 | | 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Well, let's be fair. Bennett's comments were so hideously ill-considered that only the most far-right of media outlets have come out in support of him. There's a lot of "what he really meant was" going on post hoc, but the bottom line is what (...) (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(URL) Case closed> Nevermind that Bennett is pro-life. What a smear. And even the Bush administration runs for cover from political hack fallout. Brutal. JOHN (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
