On 30 Sep 2005 13:35:48 -0700, "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote:
White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks 1 hour, 39 minutes>ago>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday criticized as "not>appropriate" a comment from former Education Secretary William Bennett>that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate.>
Bennett, a conservative radio commentator, stirred outrage for saying>on his talk show on Wednesday: "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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing>to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said on his call-in>program "Morning in America.">
"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House>spokesman Scott McClellan said.
"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message news:1128116990.738306.178130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
chilly wrote:> >
What point are you and John trying to make here?>
That it was a dumb statement made by former Education Secretary William> Bennett regardless of the caveats he attached to it. He has way too> much experience dealing with the press to believe he wasn't going to be> quoted out of context. Anyone with half a clue should be able to see> that.>
The fact that Prez Bush agreed that it was dumb is a good thing, and> I'm poking a small stick at apologists that think - or at least profess> to think - differently.>
Can't speak for John tho, he marches to his own drummer.
I don't think it would matter if he was quoted *in* context.
Where's that chain and asphalt Grumman is always talking about.
"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message news:1128112548.840029.98440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks 1 hour, 39 minutes> ago> <snip>
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message news:104f1$433dd798$18d64cf6$32178@KNOLOGY.NET...>
"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message> news:1128112548.840029.98440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks 1 hour, 39 minutes> > ago> >
"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message news:LLk%e.23767$tl2.15316@pd7tw3no...>
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:104f1$433dd798$18d64cf6$32178@KNOLOGY.NET...> >
"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message> > news:1128112548.840029.98440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > > White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks 1 hour, 39 minutes> > > ago> > >
<snip>> >
And did you read the article?>
What are you trying to say, Dennis?>
Just wondering hwo many folks had gotten this far:
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward. Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means,"
It looked like he was arguing about folks who claim "the end justifies the means".
On 30 Sep 2005 14:49:50 -0700, "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote:
chilly wrote:>>
What point are you and John trying to make here?>
That it was a dumb statement made by former Education Secretary William>Bennett regardless of the caveats he attached to it. He has way too>much experience dealing with the press to believe he wasn't going to be>quoted out of context. Anyone with half a clue should be able to see>that.>
The fact that Prez Bush agreed that it was dumb is a good thing, and>I'm poking a small stick at apologists that think - or at least profess>to think - differently.>
Can't speak for John tho, he marches to his own drummer.
Yeah. What he said. Screw the drum. But .... d'ya ever wonder how much input the Prez really had into that judgement?
Just wondering hwo many folks had gotten this far:>
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.>Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To>recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime>rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that>the ends can justify the means,">
It looked like he was arguing about folks who claim "the end justifies the>means".>
Was it a bad example? Sure was.>
I think Geo hit the nail on the head. It's bad politickin' to expect folks to read more than one very short sentence.
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k0o%e.404$Q53.376@tornado.texas.rr.com...> "chilly" wrote in message news:KEi%e.22646$tl2.6465@pd7tw3no...> > Where's that chain and asphalt Grumman is always talking about.>
Why? Ya' got a socialist that needs a tour of the countryside?
"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:foprj19ntf2k7momb10sls0g59tboqtnsp@4ax.com...> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:49:27 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:>
Just wondering hwo many folks had gotten this far:> >
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.> >Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To> >recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your
crime> >rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that> >the ends can justify the means,"> >
It looked like he was arguing about folks who claim "the end justifies
means".> >
Was it a bad example? Sure was.> >
I think Geo hit the nail on the head. It's bad politickin' to expect> folks to read more than one very short sentence.
"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message news:sbp%e.25786$tl2.17855@pd7tw3no...>
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:k0o%e.404$Q53.376@tornado.texas.rr.com...> > "chilly" wrote in message news:KEi%e.22646$tl2.6465@pd7tw3no...> > > Where's that chain and asphalt Grumman is always talking about.> >
Why? Ya' got a socialist that needs a tour of the countryside?>
Nah . . . Bennett.>
Why? Do you think he's advocating "aborting every black baby"?
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message news:341b6$433ddc22$18d64cf6$11159@KNOLOGY.NET...
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.> Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To> recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your > crime> rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue > that> the ends can justify the means,"
He's talking about what he said, in hindsight. What did he really say the first time and was his statement really taken out of context?
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message news:95646$433e586a$18d64cf6$12443@KNOLOGY.NET...
Why?> Do you think he's advocating "aborting every black baby"?>
Dennis
Obviously he's considered it.
The thought had never crossed my mind before hearing it from Bennett, but maybe I'm unique and the rest of y'all sit around all day thinking about ingenious ways to solve the crime problem. "Gee, we could abort all black babies. Naw, it would never work, gimme another Bud Light".
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11jtg6up8uvomb9@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:341b6$433ddc22$18d64cf6$11159@KNOLOGY.NET...>
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.> > Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To> > recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your> > crime> > rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue> > that> > the ends can justify the means,">
He's talking about what he said, in hindsight. What did he really say the> first time and was his statement really taken out of context?>
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick 2 October 2005 02:14:07 [ permanent link ]
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message news:icD%e.4549$Q53.1248@tornado.texas.rr.com...> "Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11jtgb7pusv1a1e@corp.supernews.com...>> The thought had never crossed my mind before hearing it from Bennett, but>> maybe I'm unique and the rest of y'all sit around all day thinking about>> ingenious ways to solve the crime problem.>
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message news:icD%e.4549$Q53.1248@tornado.texas.rr.com...> "Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11jtgb7pusv1a1e@corp.supernews.com...>> The thought had never crossed my mind before hearing it from Bennett, but>> maybe I'm unique and the rest of y'all sit around all day thinking about>> ingenious ways to solve the crime problem.>
The same could be said of rednecks. If it doesn't work, at the least our fields and forests will be clean of beer cans and our next president will be Hillary.
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message news:bc0fd$433eceed$18d64cf6$15081@KNOLOGY.NET...>
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message> news:11jtg6up8uvomb9@corp.supernews.com...>> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message>> news:341b6$433ddc22$18d64cf6$11159@KNOLOGY.NET...>>
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.>> > Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To>> > recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your>> > crime>> > rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue>> > that>> > the ends can justify the means,">>
He's talking about what he said, in hindsight. What did he really say >> the>> first time and was his statement really taken out of context?>>
Yes - read the article.
What article?
"Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton said on CNN that Bennett's comments were 'blatantly racist. ... [Bennett] stated as a fact that if you did this, it would in fact lower the crime rate, which clearly is him making blacks and crime synonymous.'"
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k02napdb2djf8@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:bc0fd$433eceed$18d64cf6$15081@KNOLOGY.NET...> >
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message> > news:11jtg6up8uvomb9@corp.supernews.com...> >> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> >> news:341b6$433ddc22$18d64cf6$11159@KNOLOGY.NET...> >>
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.> >> > Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible.
recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower
your> >> > crime> >> > rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue> >> > that> >> > the ends can justify the means,"> >>
He's talking about what he said, in hindsight. What did he really say> >> the> >> first time and was his statement really taken out of context?> >>
Yes - read the article.>
What article?>
"Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton said on CNN that Bennett's> comments were 'blatantly racist. ... [Bennett] stated as a fact that if
did this, it would in fact lower the crime rate, which clearly is him
"Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11k02h2h0g2ksc7@corp.supernews.com...> The same could be said of rednecks. If it doesn't work, at the least our> fields and forests will be clean of beer cans and our next president will
Hillary.
So, you're admitting that might be your only chance to get Hillary elected?
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fdV%e.7481$Q53.3095@tornado.texas.rr.com...> "Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11k02h2h0g2ksc7@corp.supernews.com...>> The same could be said of rednecks. If it doesn't work, at the least our>> fields and forests will be clean of beer cans and our next president will> be>> Hillary.>
So, you're admitting that might be your only chance to get Hillary > elected?
Katrina helped with the southern states. Now we just need to flood the entire midwest. Where's God when you need 40 days of rain?
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k090qim5ickb1@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:51efb$43401550$18d64cf6$28234@KNOLOGY.NET...>
Only if you agree that there are, indeed, some black criminals.>
There are, indeed, some white criminals. Why didn't he talk about
aborting> all white babies instead?>
There are more male criminals than female criminals. Therefore, he should have talked about aborting only males.
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k090qim5ickb1@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:51efb$43401550$18d64cf6$28234@KNOLOGY.NET...>
Only if you agree that there are, indeed, some black criminals.>
There are, indeed, some white criminals. Why didn't he talk about
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message news:11k1cg32i8coiae@news.supernews.com...
Hey, suds, I got some bloodstains on my new Spiegel Grove T-shirt, you
any advice for that?>
You use a stain stick, or a pre-soak, what?>
I would use dish-detergent. You know, the stuff you use to clean your plate off after your 2# stake. Apply it to the stain, rub it in, wait a few minutes, start a normal load of whites (assuming the t-shirt is white) and through it in.
Personally, I've stopped worrying about blood stains. All my jeans are covered with them. Hey, when I'm out working do you think I've got the time to waste putting a 'boo-boo on my owie?"
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick 3 October 2005 18:46:57 [ permanent link ]
"Satan" <Scottsucksmonkeyballs@shrub.gov> wrote in message news:EPa0f.1299$wg.899@tornado.socal.rr.com...>
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message> news:11k1cg32i8coiae@news.supernews.com...>
Hey, suds, I got some bloodstains on my new Spiegel Grove T-shirt, you> got>> any advice for that?>>
You use a stain stick, or a pre-soak, what?>>
I would use dish-detergent. You know, the stuff you use to clean your > plate> off after your 2# stake. Apply it to the stain, rub it in, wait a few> minutes, start a normal load of whites (assuming the t-shirt is white) and> through it in.
Want the scoop, talk to an expert.
Personally, I've stopped worrying about blood stains. All my jeans are> covered with them. Hey, when I'm out working do you think I've got the > time> to waste putting a 'boo-boo on my owie?">
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k3433307dmj77@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:ab722$43411c47$18d64cf6$2617@KNOLOGY.NET...> >
I'm asking you since you're his cheerleader. Please tell me how he's
racist because I know you wouldn't knowingly cheerlead for a racist.> >>
Its that whole "prove a negative" thing.>
You don't have to "prove" anything. Just give me enough info to convince> me.>
I dont think there's anything I can say that would convince you. Regardless of what I say, you'd discount it.
"Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message news:JAd0f.9180$Q53.4565@tornado.texas.rr.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote in message> news:9135f$43411c48$18d64cf6$2617@KNOLOGY.NET...> > We should be able to watch that play out in China.>
I hope it works for them... Otherwise, their predilection for large
families> is going to cause serious problems down the road...>
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message news:11577$4341d1c0$18d64cf6$27841@KNOLOGY.NET...
I dont think there's anything I can say that would convince you.> Regardless of what I say, you'd discount it.
I'll admit that it's an uphill battle trying to convince me that someone who makes such a blatantly racist statement isn't racist, but go for it. Maybe he has Tourette's Syndrome.
"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:an8rj191uo3oskhjqm0b2olks22klkmrim@4ax.com...> On 30 Sep 2005 13:35:48 -0700, "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote:>
White House criticizes Bennett's remarks on blacks 1 hour, 39 minutes> >ago> >
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday criticized as "not> >appropriate" a comment from former Education Secretary William Bennett> >that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate.> >
Bennett, a conservative radio commentator, stirred outrage for saying> >on his talk show on Wednesday: "But I do know that it's true that if> >you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose,> >you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate> >would go down."> >
"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing> >to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said on his call-in> >program "Morning in America."> >
"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House> >spokesman Scott McClellan said.>
The President should have read more carefully.
If he was speaking in a context where crime rate was viewed on a number of crimes basis, he'd be correct. Of course, the same could be said for white babies, Hispanic babies, Asian babies, etc...
If he was speaking in a context of crime rate as a per capita number, I'm not so sure it would be as effective as he seems to think.
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k08v2icnpt98f@corp.supernews.com...> "Grumman-581" <grumman(five)(eight)(one)@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:fdV%e.7481$Q53.3095@tornado.texas.rr.com...> > "Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11k02h2h0g2ksc7@corp.supernews.com...> >> The same could be said of rednecks. If it doesn't work, at the least
fields and forests will be clean of beer cans and our next president
will> > be> >> Hillary.> >
So, you're admitting that might be your only chance to get Hillary> > elected?>
Katrina helped with the southern states. Now we just need to flood the> entire midwest. Where's God when you need 40 days of rain?>
Are you saying that only the democrats would be stupid enough to stay so those states would convert to dem states?
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:11k02napdb2djf8@corp.supernews.com...> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> news:bc0fd$433eceed$18d64cf6$15081@KNOLOGY.NET...> >
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message> > news:11jtg6up8uvomb9@corp.supernews.com...> >> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message> >> news:341b6$433ddc22$18d64cf6$11159@KNOLOGY.NET...> >>
"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward.> >> > Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible.
recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower
your> >> > crime> >> > rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue> >> > that> >> > the ends can justify the means,"> >>
He's talking about what he said, in hindsight. What did he really say> >> the> >> first time and was his statement really taken out of context?> >>
Yes - read the article.>
What article?>
"Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton said on CNN that Bennett's> comments were 'blatantly racist.
Al Sharpton appears to believe that all white people are blatantly racist. What's your point?
We already have hashed to death that Jonny Pauly Monty is going to NASCAR.>>>
What can we talk about until Friday?>>
The cricket starts on Thursday.>>
Yes, try to explain us the rules, we'll need more than "until friday" to understand this >
How does it go again ? 2 guys go out to bat until one is caught out in which case he is out and must go in, but as he goes in, another comes out and goes in to bat out until he is caught and also must go out. This repeats until they all are out, meaning that they all went back in and nobody is left to go out.
We already have hashed to death that Jonny Pauly Monty is going to NASCAR.>>>>
What can we talk about until Friday? >>> The cricket starts on Thursday.>> At the moment, that can only be bad news?>
Why? Injuries aside, we have a healthy team.
Despite the series whitewash? I know the one-day side and the test side aren't exactly the same and I know being good/bad at one doesn't carry to being good/bad in the other but I can't help thinking we're going to struggle somewhat. Time will tell, of course.
We already have hashed to death that Jonny Pauly Monty is going to NASCAR.>>>>
What can we talk about until Friday?>>>
The cricket starts on Thursday.>>>
Yes, try to explain us the rules, we'll need more than "until friday" to understand this >>
How does it go again ? >
Ok, found it..
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he is out. When they are all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out, he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who are all out all the time, and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
