Bill Bennett: "You could abort every black baby in this country (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006), and your crime rate would go down."

;)

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Bill Bennett: "You could abort every black baby in this country (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006), and your crime rate would go down."

;)

In defense of Mr Bennett, he clearly stated that to abort every black baby would be ""an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do"".

So he was NOT endorsing abortion.

Everyone knows BibleGod don't like abortions, and Bill Bennett is a huge lover of all things BibleGod, so he would NEVER say or do anything "immoral" or unethical. Like gambling away a small fortune while constantly harping on the terrible "moral" character of the people in the US.

Bennett was probably just making sure --as all gawd-fearin' Rightwingers love to do-- to insert the point that it's really the n*ggers who are most responsible for crime in this country.

______________________________

Conservatism; -- the systematic scapegoating of blacks, peace activists, environmentalists, homosexuals and atheists in the belief that it will in some magic way save the country.

fuck that racist POS.

There is no defense for what he said. It's nothing short of the musings of hitler. The fact that he was putting it into a realistic context just makes it that much more disgusting.

Race has absolutly nothing to do with crime. Its poverty and drastic income differences and the society that it creates.

Okay, here we go again...ignore the obvious, and concentrate on the philosophy of what makes a person break the law...

I like to call this tactic the "practical application of crime prevention". Not aborting black babies, but applying some homogenized theory as to why the law is broken instead of concentrating on the reality of the situation. I understand why you choose to look at it by stating, "it's poverty and drastic income differences that create crime", but trying to change the socio-economic status of people who don’t look to change it themselves borders on being a completely retarded notion. I mean, do you think that angle holds any practicality, whatsoever???

To make a factual statement that can be backed statistically isn't racist - it's simply hard to hear because we don't want to acknowledge its validity.

Dillinger came from a good family. They weren't rich, but they certainly weren't poor.
His Dad, a god-fearing farmer, was quite strict with young Johnny too.
So i will never understand how it was that his background "made" him a bank robber.
Maybe he robbed banks because he LIKED to.

To make a factual statement that can be backed statistically isn't racist - it's simply hard to hear because we don't want to acknowledge its validity.

Actually, it can be a racist statement even if it is a factual statement. It all depends on the reason for the statement. It may be true that a higher percentage of black people commit crime but stating that fact the way Bill Bennett did seems to have no other reason but to link their skin color with a likelyhood to commit crime. He could have easily said "You could abort every poor baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

but trying to change the socio-economic status of people who don’t look to change it themselves borders on being a completely retarded notion. I mean, do you think that angle holds any practicality, whatsoever???

Its equally retarded to insinuate that black people commit more crime because they are black. That is why people "concentrate on the philosophy of what makes a person break the law...", as you say. Because it has more to do with them being poor than it does with their race, and there is a higher percentage of black people who are poor. Whether that is fixable is another issue, but its the fact.

True, Dna, that was a very even keeled and fair reply. I agree with you in principle, but I don't think making factual statements should be considered racist if they are, indeed, fact. If Bill Bennett made a comment about improving literacy rates in Kentucky by aborting every white baby born to trailer-trash parents, he would've been correct in doing so. Does that make the comment a racist statement? I don't think so, but I agree with you in the sense that motivation plays a big role. Did Bill Bennett want to put black people down? I don't know, but I think we should reserve passing judgment based on the fact that his comment was irrefutable. However, on the flip side, you're absolutely correct - making the statement, "You could abort every poor baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" would be far more politically correct. On that note, is being PC what our country has been reduced to so as to not "offend" anyone with the truth? If so, that's not the America I want to live in.

You miss the point Prea...

He could have said "If we abort every baby in the US the crime rate would go down" This would be a 'factual' statement. The fact that he needlessly inserted black is why he's a racist.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You miss the point Prea...

He could have said "If we abort every baby in the US the crime rate would go down" This would be a 'factual' statement. The fact that he needlessly inserted black is why he's a racist.
I think you mean "every poor baby", right? Not that aborting every child in America wouldn't make the rate fall, because obviously, it would, but that comment is about as poignant as saying that a flashlight sure makes it easier to see in the dark. I do, however, understand what you're trying to get at here.

If Bill Bennett made a comment about improving literacy rates in Kentucky by aborting every white baby born to trailer-trash parents, he would've been correct in doing so. Does that make the comment a racist statement?

It may or may not be racist. I see it as being incensetive and unnecessary. There is a middle ground between being too PC and saying anything that comes to mind. Just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be said. Plus, his statement deals in generalizations, which I don't like and could reinforce prejudices some might have about blacks being criminals.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Plus, his statement deals in generalizations, which I don't like and could reinforce prejudices some might have about blacks being criminals.
This is the only valid point I see in your argument. It is a generalization, and one that could, in fact, reinforce prejudices some people have about blacks being criminals. I agree with you in the sense that, for the most part, making a pointed statement is probably more detrimental than it is positive, and that's always a bad plan, no matter what the circumstances.

I just hate the PC "mode of operation" our country has fallen prey to. To be completely frank, it makes me sick. Why can’t we just be brutally honest with one another without the fear of having to worry about other people's feelings? In short, I believe in calling a spade a spade - why don’t others?

I just hate the PC "mode of operation" our country has fallen prey to. To be completely frank, it makes me sick. Why can’t we just be brutally honest with one another without the fear of having to worry about other people's feelings? In short, I believe in calling a spade a spade - why don’t others?



I agree with you about much of the PC crap that goes on, but I don't consider it PC to be bothered by someone saying crime would be lower if an certain race no longer existed. You asked "Why can't we just be brutally honest with one another without the fear of having to worry about other people's feelings?"...there is a reason why its called "BRUTALLY honest". If you're going to be "brutal" then don't be suprised if you hurt someone's feelings. You could walk down the street and tell everyone what you personally think of their appearance...it might be honest, but also rude and unnecessary. Its not PC to expect you to not do that, and its not PC to get mad if you do.

Bottom line, the crime rate would be lower if an certain race no longer existed. It is merely a fact. Nothing more. Stating that fact does not mean that the speaker endorses killing off that race. It is merely a statement of fact.

Unwed pregnancy's would go down if we castrated young boys at birth. It's a fact, doesn't meen I support doing it. Just a statement of fact.

The PC police are having a ball with this one.

Originally posted by Echo2
Bottom line, the crime rate would be lower if an certain race no longer existed. It is merely a fact. Nothing more. Stating that fact does not mean that the speaker endorses killing off that race. It is merely a statement of fact.

Unwed pregnancy's would go down if we castrated young boys at birth. It's a fact, doesn't meen I support doing it. Just a statement of fact.

The PC police are having a ball with this one.
Holy shit :eek:

Low and behold, I agree.

Unwed pregnancy's would go down if we castrated young boys at birth. It's a fact, doesn't meen I support doing it. Just a statement of fact.

If you don't support it, then why make the statement (aside from trying to make your point about political correctness)? Aside from this case, do you use that castration argument when you talk about the number of unwed pregnancies, you probably don't because you don't support it even though its a fact?

Do you have no control over your mouth that you have to say everything that is a fact? People usually have a reason for saying things other than "because its a fact".

Stating that fact does not mean that the speaker endorses killing off that race.

I know he doesn't endorse killing off a race.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Everyone knows BibleGod don't like abortions, and Bill Bennett is a huge lover of all things BibleGod, so he would NEVER say or do anything "immoral" or unethical. Like gambling away a small fortune while constantly harping on the terrible "moral" character of the people in the US.


This is too good. In one paragraph you mock Bennett's for pro-life stand and for the immorality of gambling. So gambling is worse than abortion.

You make my point that there are pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
1. fuck that racist POS.

2. Race has absolutly nothing to do with crime.

1. That's worse than anything Bill Bennet says. Your dislike of Bennet's supposed hatred is what's called "projecting".

2. That's not entirely true in all cases. There are young urban kids who are vulnerable to others telling them that they are just taking back what's rightfully theirs, due to the history of their ancestors in this country. I've heard it. That belief removes the natural inhibition that many people have about breaking the law. It's not common, but it exists.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Actually, it can be a racist statement even if it is a factual statement. It all depends on the reason for the statement.

And since we don't know, we should base our conclusions on the person's past history, I guess.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You miss the point Prea...

He could have said "If we abort every baby in the US the crime rate would go down" This would be a 'factual' statement. The fact that he needlessly inserted black is why he's a racist.

Please read the entire story next time. Nothing was "needlessly inserted". He was quoting a specific passage from a book called "Freakonomics". The analogy, which he gleaned from the book, was to show that real life is not a numbers game.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Do you have no control over your mouth that you have to say everything that is a fact? People usually have a reason for saying things other than "because its a fact".


Obviously facts scare you. Why are you uncomfortable with facts that aren't politically correct? Why does it bother you that you can't "control" what facts are said aloud and what ones aren't? The truth hurts sometimes, sometimes it isn't pretty and sometimes it is just plain UGLY. That is no reason to "control" what facts are said aloud and what ones are whispered secretly.

As fo my reason for stateing this fact, it is because we are discussing the subject and this fact was brought up in the original post.

Originally posted by Echo2
Bottom line, the crime rate would be lower if an certain race no longer existed. It is merely a fact. Nothing more. Stating that fact does not mean that the speaker endorses killing off that race. It is merely a statement of fact.

Unwed pregnancy's would go down if we castrated young boys at birth. It's a fact, doesn't meen I support doing it. Just a statement of fact.

The PC police are having a ball with this one.

You are a joke.

Black folk did not shoot kids at shool with deer rifles what about thoses folk and crime. And why is itr a disorder when white folk commit a crime and it is just crime when a person of color commits a crime.

why is the law split on punshiment and folk of colr get arrested more and given more time for crimes than there white counter parts.
That is a fact but it is not mentioned in Bennetts speach.

Originally posted by Brooks
Please read the entire story next time. Nothing was "needlessly inserted". He was quoting a specific passage from a book called "Freakonomics". The analogy, which he gleaned from the book, was to show that real life is not a numbers game.
That was an excellent reply, Brooks.

Originally posted by Researcher
Black folk did not shoot kids at shool with deer rifles
No, they prefer Tec-9's and Uzi’s, and usually, they’re being fired from the window of a moving vehicle right outside of school.

Don't go there, Lady - if you want to cite instances where criminal activity takes place in High School, then prepare yourself for a ratio of 10:1, black to white, and that's despite the fact that black people only represent 13% of our population.
Originally posted by Researcher
And why is itr a disorder when white folk commit a crime and it is just crime when a person of color commits a crime.
Are you saying that black criminals aren't diagnosed with a disorder when they're taken into custody after killing people indiscriminately?

I beg to differ.
Originally posted by Researcher
why is the law split on punshiment and folk of colr get arrested more and given more time for crimes than there white counter parts.
First off, the law isn't split on punishment, the economic situation of those who commit serious crime is. Most blacks can't afford private council, hence, longer jail terms, less privileges, and more convictions. On the whole, blacks commit far more crime than whites, ergo; more blacks are in prison. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but.........Psssst - there's no conspiracy...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
No, they prefer Tec-9's and Uzi’s, and usually, they’re being fired from the window of a moving vehicle right outside of school.

Don't go there, Lady - if you want to cite instances where criminal activity takes place in High School, then prepare yourself for a ratio of 10:1, black to white, and that's despite the fact that black people only represent 13% of our population.

Are you saying that black criminals aren't diagnosed with a disorder when they're taken into custody after killing people indiscriminately?

I beg to differ.

First off, the law isn't split on punishment, the economic situation of those who commit serious crime is. Most blacks can't afford private council, hence, longer jail terms, less privileges, and more convictions. On the whole, blacks commit far more crime than whites, ergo; more blacks are in prison. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but.........Psssst - there's no conspiracy...

Then NJ just imagin "Niggers by the Pound" and that's why they have put a stay on excutions in thhe state of NJ.

If council is the factor then you can't say white folk do not do the crime, because they have the money to keep it from being reported and the money to stay out of jail.

I am saying when someone who is not of color commit a crime the terminology is changed.

Like the Meth thing. They are saying folk are just cought up on wanting to lose weigh thats why they are getting hooked.

what is the ter used for those who are hooked on crack or other drugs. Thatt is what I am saying.

Like Rush and the Bush kid abusing Rx meds. They are just vic of cercumstanc ewhen if it was folk who were poor or of color they woul djust be looked at as weak willed scum.

I am also saying that lack of chances and funds has a lot to do with crime. If the field was fair the crime rate would truly reflect it.

Obviously facts scare you.

Obviously people being held accountable for what comes out of their mouth scares you.

Why are you uncomfortable with facts that aren't politically correct?

I'm not, I agreed it was factual. I just don't see the need it saying something for no other reason than "because its a fact".

Why does it bother you that you can't "control" what facts are said aloud and what ones aren't?

I never said I wanted to control it. I asked why others don't seem to have the ability to control what they say, which appears to be the case when I hear "he said it because its factual".

The truth hurts sometimes, sometimes it isn't pretty and sometimes it is just plain UGLY. That is no reason to "control" what facts are said aloud and what ones are whispered secretly.

True, but if you are going to say the UGLY ones, especially when your only reason for saying it is because "its factual", then don't complain when people react negatively to your UGLY comments.

Do you walk around spouting facts or do you have a reason for saying things you say?

Originally posted by dnamertz
Do you walk around spouting facts or do you have a reason for saying things you say?

That is twice now that you have assumed that I just spouted out that fact because I have no control over what I say. How arrogant of you to presume you know me and to presume my motives. I will attempt once again to get through to you, please read carefully I stated that fact because we were discussing the subject and this fact was brought up in the original post.

BTW - when you insult people for joining a discussion of an issue in a string, and imply that they shouldn't say something outloud you are attempting to control what is being said. Lie to yourself all you want, but we know what you were implying..

Originally posted by Researcher
Then NJ just imagin "Niggers by the Pound" and that's why they have put a stay on excutions in thhe state of NJ.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.
Originally posted by Researcher
If council is the factor then you can't say white folk do not do the crime, because they have the money to keep it from being reported and the money to stay out of jail.
No....it's going to be reported whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by Researcher
I am saying when someone who is not of color commit a crime the terminology is changed...

Like the Meth thing. They are saying folk are just cought up on wanting to lose weigh thats why they are getting hooked.
Okkkkkaaaaaayyyy.....
Originally posted by Researcher
Like Rush and the Bush kid abusing Rx meds. They are just vic of cercumstanc ewhen if it was folk who were poor or of color they woul djust be looked at as weak willed scum.
This may or may not be true, but Rush is an incredibly successful man, and the Bush kid is incredibly pampered. Usually when a successful man has a bout with drug addiction, it can be viewed as a circumstantial problem. In Rush's case, chronic headaches led to an addiction of OxyContin. Despite being addicted, he still aired his show, almost lost his hearing, and made millions in the process. All in all, I don't think I'd call him "weak willed".
Originally posted by Researcher
I am also saying that lack of chances and funds has a lot to do with crime.
I won't deny that.

Please read the entire story next time. Nothing was "needlessly inserted". He was quoting a specific passage from a book called "Freakonomics". The analogy, which he gleaned from the book, was to show that real life is not a numbers game. Wrong. In Freakanomics it says that legalized abortion has kept down the crime raate because those women who could not afford to have a kids did not. Therefore one less staving kid whose pissed at the world, therefore less crime. Race was never mentioned. Please read the actual book next time, before you pretend to know what you are talking about.

That was an excellent reply, Brooks.
STFU you ignorant cheerleader...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

No....it's going to be reported whether you like it or not.

Okkkkkaaaaaayyyy.....

This may or may not be true, but Rush is an incredibly successful man, and the Bush kid is incredibly pampered. Usually when a successful man has a bout with drug addiction, it can be viewed as a circumstantial problem. In Rush's case, chronic headaches led to an addiction of OxyContin. Despite being addicted, he still aired his show, almost lost his hearing, and made millions in the process. All in all, I don't think I'd call him "weak willed".

I won't deny that.

I think You should look up why NJ death sentences are not being carried out. I think it is something you need to see with your own eyes.

Why make a dif between an addict and addict is a addict they either weak willed scum or not and it should not matter who you are one classification should fit all.

We all know if the Bush kid and Rush were regular folk they would be in jail no if and or buts about it.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
STFU you misguided cheerleader...
LMAO. If, in fact, it wasn't stated in the book, then I apologize, 500. However, I'd be really surprised if you read it, especially considering it's content...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Wrong. In Freakanomics it says that legalized abortion has kept down the crime raate because those women who could not afford to have a kids did not. Therefore one less staving kid whose pissed at the world, therefore less crime. Race was never mentioned. Please read the actual book next time, before you pretend to know what you are talking about.


STFU you ignorant cheerleader...

lol:lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit:

STFU you ignorant cheerleader... :banana: :hula: :banana: :hula:

Wow, it looks as if you have one too, 500.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Wow, it look as if you have one too, 500.

Naw that would be you.:eek:

My facts are correct, and we can not say that about your cheerleader.

Can you say the same? Do you know waht "Niggers by the Pound is yet' and why NJ put a halt to killing people on death row.

Hey can you tell me why "Jet" saw fit to dedicate an issue about what to do when stopped by the police, so that you are not accidnetly killed by a police officer.

I mean the field is fair so why would they see a need to put out such an issue. Oh, I remember a man in NY was killed because the wallet in his hand the police said theymistok for a gun and a lil teenage gilr who was a sleep in her car after having a sezure was killed becase the police also said she had a gun on her.

In both cases no gun was founded.

Farrakahn will issue statement Wednesday. Bennett can kiss his radio program good-bye. ROTF

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/4/115606.shtml

Yes, we have all heard the stories about how disadvantaged your race is.

We are also aware that being "of color" does not hold one back from success. There are many, many successfull people of color who were born disadvantaged and made the choices to lift themselves out of it. And there are many, many white people who were born advantaged who have made choices in life that took them into pocerty and crime.

In America it is all about choice. We are not born equal, yet we all have the opportunity to CHOOSE were we go in life. Some make good choices, some make bad ones.

Originally posted by Echo2
Yes, we have all heard the stories about how disadvantaged your race is.

We are also aware that being "of color" does not hold one back from success. There are many, many successfull people of color who were born disadvantaged and made the choices to lift themselves out of it. And there are many, many white people who were born advantaged who have made choices in life that took them into pocerty and crime.

In America it is all about choice. We are not born equal, yet we all have the opportunity to CHOOSE were we go in life. Some make good choices, some make bad ones.

No one ever said folk could not try. Neve once did I say lie down like a dead dog and take bull crap, but I will tell you that it is a fact that one can not pull ones self up by ones boot straps it is aganist the laws of science to do so.

Originally posted by Researcher
No one ever said folk could not try. Neve once did I say lie down like a dead dog and take bull crap, but I will tell you that it is a fact that one can not pull ones self up by ones boot straps it is aganist the laws of science to do so.

And thus, anyone who believes they cannot succeed will indeed fail to succeed.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Farrakahn will issue statement Wednesday. Bennett can kiss his radio program good-bye. ROTF

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/4/115606.shtml
I'm sure Bennett's quaking in his boots. Who should be taken more seriously than the man who's openly stated that he detests whites and Jews? That's right, everyone......Louis Farrakhan - the racist leader to black militants everywhere and Dop's hero. ROTF

Originally posted by Researcher
My facts are correct, and we can not say that about your cheerleader.
Have you considered suing your brain for non-support? It's truly amazing the way you never let an idea interrupt the flow of your typing, but then again, making sense isn't your area of expertise, is it?
Originally posted by Researcher
Hey can you tell me why "Jet" saw fit to dedicate an issue about what to do when stopped by the police, so that you are not accidnetly killed by a police officer.
You mean to tell me "Jet" saw fit to publish a racially charged article??? :eek:

What is the world coming to?
Originally posted by Researcher
I mean the field is fair so why would they see a need to put out such an issue.
I can't, for the life of me, imagine why...:confused:
Originally posted by Researcher
Oh, I remember a man in NY was killed because the wallet in his hand the police said theymistok for a gun and a lil teenage gilr who was a sleep in her car after having a sezure was killed becase the police also said she had a gun on her.
Great examples of racially motivated hate crimes, Researcher.

Gee, I hope you're not paid by the hour.
Originally posted by Researcher
In both cases no gun was founded.
Absolutely astounding... ::shakes head in shame::

Originally posted by Echo2
And thus, anyone who believes they cannot succeed will indeed fail to succeed.

True, but it is easier to fail when you have folk staking the deck aganist you.
The glass ceiling etc.. or it etc..

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Have you considered suing your brain for non-support? It's truly amazing the way you never let an idea interrupt the flow of your typing, but then again, making sense isn't your area of expertise, is it?

You mean to tell me "Jet" saw fit to publish a racially charged article??? :eek:

What is the world coming to?

I can't, for the life of me, imagine why...:confused:

Great examples of racially motivated hate crimes, Researcher.

Gee, I hope you're not paid by the hour.

Absolutely astounding... ::shakes head in shame::

Damn it is amazing that you are accusing me of the very thing you are demonstrating to me and every body else on this board.
please do a bit of real reseach before responding or get off your butt so yur brain can get some blood.

ECHO2 wrote:
That is twice now that you have assumed that I just spouted out that fact because I have no control over what I say. How arrogant of you to presume you know me and to presume my motives.

Actually I didn't just "assume" it, I was discussing how it makes no sense to me that people would just state something simply because it is fact, and have no other reason for stating it...this is the defense many have been given for Bill Bennett's comment. Then you joined the discussion seemingly agreeing with the "Its fact therefore it should be said" argument. So, I asked (never assumed) if you say every fact that crosses your mind...I would assume most people (even you) filter what they say, but I could be wrong.

I will attempt once again to get through to you, please read carefully I stated that fact because we were discussing the subject and this fact was brought up in the original post.

I was no longer referring to your castration comment. I am referring to the concept of saying something only because its a fact.

BTW - when you insult people for joining a discussion of an issue in a string, and imply that they shouldn't say something outloud you are attempting to control what is being said.

Thats a hypocritical statement for someone whose signature line is "Hey stupid - If you don't like what I post, put me on ignore!"

BTW - I never insulted you. I challenge you to please, PLEASE show me the quote where I insulted you and I will appologize. Also, for the 2nd time, I have never said (nor implied) that Bennett or anyone should not say something outloud. Say what ever you want. I'm just saying that if someone is going to say something controversial then they should expect to get a negative response and they can't hide behind the excuse "I didn't do anything wrong, I was stating a fact". I could walk down the street and it might be a fact that I see some fat people but I'm not going to say "your fat", and if I did I would expect a negative response.

Lie to yourself all you want, but we know what you were implying..

Thats a hypocritical statement for someone who just said "How arrogant of you to presume you know me and to presume my motives"

Researcher, Every one of your posts refers to unfairness and why certain people can't make it, etc... You can do that all day and get nowhere.

We're not supposed to comment on this here, and I deserve the criticism that will be leveled at me for saying this, but your writing is rather poor. That will work against future success more than the other things you've mentioned.

You get credit for trying. You are either unable to understand or unwilling to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being stuborn. I wont waste anymore time trying to point out the obvious to you.

Originally posted by Brooks
Researcher, Every one of your posts refers to unfairness and why certain people can't make it, etc... You can do that all day and get nowhere.

We're not supposed to comment on this here, and I deserve the criticism that will be leveled at me for saying this, but your writing is rather poor. That will work against future success more than the other things you've mentioned.

My writing may be poor but my points are creditable if they were not you would not have responded.

You can point out my writing flaws but you can not disprove my points.

You can make personal attacts and your writting style may flow better than mine but you still have not proved anything but the fact you can make personal attacks.

By the way everyone is a compound word.

I mentioned earlier I have a leaning disability and that affects my writing skills not my ability to make a point.

I never said that peopel of color could not make it. I just said that being of color makes it harder to make it. You are trying to put words in to my mouth.

Just like someone else on this board who said skin tone made me special, or at least gave me the illusion that it did. I only said skin tone and being poor made people targets.

The US has a history of picking on anyone who dose not fit the melting pot idea.

No , nice try should go to you and your friend for attempting to use the strwa man fallacy along with attacking my creditablity for pointing out a flaw in my writting skills.

Yet, You have still to prove a point unless you caountthe ones y'all threw in with the straw man fallacy.

So, I give you an A for effort but a F on counter points.

Originally posted by Researcher
By the way everyone is a compound word.
That depends on what you're talking about, retard. "Everyone" refers to every person, or everybody. "Every one" describes each and every item being talked about. For example, every one of your posts were weak, proved nothing, and now everyone is a little dumber for having read them.

I hope this helps you catch the difference in the future. :)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That depends on what you're talking about, retard. "Everyone" refers to every person, or everybody. "Every one" describes each and every item being talked about. For example, every one of your posts were weak, proved nothing, and now everyone is a little dumber for having read them.

I hope this helps you catch the difference in the future. :)

You are off topic. We are talking about counter points and all you have done is made personal attacks which mean you lack ammo.

and you are dumber because the post just proved that you are ignorant to a lot of things and that you are to lazy to look them up when they are presented to you Retard.

End the straw man stuff and character assignations and something that required real thought.

You get credit for trying. You are either unable to understand or unwilling to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being stuborn. I wont waste anymore time trying to point out the obvious to you.

Was this post directed at me? If so, I noticed you couldn't come up with an examples where I "insulted" you, or any valid arguments to my points. Don't run away from the debate, what are you afraid of?

Originally posted by dnamertz
Was this post directed at me? If so, I noticed you couldn't come up with an examples where I "insulted" you, or any valid arguments to my points. Don't run away from the debate, what are you afraid of?

No, this was not aimed at you. sorry if you thought it was.

Originally posted by Researcher
You are off topic. We are talking about counter points.
What freaking "counter" points? In order for there to be a counter point, there has to be a point in the first place! So far, with the exception of you mentioning a racially charged issue of Jet magazine (published for blacks) about how to avoid being murdered by a cop when he pulls you over, you've said nothing. You've made no point, period. Why did Jet magazine publish the article.......? Oh, I don't know....maybe to increase their circulation? Maybe it was to cater to a group of people who are still convinced they're being treated differently because of skin color and not because they're almost 20 times more likely than whites or Asians to commit crime. I mean, seriously......did you ever take the time to think about why you get pulled over? A cop's job isn't only to solve crime - sometimes, it's to prevent it from happening. You might not want them profiling, but they're gonna do it anyway. Their lives depend on it.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Was this post directed at me? If so, I noticed you couldn't come up with an examples where I "insulted" you, or any valid arguments to my points. Don't run away from the debate, what are you afraid of?
I believe Echo sent that your direction, yes.

Originally posted by Researcher
No, this was not aimed at you. sorry if you thought it was.
What are you responding for? Did you write this:You get credit for trying. You are either unable to understand or unwilling to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being stuborn. I wont waste anymore time trying to point out the obvious to you.

I didn't think so, genius.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Was this post directed at me? If so, I noticed you couldn't come up with an examples where I "insulted" you, or any valid arguments to my points. Don't run away from the debate, what are you afraid of?

See your posts 10-3 6:64PM and 10-4 11:59PM. Both were insulting. As is the one quoted above where you insunuate that I am "running away" from debating with you because I may be afraid.

You have made it obvious that you do not want to or can not understand the concept we were talking about. So why should I waste my time trying to explain something to you that you can not or do not want to understand. FYI - If it makes you feel superior to think that you have somehow won the dabate I have np problem with that.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What are you responding for? Did you write this:

I didn't think so, genius.
but if you wnat to be more specific in the future call me

to call me Winston Churchill, Galileo or Einstine al of whom had leaning disorders.

Boy, you really do have a learning disorder. Why would you opt to have children if you knew there was an increased likelihood that they, themselves, could suffer from the same malady you do? That seems pretty irresponsible to me.
Winston Churchill, Galileo or Einstine al of whom had leaning disorders.
Maybe, but I seriously doubt they were severe.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Boy, you really do have a learning disorder. Why would you opt to have children if you knew there was an increased likelihood that they, themselves, could suffer from the same malady you do? That seems pretty irresponsible to me.

Maybe, but I seriously doubt they were severe.

Glad you were not Mozart's parent.

You like Mozart?

Originally posted by Researcher
but if you wnat to be more specific in the future call me

to call me Winston Churchill, Galileo or Einstine al of whom had leaning disorders.

I never knew that Churchill had a learning disorder. I know he was a poor student and suffered from clinical depression. This did not prevent him from having one of the finest grasps of the English language that I've ever heard of, and he was also great with the insult, like ~~"He's a modest man, with much to be modest about."

I crack up every time I read that.

Originally posted by Echo2, directed toward dnamertz
See your posts 10-3 6:64PM and 10-4 11:59PM. Both were insulting.

You may not want my input on this Echo......but i have read every post on this thread by dnamertz and I cannot find a single instance where he said anything insulting toward you.

If you found something he said "insulting", i'd really be curious to see a direct quote, so I can see what you thought was insulting.

Originally posted by Freethinker
You may not want my input on this Echo......but i have read every post on this thread by dnamertz and I cannot find a single instance where he said anything insulting toward you.

If you found something he said "insulting", i'd really be curious to see a direct quote, so I can see what you thought was insulting.

His post "Do you have no control over your mouth that you have to say everything that is a fact? People usually have a reason for saying things other than "because its a fact".

Having explained to him a number of times that I was stateing the fact because it was the TOPIC of the string and not because I "have no control over my mouth" he still is unable to grasp the concept of why I made the statement. I am assuming he is just playing devils advocate, I don't think he is unable to grasp the difference - I could be wrong though.

See your posts 10-3 6:64PM and 10-4 11:59PM. Both were insulting. As is the one quoted above where you insunuate that I am "running away" from debating with you because I may be afraid.

This has gotten a bit off the topic, but its an interesting discussion about communication and it even ties into the PC argument.

I re-read those posts and I said nothing insulting so I was about to ask for a direct quote, as Freethinker did, but you already supplied the quote, and WOW, if that is what you find insulting then it really appears PC police are having a ball with this one. The question was not meant as an insult and I'm am genuinely suprised that it was even remotely taken as an insult. The reason I asked the question is because you joined the debate by saying "Bottom line, the crime rate would be lower if an certain race no longer existed. It is merely a fact. Nothing more. Stating that fact does not mean that the speaker endorses killing off that race. It is merely a statement of fact". I don't see how I insulted you by asking if you think that is a good enough excuse to say something, given your statement in defense of Bennett.

If it makes you feel superior to think that you have somehow won the dabate I have np problem with that.

I don't think that, but I feel I've made some good points that you disagree with. Talk about someone who appears to act superior, look at comments like this "You are either unable to understand or unwilling to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being stuborn. I wont waste anymore time trying to point out the obvious to you." or "You have made it obvious that you do not want to or can not understand the concept we were talking about". I've understood every part of what we are talking about, we just disagree. Do you assume that because I have a different view point than you that I "do not understand"? (don't take that as an insult)!!!

[i] I've understood every part of what we are talking about, we just disagree. Do you assume that because I have a different view point than you that I "do not understand"? (don't take that as an insult)!!! [/B]

Yes, because if you UNDERSTOOD you would not still be stubornly hodling onto your rediculous view. LIke I said before, it isn't worth my time to try and educate you. Find someone else to play stupid with.

FYI - I didn't even know the PC police were involved in this conversation. I certainly didn't see anyone post "you can't say that". Well, I did hear someone say something to the effect that people shouldn't say things just because they are true. Or was it that if they did say things that were true they had no control? Sounded a lot like the PC police to me.

Yes, because if you UNDERSTOOD you would not still be stubornly hodling onto your rediculous view.

Like I said, look who is acting superior. And how can my view be ridiculous? My view is that saying anything just because it is fact is not reason enough to say it....and when I asked you if you behaved that way you were "insulted" which tells me you agree with me.

FYI - I didn't even know the PC police were involved in this conversation.

HELLO??? You're the one who said "The PC police are having a ball with this one." in your 1st post.

Well, I did hear someone say something to the effect that people shouldn't say things just because they are true.

I never said that. I did say "I have never said (nor implied) that Bennett or anyone should not say something outloud. Say what ever you want. I'm just saying that if someone is going to say something controversial then they should expect to get a negative response". nice mis-quote.

Originally posted by dnamertz
And how can my view be ridiculous? My view is that saying anything just because it is fact is not reason enough to say it....
If it is a fact, then why shouldn't it be said? Just because it may insult someone does not mean we should stop ourselves from saying something that is true. As for what this man said, although it is insutling, it proves a point (this may or may not be the point he was trying to get across) That many people in this country need to get their act together and help improve the crime rates among blacks. Sometimes it takes facts that are very hard to hear to get people to actually act and improve something. I think if something is a "fact" it is reason enough to say it because the more facts you know about everything and anything helps educate everyone as a whole.

Originally posted by rendova
I never knew that Churchill had a learning disorder. I know he was a poor student and suffered from clinical depression. This did not prevent him from having one of the finest grasps of the English language that I've ever heard of, and he was also great with the insult, like ~~"He's a modest man, with much to be modest about."

I crack up every time I read that.

The spoke word and the written word are a different things someone else wrote his stuff.

It was his words but someone else wrote it down for him. He memorized all his speeches.


Had a teacher give me and article on him in high school.

Churchill was a card, and I love leaning stuff about him.

Churchill was brilliant. My kind of guy...a drunk (lol), but way, way, way, wayyyyy, out of my league intellectually. He's made several comments that were hilarious and poignant. For example:

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. "

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

My all time favorite was when Lady Astor said to a drunken Churchill:

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."

And Winston replied by saying:

"Madam, if you were my wife, I would gladly drink it."

Oh, and this one's for you, Dop:

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."

And in defense of your point, Dna...

"Eating words has never given me indigestion."

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Churchill was brilliant. My kind of guy...a drunk (lol), but way, way, way, wayyyyy, out of my league intellectually.

One of the best witticisms i EVER heard was the follwoing........

Sir Winston Churchill and Lady Nancy Astor were weekend guests of the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill's cousin). They had been at each other's throats for some whole time when, exasperated, Lady Astor finally spouted,-- "Sir, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."

Churchill replied, "If I were your husband I'd drink it."

That could be how it actually went down, but either way, it's a brilliant response. As for his love of drinking - he said something like, "I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

I just love that line. :D

Lady at cocktail party to Churchill:

"You, sir, are a drunk."

Churchill:

"And you, Madam, are ugly. You are also fat. But I will be sober in the morning."

See what I mean........he was a freaking genius. :)

OVERDOSE wrote:
If it is a fact, then why shouldn't it be said? Just because it may insult someone does not mean we should stop ourselves from saying something that is true.

Thats not quite what I'm saying. I don't think we "shouldn't" say it, but if have no other reason for saying it other than "because its a fact" then I think that is pointless and, depending on the fact, potentially harmful.

Sometimes it takes facts that are very hard to hear to get people to actually act and improve something.

Now that is a good reason to state a fact. If you are saying a fact to get people to improve something or to generate a discussion on an issue, then that right there is another reason for saying it above and beyond it just being fact. We know Bennett was not trying to do this with his statement about blacks and crime.

I have a problem with Bennett just throwing a blanket statement out there that gives the implication that the crime rate is higher with blacks just because of their race, and then never exlaining or giving his opinions as to why that crime rate is higher. He, and others, are just hiding behind it being a fact, and therefore OK to say without an explaination. This type of statement just goes to enforce (or re-enforce) prejudices for some people that blacks are criminals. I never wanted Bennett to appologize, all he would've had to say during his defense was to explain why the crime rate is higher (because people with less money are more likely to commit crime, and with a higher percentage of poor people being black, their crime rate will be higher). He would've been off the hook in my book.

I think if something is a "fact" it is reason enough to say it because the more facts you know about everything and anything helps educate everyone as a whole.

Tomorrow, go up to everyone you see and say "black people have a higher crime rate than white people" then walk away with no other explaination. Its a fact, but see how people react.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Thats not quite what I'm saying. I don't think we "shouldn't" say it, but if have no other reason for saying it other than "because its a fact" then I think that is pointless and, depending on the fact, potentially harmful.
I think the more facts everyone knows the more educated we are as a soceity. And how can any fact be harmful? The only thing harmful is not knowing facts about anything and living in a world that is not reality. I don't see any fact as potentially harmful. What facts would that be?

Originally posted by dnamertz
We know Bennett was not trying to do this with his statement about blacks and crime.
You know that for a fact?

Originally posted by dnamertz
I have a problem with Bennett just throwing a blanket statement out there that gives the implication that the crime rate is higher with blacks just because of their race, and then never exlaining or giving his opinions as to why that crime rate is higher.
Why does he need an explanation? If people are going to assume that the fact he said means he supports killing black fetus', then that isn't his fault but their fault for incorrectly assuming what he means. No one knows for a fact what he meant by his comments if he gives no explanation. To assume the worst thing by what he said is tragic.

Originally posted by dnamertz
He, and others, are just hiding behind it being a fact, and therefore OK to say without an explaination. This type of statement just goes to enforce (or re-enforce) prejudices for some people that blacks are criminals.
It only re-enforces the dumb. Why should he have to explain himself just because others will all of a sudden have "re-enforced" ideas about prejudice? To be honest, I think we as a people need to work towards changing this. If anything this "fact" will shock people and it will make people think. And fight to change this "fact" so people cannot have re-enforced ideas about prejudice because of blacks having a higher crime rate.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Tomorrow, go up to everyone you see and say "black people have a higher crime rate than white people" then walk away with no other explaination. Its a fact, but see how people react.
I have done that before and people didn't like that I said it. And that is because people are too "PC" and don't like to hear things that are true. Too bad for them. They assumed incorrectly about what I meant and that isn't my problem.

I don't see any fact as potentially harmful. What facts would that be?

The fact that "blacks commit more crime" by itself with no explaination can be misleading. It might not be the fact itself but the way its delivered.

You know that for a fact?

I suspect it.

Why does he need an explanation? If people are going to assume that the fact he said means he supports killing black fetus', then that isn't his fault but their fault for incorrectly assuming what he means. No one knows for a fact what he meant by his comments if he gives no explanation. To assume the worst thing by what he said is tragic.

I'm not talking about the abortion part of his comment. I didn't like him linking blacks to crime with out explaining why that is, because you know how some people will interpret it.

It only re-enforces the dumb. Why should he have to explain himself just because others will all of a sudden have "re-enforced" ideas about prejudice? To be honest, I think we as a people need to work towards changing this. If anything this "fact" will shock people and it will make people think.

It won't make the "dumb" think.I have done that before and people didn't like that I said it. And that is because people are too "PC" and don't like to hear things that are true. Too bad for them. They assumed incorrectly about what I meant and that isn't my problem.

What good came from it?

Originally posted by dnamertz
The fact that "blacks commit more crime" by itself with no explaination can be misleading. It might not be the fact itself but the way its delivered.
Well it is a fact that blacks commit more crimes. I think what you are trying to say is that you don't care if people say facts, but that some facts need to be said/presented in a different way?

Originally posted by dnamertz
I suspect it.
That's too bad.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I'm not talking about the abortion part of his comment. I didn't like him linking blacks to crime with out explaining why that is, because you know how some people will interpret it.
So what if they interpret it wrong? That's not his fault and he does not have to explain all the facts he decides to say.

Originally posted by dnamertz
What good came from it?
To spark thought. Debate. Questions.

Originally posted by dnamertz
The fact that "blacks commit more crime" by itself with no explaination can be misleading.
No more so than saying guns kill people. A lot of you guys seem to be fond of that one...

This is beyond irritating. Liberals can swing this any way they want to. They can argue WHY the numbers are the way they are, but the numbers themselves do not lie.

How can ARE we supposed to do anything about the crime rate, if we cannot even address important aspects of the problem without being called racist?

I would not care if Bill Bennett would have used illegal Hispanics (who ALSO have a high representation contributing to violent crime). If we do not like what the numbers say about our people, let's change our people.

Originally posted by Overdose
To spark thought. Debate. Questions.
To help motivate someone plant a shiv in your belly...

Those people don't want to hear the truth, OD - they wanna hear that historical injustices, economic disparity, and bad luck has befallen their people, hence, they haven't been able to stop shooting one another (I guess). They're not interested in fact. In short, by merely quoting statistics, you're guilty of being a racist when it comes to certain topics. The funny thing is, if you walk up to a group of black males and flippantly tell them, "African-Americans have a higher crime rate than white people", you'll probably be stabbed, shot, or severely beaten, thus proving the point, but at what cost?

Dna is right, you should just stick to yourself, and stay clear of them. Don’t exacerbate the situation.

Well it is a fact that blacks commit more crimes. I think what you are trying to say is that you don't care if people say facts, but that some facts need to be said/presented in a different way?

Exactly.

No more so than saying guns kill people. A lot of you guys seem to be fond of that one...

I've never used that stupid line.

Liberals can swing this any way they want to.

Who is "swinging"? I'm just explaining why the black crime rate is higher. Are you scared of the facts?

They can argue WHY the numbers are the way they are

Yep, we can.

but the numbers themselves do not lie.

No, but the numbers BY-themselves can be misleading.

Dna is right, you should just stick to yourself, and stay clear of them.

How can I be right? I never said that. Just speak responsibly and if your going to generalize about a race, then explain the reason for your generalization.

Originally posted by dnamertz
How can I be right? I never said that. Just speak responsibly and if your going to generalize about a race, then explain the reason for your generalization.
Fair enough, but you know damn well what they'd do if you said anything along those lines. You'd promptly be forced to wear your ass as a hat, and the kicker is - that's probably a best-case scenario.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Now that is a good reason to state a fact. If you are saying a fact...to generate a discussion on an issue, then that right there is another reason for saying it above and beyond it just being fact. We know Bennett was not trying to do this with his statement about blacks and crime.

This wasn't said at a Klan rally. He stated this while hosting a radio show. Isn't that a situation where on tries "to generate a discussion on an issue".

Bill Bennett has been in politics and public service for many years, and has written extensively. Has he ever before demonstrated any of this bigotry others now see in him. What does it take to earn the benefit of the doubt these days.

This wasn't said at a Klan rally. He stated this while hosting a radio show. Isn't that a situation where on tries "to generate a discussion on an issue".

He didn't state it in a discussion about race, he stated it in a discussion about abortion.

Bill Bennett has been in politics and public service for many years, and has written extensively. Has he ever before demonstrated any of this bigotry others now see in him. What does it take to earn the benefit of the doubt these days.

I give him the benefit of the doubt. I never claimed he was a bigot or a racist...I don't think he is (though I don't know much about him). But in the past week I've heard some people defend his comment by arguing that the black crime rate has nothing to do with their higher poverty rate. People like this are why I think these vague, unexplained generalizations are irresponsible.

How about this.

"If we executed all republicans we could stop wars. Sure its repugnant and impossible, but I'm just saying..."

Okay Brooks and Prea now defend my statement as non-partisan. Ready, Go...

From this article (1999):

*Blacks are 250 times more likely to commit crime upon whites than the reverse.

*Blacks commit crimes at 4 to 8 times the white rate.

*Blacks are appox. twice as likely to commit a "hate" crime than whites.

*Blacks are much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as men are more likey to be arrested than women. To the extent that arrest rates are a good indication of actual criminal behavior-and there is very strong evidence that they are-blacks are as much more dangerous than whites, as men are more dangerous than women.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4oSO5vnaa0oJ:www.amren.com/color.pdf+crime+rates+based+on+race&hl=en

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

This is from 1999 and I cannot confirm or deny the credibility of the source, but reading the article can show, perphaps, why Bennett said what he said and perhaps why many people feel the way he feels, whether PC or not.

Is this because ALL of the blacks who commit these crimes are poor? I doubt it. Most? Probably. Does that excuse it? Absolutely not.

Originally posted by dnamertz
He didn't state it in a discussion about race, he stated it in a discussion about abortion.


How many hairs are you going to split? You said it would be okay if it was in a debate/discussion situation, so I ponted out it was on a radio talk show. Now you're saying "He didn't state it in a discussion about race". C'mon already.

How many hairs are you going to split? You said it would be okay if it was in a debate/discussion situation, so I ponted out it was on a radio talk show. Now you're saying "He didn't state it in a discussion about race". C'mon already.

My point was that I don't think he was intending to spark a debate about why the black crime rate is higher.

*Blacks are much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as men are more likey to be arrested than women. To the extent that arrest rates are a good indication of actual criminal behavior-and there is very strong evidence that they are-blacks are as much more dangerous than whites, as men are more dangerous than women.

Answer this question....Is it your opinion that these numbers are higher for blacks because of their race? Is it your opinion that if all other things were equal (ie, no racism, no differences in poverty rates or socio-economic or family status) that black people would commit more crime than whites because their just a more "dangerous" race?

Answer this question....Is it your opinion that these numbers are higher for blacks because of their race?

No.

Is it your opinion that if all other things were equal (ie, no racism, no differences in poverty rates or socio-economic or family status) that black people would commit more crime than whites because their just a more "dangerous" race?

If it was equal, there would not be conflicts, and that would mean the human race destroyed itself.

My point was that I don't think he was intending to spark a debate about why the black crime rate is higher.

Alright, fair enough. But Mr. Bennet did not make a racist statement, he was sharing a statistic and presenting a mock theory that he did not support. It was merely for explanation purposes, not racist propaganda.

Why is the black crime rate higher?
Aside from the lengthy discourse i could type up on the history of african americans after the civil war and to the present day explaining the reasons for this situation, i will go with the quick one word summary: poverty.

It is not easy for men to rise whose qualities are thwarted by poverty.
Juvenal -a Roman poet and satirist.

Originally posted by dnamertz
My point was that I don't think he was intending to spark a debate about why the black crime rate is higher.

Stop telling me what is ISN'T. Why then, do you feel, he said it?

BROOKS wrote:
Stop telling me what is ISN'T. Why then, do you feel, he said it?

He said it as an example of how someone can make an extreme, absurd argument in favor of abortion.

If we executed all republicans we could stop wars. Sure its repugnant and impossible, but I'm just saying...

http://sts.synflood.de/dump/fun/Stfu.jpg

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If we executed all republicans we could stop wars. Sure its repugnant and impossible, but I'm just saying...
Do you honestly think that's true?

If we executed all democrats we could actually produce a society that is defendant upon their own hard work and ambition instead of the government and tax based social programs.

We could go on forever talking about how executions of one group of people will impact our society. What is the point exactly other than to make an assertion look utterly ridiculous?

Bill already admitted that the action would be reprehensible. What we are doing now is no less reprehensible.

Originally posted by Divalatina
If we executed all democrats we could actually produce a society that is defendant upon their own hard work and ambition instead of the government and tax based social programs.



defendant would be dependant naturally. :)

Originally posted by Divalatina
defendant would be dependant naturally. :)
The paralegal stuff is creeping up on you, isn't it? :D

Yes, I suppose it is. Of course it could be one of those freudian slips...

You guys are holding your tounges because I've already exposed my hand but Divalatina made my point.

My statement was inherently partisan.
Bills a racist prick.

Yes, I believe my statement is true but I believe the same about Democrats as well.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If we executed all republicans we could stop wars. Sure its repugnant and impossible, but I'm just saying...

Republicans?

WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam?

These are kind of obscure, I know, but there's plenty of information about them on the internet.

If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up


LB- I just wanted to let you know that I have included this in my signature on another forum, giving you credit of course.


It sums up so much about those with poor debating skills. :)