 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) It's going to be difficult to get a libel charge to stick, even were he imprudent emough to try, since those were in fact the words he said, albeit out of context. In this day and age, with the media dog pack as bite happy as it is, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) Freakonomics puts forth the idea that most crime is caused by the poverty-stricken segment of society (excluding massive corporate fraud, which is pervasive and carried out by the wealthiest segment) and further postulates that most of the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) Am I correct in seeing another fallacy here, not necessarily one on Bennett's behalf, but more of one in general? That being that it is instead economics that drives or motivates crime, not race as Freakonomics seems to put forth and that then (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) Here's (URL) the audio> And the transcript: CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) Apart from the slightly sensationalistic title I don't see how this article is a smear at all. It is quite factual and clearly states that he qualified his statement. If you disagree with his anti-choice politics not being spelt out in the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
