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable, condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish, This invalidates
everything you have said from the above on, and simply illustrates the
similarity between the two. However, you are right about the motive,
taking things to absurd lengths to point out the stupidity of the
situation both found themselves in..
<snip to end>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
05 Oct 2005 07:30:14 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128554701.091070.214360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift,
called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem
of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the
Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would
solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was
SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the post
to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable,
condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish, This invalidates
everything you have said from the above on, and simply illustrates the
similarity between the two. However, you are right about the motive,
taking things to absurd lengths to point out the stupidity of the
situation both found themselves in..
<snip to end>
Swift lampooned many groups, not just the Irish. In Gulliver's travels,
f.x., each one of the voyages he made the culture he met was a lampoon of
different culutres. Swift's intention was to point out society's failings
and to urge their correction.
You know this, and that is why you deleted most of my post --- it
embarrassed you.
Bennett picked on one group. He did not point out failings and provide
suggestions for improvement, as Swift did in his books. Bennett expoitesd
stereotypes of that group to ridicule abortion, an event not isolated to
blacks. His stereotype was wrong --- as a minority blacks do not commit the
most crimes in America. Bennett picked on a group that he, his party, and
most especially his listeners have historically attacked and denigrated. He
and repuglicon party stalwarts have expoited hate and fear of blacks since
Nixon started the party's southern strategy in the 64 election.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
06 Oct 2005 04:22:48 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128554701.091070.214360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift,
called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem
of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the
Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would
solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was
SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the post
to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable,
condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish, This invalidates
everything you have said from the above on, and simply illustrates the
similarity between the two. However, you are right about the motive,
taking things to absurd lengths to point out the stupidity of the
situation both found themselves in..
<snip to end>
Swift lampooned many groups, not just the Irish. In Gulliver's travels,
f.x., each one of the voyages he made the culture he met was a lampoon of
different culutres. Swift's intention was to point out society's failings
and to urge their correction.
You know this, and that is why you deleted most of my post --- it
embarrassed you.
I deleted most of your post because, since it followed from the
erroneous claim you made at the beginning, it was irrelevent.
Yes. Swift 'lampooned' many groups. However, his work 'A modest
proposal', the work to which I have been refering, wasn't a lampoon of
the Irish. It was a "lampoon", if you want to call it that, of the
English who were proposing some very nasty things to 'solve' the 'Irish
problem".
Are you certain you read it?
Bennett picked on one group. He did not point out failings and provide
suggestions for improvement, as Swift did in his books. Bennett expoitesd
stereotypes of that group to ridicule abortion, an event not isolated to
blacks. His stereotype was wrong --- as a minority blacks do not commit the
most crimes in America. Bennett picked on a group that he, his party, and
most especially his listeners have historically attacked and denigrated. He
and repuglicon party stalwarts have expoited hate and fear of blacks since
Nixon started the party's southern strategy in the 64 election.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
06 Oct 2005 05:07:12 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128633768.341295.180380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128554701.091070.214360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift,
called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard
about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the
problem
of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that
the
Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That
would
solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was
SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the
post
to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable,
condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that
was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish, This invalidates
everything you have said from the above on, and simply illustrates the
similarity between the two. However, you are right about the motive,
taking things to absurd lengths to point out the stupidity of the
situation both found themselves in..
<snip to end>
Swift lampooned many groups, not just the Irish. In Gulliver's travels,
f.x., each one of the voyages he made the culture he met was a lampoon
of
different culutres. Swift's intention was to point out society's
failings
and to urge their correction.
You know this, and that is why you deleted most of my post --- it
embarrassed you.
I deleted most of your post because, since it followed from the
erroneous claim you made at the beginning, it was irrelevent.
Ah, yes, another rightard promotes herself to internet censor, deciding what
is right, what is wrong, and what people can read.
Yes. Swift 'lampooned' many groups. However, his work 'A modest
proposal', the work to which I have been refering, wasn't a lampoon of
the Irish. It was a "lampoon", if you want to call it that, of the
English who were proposing some very nasty things to 'solve' the 'Irish
problem".
Are you certain you read it?
Have you any idea of what you are saying.
You said above "Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish". You
mentioned no specific opus. Now you claim to be referencing "A Modest
Proposal" and htat he was referncing the English.
So, you afre contradicting yourself, merely arguing for hte sake of
arguing.
And you proved my point. Swift targets _cultures_, not ethnic groups.
Larry
Bennett picked on one group. He did not point out failings and provide
suggestions for improvement, as Swift did in his books. Bennett
expoitesd
stereotypes of that group to ridicule abortion, an event not isolated to
blacks. His stereotype was wrong --- as a minority blacks do not commit
the
most crimes in America. Bennett picked on a group that he, his party,
and
most especially his listeners have historically attacked and denigrated.
He
and repuglicon party stalwarts have expoited hate and fear of blacks
since
Nixon started the party's southern strategy in the 64 election.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
06 Oct 2005 08:32:44 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128633768.341295.180380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128554701.091070.214360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128277441.818008.262140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WotTheHell wrote:
DianaC wrote:
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift,
called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard
about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the
problem
of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that
the
Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That
would
solve
the whole thing.
Dana did not realize this was satire.
I believe, you twit, that this was my entire point, that it was
SATIRE.
I do believe that I actually mentioned that little point in the
post
to
which yours was a reply.
It shined
[[[SHONE == let's at least be grammatical, Dana]]]
It's DIANA, let's at least get the name right. I'll take a minor
gramatical error over an inability to read any day.
a very strong light upon the society of the day,
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right.
Another racist in our midst.
Another idiot in the mix. The point is, you insufferable,
condescending
and ill educated nitwit, that BOTH comments were satire, and that
was
the POINT!!
Beentt's comments were not stire. Satire would have been all babies
to reduce crime. That was Swift's approach --- absurdity.
Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish, This invalidates
everything you have said from the above on, and simply illustrates the
similarity between the two. However, you are right about the motive,
taking things to absurd lengths to point out the stupidity of the
situation both found themselves in..
<snip to end>
Swift lampooned many groups, not just the Irish. In Gulliver's travels,
f.x., each one of the voyages he made the culture he met was a lampoon
of
different culutres. Swift's intention was to point out society's
failings
and to urge their correction.
You know this, and that is why you deleted most of my post --- it
embarrassed you.
I deleted most of your post because, since it followed from the
erroneous claim you made at the beginning, it was irrelevent.
Ah, yes, another rightard promotes herself to internet censor, deciding what
is right, what is wrong, and what people can read.
Sure I am...I had the nerve to suggest that you actually read the book
you are trying to use to refute a point? I think you need to look up
the definition of 'censorship'.
Yes. Swift 'lampooned' many groups. However, his work 'A modest
proposal', the work to which I have been refering, wasn't a lampoon of
the Irish. It was a "lampoon", if you want to call it that, of the
English who were proposing some very nasty things to 'solve' the 'Irish
problem".
Are you certain you read it?
Have you any idea of what you are saying.
I do. Evidently you do not. I wasn't refering to 'Guliver's Travels'.
Indeed,the idea, which you seem to be promoting, that we must consider
everything Swift ever wrote as if it were one large book is ludicrous.
For one thing, if you insist that we do this with Swift, then you
certainly have to look at everything that Bennet ever wrote; and then
of course you can no longer be pissed about this particular statement.
You said above "Swift also targeted a specific group, the irish". You
mentioned no specific opus. Now you claim to be referencing "A Modest
Proposal" and htat he was referncing the English.
One: If you had been paying attention, you would already know that I
was referenceing that one specific text. I said that in the first post.
Sheesh.
So, you afre contradicting yourself, merely arguing for hte sake of
arguing.
And you proved my point. Swift targets _cultures_, not ethnic groups.
Sorry, but it's the same flippin' thing. (sigh)
snip to end>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 03:13:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 10:46:04 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity, regardless of the
content and context.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican. While this seems like Republicans
would like more rich constituents for political power, they in fact
don't want to share the wealth otherwise (with which the Democrats, or
anybody who's rich naturally agrees). So there is a certain amount of
poor both parties want and need. The fool is that who cannot see
through party rhetoric since he is brainwashed beyond hope by his
masters on either side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
03 Oct 2005 10:04:50 AM |
|
|
In article <hivvj19n29msv0qj9qvnsjek7sp072rqip@4ax.com>, nobody
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity, regardless of the
content and context.
You don't what Republicans say.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican. While this seems like Republicans
would like more rich constituents for political power, they in fact
don't want to share the wealth otherwise (with which the Democrats, or
anybody who's rich naturally agrees). So there is a certain amount of
poor both parties want and need. The fool is that who cannot see
through party rhetoric since he is brainwashed beyond hope by his
masters on either side.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 12:36:09 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity, regardless of the
content and context.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 09:03:07 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
Sorry but doesn't follow. I don't blindly follow either party. Had you
possessed comprehensive skills in addition to your parroting ability,
you might have realized that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
03 Oct 2005 10:04:50 AM |
|
|
In article <d041k1db17u1bm2c1q3f200u3mq55u7k6b@4ax.com>, nobody
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
Sorry but doesn't follow. I don't blindly follow either party. Had you
possessed comprehensive skills in addition to your parroting ability,
you might have realized that.
You are like Osprey. You claim you "do not follow either party" but do
nothing but support the Republicans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
04 Oct 2005 06:54:41 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
You are like Osprey. You claim you "do not follow either party" but do
nothing but support the Republicans.
My political views are in fact quite a bit left of center, which is
all the more reason for me to be far less tolerant of nonsense coming
from Democrats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
04 Oct 2005 09:46:17 AM |
|
|
In article <29r4k1l7kfhlbm27i3dcjk159nhovopntf@4ax.com>, nobody
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
You are like Osprey. You claim you "do not follow either party" but do
nothing but support the Republicans.
My political views are in fact quite a bit left of center, which is
all the more reason for me to be far less tolerant of nonsense coming
from Democrats.
Yeah - and I'm a Republican.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 09:25:01 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
Sorry but doesn't follow. I don't blindly follow either party.
And yet here you are throwing mud at Democrats.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
03 Oct 2005 07:38:46 AM |
|
|
GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
Sorry but doesn't follow. I don't blindly follow either party.
And yet here you are throwing mud at Democrats.
If so I'm throwing mud at Repiblicans as well (of course your
conditioned brain filtered that out). And it's not throwing mud, just
telling it as it is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 10:59:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:25:01 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
It's either party's agenda. Democrats don't want the poor to get rich
for then they would vote Republican.
"Your comments are apparently coming from someone who's a political
zealot with a binary worldview and will use disingenuity to throw mud
at the other side given any apparent opportunity"
Sorry but doesn't follow. I don't blindly follow either party.
And yet here you are throwing mud at Democrats.
Unless David has announced unswerving obedience to the Democrats in
another venue I see no allegience in this thread that would justify
bringing in a political party. How does one logically jump from a
scathing review on one person's statements to castigating an entire
political party?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deserters should be in prison, not in the White House
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
01 Oct 2005 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 02:01:33 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
I'm a Republican. A good one. Very far right of center. And I'm telling
you that the people who want to keep blacks poor (and thus dependent
upon the government and loyal to those who are in charge of the
handouts, namely very rich white men) are the Democrats. The people who
want to keep them ignorant, and thus willing to believe all the manure
handed them by those who want to keep them poor, on welfare....and thus
keeping their votes firmly in Democrat hands...
Well, anybody who believes otherwise is twice a fool.
There is a reason that 'bread and circuses' is a phrase not well
thought of in intelligent circles, and that's what the Democrats are
offering; bread and circuses, when the solution is education,
challenges and success found by their own efforts. Blacks are not
stupid, though Democrats seem to think so. Nor are they lazy, or
lacking in character. What they ARE lacking is respect; respect FROM
those who claim to be on their side.
Consider; WHY aren't there affirmative action programs for poor white
kids? Hmmn? Only one reason; the rich white Democrats are of the
opinion that the poor white kids can make it on their own, but the poor
black kid needs help...when in reality, there is NO DIFFERENCE between
the two. The poor black kid needs no more...and no less...help than the
poor white kid, because the operative word is "poor", not skin color.
It is the DEMOCRATS who insist that race matters, not the Republicans.
No, it is the Democrats who are the racists, in the most insidious way
imaginable; they don't treat blacks as 'lesser' humans worthy of
hurting or killing or mistreatment. Nope, they treat 'em like pets.
Pets who are, when it is convenient, given special treatment but who
must not ever get the idea that they can actually succeed without the
help of the Great White Father up in Washington somewhere.
But they can. And they do, quite well, as a matter of fact. And if you
Democrats would simply get out of their way, they would be fine,
achieving great success and proving to be equal to, and often better
than, any other group of people on the planet, without having to bear
the stigma of 'oh, they wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't
for affirmative action'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 05:42:27 PM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
I'm a Republican. A good one. Very far right of center. And I'm telling
you that the people who want to keep blacks poor (and thus dependent
upon the government and loyal to those who are in charge of the
handouts, namely very rich white men) are the Democrats.
You _are_ a good right-wing republican. Starting off with lies is the
first sign of the "good" republican.
[...]
Well, anybody who believes otherwise is twice a fool.
Then you're a fool AND a bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 02:16:16 PM |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2005 12:01:33 -0700, "DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
I'm a Republican. A good one. Very far right of center. And I'm telling
you that the people who want to keep blacks poor (and thus dependent
upon the government and loyal to those who are in charge of the
handouts, namely very rich white men) are the Democrats. The people who
want to keep them ignorant, and thus willing to believe all the manure
handed them by those who want to keep them poor, on welfare....
<smirk>
You need them to work at Target to serve your fat *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
02 Oct 2005 12:01:05 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
Bennet's comments. It was quite a scathing satire on the problem of
Irish poverty and misery of his day. His "proposal" was that the Irish
should turn to cannabalism; that is, eat the babies. That would solve
the whole thing.
It shined a very strong light upon the society of the day, and made
many people very uncomfortable, as Bennet's comments have done. Indeed,
Bennet was far more politically correct in his own scathing comments;
abortion, unlike cannibalism, is legal.
The point is, Bennet was absolutely right. The vast majority of prison
inmates are black. The statistics on crime rates committed by blacks
vs. whites is waaay out of proportion, and Bennet's suggestion, EXACTLY
like Swifts, would solve it. But, like Swifts, it wasn't meant to be a
serious suggestion, but sarcasm, a comment about the ineffectiveness of
the methods used now.
We all know that the reason crime rates are higher in black populations
has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of 'being black'. It
comes from being poor and undeducated and being viewed as 'lesser'.
Those who are raised from infancy to have no other option but crime
will choose, guess what, CRIME. One way to keep a generation from
following that sad path is to eliminate it. Abort it first....and such
a suggestion, as Bennet VERY clearly stated, is as unacceptable a
thought as Swift's was.
Why don't you take a good look at what the problems truely are, rather
than grabbing this as a heaven sent opportunity to bash a man you don't
like, or a political agenda you don't approve of? The thing is, Bennet
has shined a harsh, and ACCURATE, light on a problem nobody wants to
admit exists. We have to find another way to solve this.
Whether those who want to keep blacks poor, ignorant, on welfare and
voting Democrat want to admit it or not, the solution is to get them
educated, off welfare, and actively involved in their own lives.
<snip to end>
Bennett's comments were racist comments coming from a racist who is
part of a racist party.
As for keeping blacks poor, ignorant, and on welfare, that is the
Republican agenda. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.
Please explain how the Democratically controlled State of Louisiana and
City of New Orleans allowed that neighborhood of poor blacks to exist
in that condition for so long. And then, when it came time to evacuate
them before Hurricane Katrina, the Democratic Governor and Mayor failed
to follow the State's evacuation plan.
Of course you'll say it was all Republicans' fault, because that's the
easy thing to say and it makes you feel good. Right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Pro-life" sleaze: Bennett throws mud, which lands on own face |
03 Oct 2005 10:04:49 AM |
|
|
In article <1128229265.918018.273500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Steven Douglas <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1128195803.474929.311070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DianaC <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
"Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in
this country, and your crime rate would go down"
"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the
people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to
preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan
administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such
"far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you
wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could
abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go
down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies
"would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing
to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
[rest of article deleted]
Comment:
This was no innocent stupidity
No, actually. But those who are climbing on the 'let's bash Bennet'
bandwagon are certainly showing their OWN stupidity and literary
ignorance.
There is a rather famous work by a man named Jonathan Swift, called 'A
Modest Proposal", that I thought of immediately as I heard about
| | | | |
