A casual scan of today's headlines reveals: SEC is about to pop Bill Frist for insider trading in his "blind" trust; Cheney's Chief of Staff has been named, along with Karl Rove, in the treasonous outing of a government undercover operative (can Cheney be far behind?); Tom DeLay indicted by a grand jury in Texas for numerous campaign finance violations; and then out of left field, Bill Bennett comes up with this doozy: "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."

Bill, I've got a quicker and better idea: let's lock up all the Republicans inside the Beltway!

Libby, Rove nor Cheney would have the clearance and need to know for a NOC list.

Although they all are implicated in some way, chances are the leaker is Bolton who had petitioned the CIA for the information.

To all truth twisting liberals...............

Bennett's statements were taken way out of contex.

What did Bennett say right after the baby statement?

As for Delay, there is no evidence to support the bogus charges.

The charges won't stick, you liberals will end up eating your

words.

Originally posted by gmsisko1
To all truth twisting liberals...............


To gmsisko;

How are you coming on that substantiating evidence for your claim about the 500 tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq???!?!?!

Anything yet?!?!

Anything at all??

I mean, you know. Since we're talking about people **eating their words**.

What did Bennett say right after the baby statement? There's only one thing he can say: "I'm terribly sorry for being such a completely insensitive bigot and I am signing off the airwaves." But he hasn't said that yet. Anything less is a lame cop-out. There was NOTHING taken out of context; no need to. The fact that this turkey was once the SECRETARY OF EDUCATION for Reagan AND Bush speaks volumes for the real mind-set of that pathetic crowd of goobers. As an American, I'm ashamed. And to any advertiser that continues to stick with that loser, I would say you deserve what you got coming.

Apparently, Bennett is on a different plane than his critics. Isn't anyone familiar with analogies, hypotheticals and debate. Grow up. Here's his whole statement, conveniently abridged by the objective media and allforums participants:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Originally posted by gmsisko1
To all truth twisting liberals...............

Bennett's statements were taken way out of contex.

What did Bennett say right after the baby statement?

As for Delay, there is no evidence to support the bogus charges.

The charges won't stick, you liberals will end up eating your

words.

Frist is being taken down by his own (the republican party) because he backs stem cell research. This is red meat for the god-guns-gays crowd.

The charges will stick.

On edit:

Bennett started his statement with the 2 words I believe - that alone makes the statemet his personally philosophy and personal message, regardless of how much FOX news tells us he was misunderestimated out of context when he misspoke a misnomer that fooled me once can't be fooled again.

Here's what one of his major sponsors has to say ...

Dear customers and consumers of Verbal Advantage:

Please understand that we do not agree nor adhere to any beliefs or opinions of above said person. As a way of not standing behind the comments made by Bill Bennett we have detracted all association from him. We are neither longer sponsoring nor advertising on his radio show.

Sincerely,

Verbal Advantage

On another edit:

Conyers blog ...

He has 57 signatories for an explanation of Bennett's remark and not one of them is a republican. More proof that republicanism = racism.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000261.htm

That's not Bill Bennett! That's Norm Peterson!
Or is someone going to tell me they weren't sep'd at birth?

"Evening, everybody!"
"BILL!"
"William."
"What's your pleasure, Mr. Bennett?"
"Aborted black babies."

disregarding the big fat white guy I thought it was Margaret Sanger...

Bennett's statements were taken way out of contex.

What did Bennett say right after the baby statement?


The people defending Bennett's comments are under the impression that our problem with it is that he is calling for the abortion of all black babies. That is not what we're complaining about. I heard and read the entire exchange...I understand the point he was making, and I know he is anti abortion. The problem was linkng crime to a skin color. So the truth twisting is being done by those trying to deflect the comments to the abortion aspect of it. Even Bush said Bennet was wrong.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I understand the point he was making, and I know (Bennett) is anti abortion. The problem was linkng crime to a skin color.

ROTFL.

People fretting over a Conservative linking crime to skin color (IOW--the perpetual lament of the Amurican Rightwinger; "It's all them n*gger's fault we have so much crime in this country!!") is like complaining about a dog licking his nutsack.

It's just what they do.....and no one is ever going to convince them not to do it.

Originally posted by Freethinker
People fretting over a Conservative linking crime to skin color (IOW--the perpetual lament of the Amurican Rightwinger; [i]"It's all them n*gger's fault we have so much crime in this country.


Who said anything like that? Vintage Freethinker.

The discussion was about whether or not abortion has caused Social Security contributions to go down. Bennett felt that that wasn't a valid pro-life argument. He then went on to say that using black abortion to cause a drop in crime was morally reprehensible. Wow, what a racist.

And, if people were mature enough for a purely objective discussion, aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans WOULD cause a drop in crime.

BoyKorda, if that's too hard to understand.......

Originally posted by Brooks
Who said anything like that?


Bill Bennett.

The story's been quite prominent in the news lately.

You should check it out.

Originally posted by Brooks
if people were mature enough for a purely objective discussion, aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans WOULD cause a drop in crime.

LOL.

IF Bennett had said -- ""aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans would cause a drop in crime""......we would not be having this discussion.

Originally posted by Freethinker
IF Bennett had said -- ""aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans would cause a drop in crime""......we would not be having this discussion.

The guy was making an analogy. People listening with an agenda can misinterpret it all they want (which you tend to do - often and inaccurately).

Originally posted by Brooks
The guy was making an analogy. People listening with an agenda can misinterpret it all they want

I agree with you completely that Bennett was NOT in any way advocating any abortion of "all black babies". And I , like you, think that very few people are aware of the subtleties and nuances of scholarly debate, where allegory, analogies and hypotheticals may be used to get point acrosss.

Where we disagree, i guess, is that i think he was making sure to get in a jab at the blacks by making a veiled reference to how "blacks are criminals".

If that was NOT his intent, why wouldn't a person as bright as Bennett have SAID --""aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans or all children of ANY race would cause a drop in crime""

IOW, he was likely throwing a bone to his uber-conservative base; that vast segment of rightwing society who DO think that crime is linked to (black) skin color.

And, if people were mature enough for a purely objective discussion, aborting all black children, or all white children, or all Navajos, or all Albanian-Americans WOULD cause a drop in crime.

True, but why did he choose to use black people in his example? Why was that the first race to pop into his mind?

So linking crime to a skin color is wrong? Even if there is evidence upon evidence that one skin color contributes in larger numbers to our crime rate? I would not have been offended if he mentioned illegal mexican immigrants, because it is true!

Why do we have a problem making any assessments based on race. We do contribute to this country in different ways, what is the problems with stating facts without being called a bigot?

Originally posted by Divalatina
So linking crime to a skin color is wrong? Even if there is evidence upon evidence that one skin color contributes in larger numbers to our crime rate? I would not have been offended if he mentioned illegal mexican immigrants, because it is true!

Why do we have a problem making any assessments based on race. We do contribute to this country in different ways, what is the problems with stating facts without being called a bigot? One still has to take into account that arrest rates ar not accurate because racial profiling plays a big part in who is and who is not arrested.


African-Americans convicted in Alabama of drug crimes are nearly twice as likely to receive jail time as whites, and nearly 2 1/2 times as likely to receive prison terms of one year or more, according to a Birmingham Post-Herald analysis of drug convictions from 1990 through mid-1997. The Post-Herald's analysis was based on information provided by the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts (Steve Joynt, "Prison sentencings reveal racial disparities," Birmingham Post-Herald, November 30, 1997).

The study showed that for every type of drug, blacks stood a greater chance of receiving jail time than whites: 64% of blacks convicted of cocaine possession received prison terms, compared to 48% of whites; and 35% of blacks received prison terms for marijuana possession convictions as opposed to 31% of whites.

Race also plays a big part in how people ares sentenced.

If you can take that in to account and ajust the crime rate to fit stats. then no there is no problem

Originally posted by dnamertz
True, but why did he choose to use black people in his example? Why was that the first race to pop into his mind?

Here's where PC becomes a chicken and egg argument.

It would have been OK to cite any other race BESIDES black? Isn't that racism?

No one said that those numbers were inaccurate! No one said that social conditions did not lead to disproportionate arrest rates. He simply mentioned lowering the crime rates! He did not say all things were fair.

It would have been wrong to plug any race in to such a nasty statement.

Originally posted by dnamertz
True, but why did he choose to use black people in his example? Why was that the first race to pop into his mind?
Simply because, while representing 13% of our population, their collective criminal activities contribute to a rough mean of 42% nationally. Of all the crimes committed, 30 percent of those arrested for "serious" crimes were black, as were 41 percent of those arrested for "violent" crimes and 56 percent of those arrested for murder. Oh, I don't know........maybe, just maybe, that's why Bennett chose to cite their race as an example here, and come to think of it, I really don't believe it was unfair, nor was it arbitrary. Bitch over the numbers all you want, but don't attack the messenger.

I imagine that you and I agree about most things.


Except immigration.

Originally posted by Divalatina
I imagine that you and I agree about most things.


Except immigration.
Probably, and if it hasn’t been said, then I'll say it: Welcome to Allforums, Divalatina. :)

I do have a question though...

Are you pretty? ;)

I have been told that I am gorgeous, and thank you.

Originally posted by The Praetorian


Are you pretty? ;)

You're one horny dude.

So linking crime to a skin color is wrong? Even if there is evidence upon evidence that one skin color contributes in larger numbers to our crime rate?

Yes, it is wrong to generalize about an entire race. Plus, their "skin color" is not what contributes to the larger crime rate. Until you clarify the actual reason behind their crime rate being higher, you are just feeding into stereotypes with blanket statements like that.

Then I guess that would revert back to the original statement. Bill Bennet simply was clarifying that there was not a fast and quick solution to our crime problem. If you want to see it as racist, you will.

I have faced every sort of discrimination possible, sexism, racism, classism. I still get called a racist, homophobe, and sexist because I am not afraid to admit that racial differences MUST be discussed when we talk about social issues. If you cannot address ALL of the problem, then you how can you create an all encompassing solution?

Then I guess that would revert back to the original statement. Bill Bennet simply was clarifying that there was not a fast and quick solution to our crime problem. If you want to see it as racist, you will.

I don't see it as racist. I see it as a careless generalization.

I have faced every sort of discrimination possible, sexism, racism, classism. I still get called a racist, homophobe, and sexist because I am not afraid to admit that racial differences MUST be discussed when we talk about social issues. If you cannot address ALL of the problem, then you how can you create an all encompassing solution?

I also agree racial differences must be discussed. Bill Bennett did not discuss them. He just threw out the remark about blacks having a higher crime rate and gave no explaination or solultion, even in the days that followed his comments.

Let me ask you, after making that inflammatory statement, what explanation could he have given that would have satisfied you? I am willing to bet nothing.

YES it is a great fallacy to believe that eliminating one part of the problem (associated with crime in our country), will make the entire problem go away, but I hardly fault Bill Bennet for not further explaining something that is evident.

The fact that 13% of the population contributes to more than 40% of the crime in this country is explanation in itself.

I am pro-life, anti-death penalty and a minority myself. So you do not have the idea that I am wearing a Klansman suit.

I do not porport to believe that his so called "solution" is a viable one, but HEY then again, neither did he.

Let me ask you, after making that inflammatory statement, what explanation could he have given that would have satisfied you? I am willing to bet nothing.

YES it is a great fallacy to believe that eliminating one part of the problem (associated with crime in our country), will make the entire problem go away, but I hardly fault Bill Bennet for not further explaining something that is evident.

The fact that 13% of the population contributes to more than 40% of the crime in this country is explanation in itself.

I am pro-life, anti-death penalty and a minority myself. So you do not have the idea that I am wearing a Klansman suit.

I do not porport to believe that his so called "solution" is a viable one, but HEY then again, neither did he.

Originally posted by Divalatina
So you do not have the idea that I am wearing a Klansman suit.

Some might.

Originally posted by Divalatina
I do not porport to believe that his so called "solution" is a viable one, but HEY then again, neither did he.

????

A person who --as you haughtily claim to be-- is *educated and cultured* ought to be aware that the word is spelled --purport-- not "porport".

The fact that the spelling error, and not the actual content of the argument is what you chose to find fault with, does not speak very well for your debating abilities.

Originally posted by Divalatina
The fact that the spelling error, and not the actual content of the argument is what you chose to find fault with, does not speak very well for your debating abilities.

MSE

Originally posted by Freethinker
A person who --as you haughtily claim to be-- is *educated and cultured* ought to be aware that the word is spelled --purport-- not "porport".
Actually, when she wrote the word yesterday, I knew it wasn't spelled correctly, but I checked dictionary.com anyway, and they DO have an entry for proport. Check it out if you want...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proport

Originally posted by Divalatina
I do not porport to believe that his so called "solution" is a viable one, but HEY then again, neither did he.
Very well put, Diva. :)

Originally posted by Freethinker
Some might.
And why should she waste her time talking to those morons?