BigAL Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Nice response. I've got two bones to pick with it: 1) Like it or not, there IS a link between crime and race: blacks in this country are more likely to be impoverished, and impoverished people are more likely to commit crimes (particularly "violent" crimes or crimes against a person or property). 2) "[F]undamental" link? Nowhere do I see anything implied that is "fundamental". He implies a link. I think anyone not living in a Skinnerian Box would have a hard time arguing that there is not a link. But "fundamental"? Show me where that's even implicit in his statements. 460168[/snapback] 1) I'm with KTD on this one. Yes the link between poverty and crime is there, but I don't believe that is what Bennet is referring to. I believe he skips to a direct correlation between skin color and crime. 2) Fundamental is implied in his statment that crime will go down when you kill the black babies. He didn't say poor, or single mothers, or high crime urban areas. As stated above it was a direct link to skin color. Without prefacing his statement with any kind of socio-economic factors, what else can be inferred?
stuckincincy Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Different topic. What Bennett said is one thing. The First Amendment is more an issue to be discussed in the context of idiots like Pelosi who are calling for the White House to shut Bennett up. 460159[/snapback] Stop compartmentalizing free speech lest we get into another gneiss discussion...
Mickey Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 In other words, there is a connection between poverty and race...and ergo, a non-causal connection between crime and race. I wholeheartedly agree. Which does not explain why you conveniently discard it in this case. 460145[/snapback] As long as we are making connections.....racism causes a higher rate of poverty among its victims and increased poverty leads to all sorts of ills which, together combine to lead to higher crime. Thus, the best way to lower crime rates would be to kill racists, not black babies. Of all things he could have used in his twisted analogy, he used race. The debate here seems to be over whether he is a racist or simply very stupid. I suggest a third possibility, perhaps he is a stupid racist.
Pete Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Was Bennett wrong? I am a proponent of free speech
blzrul Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Different topic. What Bennett said is one thing. The First Amendment is more an issue to be discussed in the context of idiots like Pelosi who are calling for the White House to shut Bennett up. 460159[/snapback] Which the White House did. So either Pelosi was right, or the White House is a bunch of candy-ass, pandering wimps. Choose your poison.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Was Bennett wrong? I am a proponent of free speech 460203[/snapback] Whether or not what Bennett said was racist is entirely arguable, and there are good arguments to both sides. But let me get this straight, you're implying that any racist comment, however egregious or hurtful, would be perfectly fine and not wrong because it would be free speech?
Pete Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 But let me get this straight, you're implying that any racist comment, however egregious or hurtful, would be perfectly fine and not wrong because it would be free speech? 460227[/snapback] Absolutely. You have the right to be ignorant. Words are just words. I have had it with political correctness. Go ahead and call me a Cracker, a Mick, Whitey, whatever. Its only words.
UConn James Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Was Bennett wrong? I am a proponent of free speech 460203[/snapback] As Garrison Keillor says, paraphrasing here, Freedom of speech is like the freedom to jump off the roof and fly --- you can try it, but there'll be consequences. FoS is about no prior restraint from and no jail time for people speaking their minds. It says nothing about what might happen as a result of what you say. You can be fired, ostracized, given detention, fined by the NFL, etc.... Especially when you say something as stupid as this guy. With all of his (and I would add Pat Robertson in the same vein) blunders over the years, why hasn't he crawled off to a cave yet, and why does he still have any semblence of influence in the Repub. party and society in general? Good on the Dems for exercising their own freedom of speech.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Absolutely. You have the right to be ignorant. Words are just words. I have had it with political correctness. Go ahead and call me a Cracker, a Mick, Whitey, whatever. Its only words. 460258[/snapback] If that were true, there would never be any barfights or arguments or screaming matches with your wife and your kids could just tell strangers on the street to fukk off and eat shitt, dad, and go up to their teacher for no reason and say "Blow me, homo" because, after all, they're just words.
BigAL Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Absolutely. You have the right to be ignorant. Words are just words. I have had it with political correctness. Go ahead and call me a Cracker, a Mick, Whitey, whatever. Its only words. 460258[/snapback] If Bennet said this while he was still the secretary of education or the drug czar, I would expect his ass to be fired the next day. I don't care if he holds those beliefs, but he needs to go if he's in a position of power toact on them.
Pete Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 As Garrison Keillor says, paraphrasing here, Freedom of speech is like the freedom to jump off the roof and fly --- you can try it, but there'll be consequences. FoS is about no prior restraint from and no jail time for people speaking their minds. It says nothing about what might happen as a result of what you say. You can be fired, ostracized, given detention, fined by the NFL, etc.... Especially when you say something as stupid as this guy. With all of his (and I would add Pat Robertson in the same vein) blunders over the years, why hasn't he crawled off to a cave yet, and why does he still have any semblence of influence in the Repub. party and society in general? Good on the Dems for exercising their own freedom of speech. 460264[/snapback] agreed. When people speak out against a comment that is also free speech. Like I said though- I have had it with political correctness. Example- I was in Amsterdam(the most PC place in the world), last March and I was telling a story and said something like "...gigantic black man in Berlin" and the whole restauraunt is like "ooooohhh!" and someone said "you cant say that". WTF? Why cant I? I say what I feel. I could of described him as an African American except I was in the Netherlands. People need to stop being so sensitive.
Pete Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 If that were true, there would never be any barfights or arguments or screaming matches with your wife and your kids could just tell strangers on the street to fukk off and eat shitt, dad, and go up to their teacher for no reason and say "Blow me, homo" because, after all, they're just words. 460271[/snapback] I guess they never subscibed to "sticks and stones". I think people should always be respectful of one another. There is no law saying they have to though. Thats there perogitive. Thought police is on par with book burnings in my book
Kelly the Dog Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 I guess they never subscibed to "sticks and stones". I think people should always be respectful of one another. There is no law saying they have to though. Thats there perogitive. Thought police is on par with book burnings in my book 460284[/snapback] But if you say something racist, you're being hugely disrespectful, and therefore it is wrong. It's not illegal, it's just dead wrong. Screwing your best friend's wife is not illegal, making love is beautiful, sex carries on the species, it may even be consentual, it's just dead wrong.
Pete Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 But if you say something racist, you're being hugely disrespectful, and therefore it is wrong. It's not illegal, it's just dead wrong. Screwing your best friend's wife is not illegal, making love is beautiful, sex carries on the species, it's just dead wrong. 460287[/snapback] Right and wrong is subjective. I know racist comments are disrespectful and wrong. But it is up to the indivisual to determine what is right and wrong. Everyone has their own code they live to. Doesnt NOW make ignorant comments? What about Jessie Jackson calling New York Hymietown? How about when the media portrays Bush as Hitler? All are wrong but all have the right to say it. I am ok with that
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Which the White House did. So either Pelosi was right, or the White House is a bunch of candy-ass, pandering wimps. Choose your poison. 460221[/snapback] I've been pretty consistent in calling the White House a bunch of candy-ass pandering wimps (actually, I've called them "politicians", which is pretty much the same damned thing). The correct response should have been "Bennet, as a private citizen, not only has a right to any opinion he sees fit to believe but a right to express it under the First Amendment. He does not, however, represent the White House, and the White House does not represent him."
RkFast Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 As long as we are making connections.....racism causes a higher rate of poverty among its victims and increased poverty leads to all sorts of ills which, together combine to lead to higher crime. Thus, the best way to lower crime rates would be to kill racists, not black babies. Of all things he could have used in his twisted analogy, he used race. The debate here seems to be over whether he is a racist or simply very stupid. I suggest a third possibility, perhaps he is a stupid racist. 460200[/snapback] Hows the Kool Aid?
blzrul Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 If Bennet said this while he was still the secretary of education or the drug czar, I would expect his ass to be fired the next day. I don't care if he holds those beliefs, but he needs to go if he's in a position of power toact on them. 460282[/snapback] Isn't this the same guy who wrote "The Book of Virtues"? hmmmm
post modern age Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Since they can't compete with ideas, they need to resort to this type of behavior. It is no wonder they can't win elections. 459867[/snapback] Not that I'm an advocate for the Liberal Party anymore than the Conservative Party, but I can tell you quite frankly that while the Conservative Party does its best to masturbate itself into a pending loss, and the Liberals lose all sorts of rationale, post modern socialism is going to sweep the country very soon. The blatant ideological and social conservatism that Conservatives have used as a withstanding party line for eight years now is a fading trend -- when the Evangelicals money stops, so does your influence, and just as impractical as the Conservative idea is the Liberal idea that the world has any remaining capability to be a vast and open wonderland. You're both wrong. The only reason the Conservatives are winning elections is because they have the ability to screw the current system up faster.
Mickey Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Absolutely. You have the right to be ignorant. Words are just words. I have had it with political correctness. Go ahead and call me a Cracker, a Mick, Whitey, whatever. Its only words. 460258[/snapback] I think you are confusing the right to say what ever you want and the right to have people agree or applaud you for it. He can say whatever he wants and in response, others have the right to say what they want as well. Thus, we can say that he was wrong to make those comments without denying his right to make them. In fact, I am glad he did because he lets us all know a little bit more about how he thinks.
RkFast Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 I think you are confusing the right to say what ever you want and the right to have people agree or applaud you for it. He can say whatever he wants and in response, others have the right to say what they want as well. Thus, we can say that he was wrong to make those comments without denying his right to make them. In fact, I am glad he did because he lets us all know a little bit more about how he thinks. 460714[/snapback] Its just amazing how a smart guy like you can be so off base on this issue. Either youre pulling a Debbie or drunk on Kool Aid.
Recommended Posts