 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Fair enough. But the link to crime and being black (in Bennett's mind) is merely from drawing on statistics. Blacks do account for a disproportionate amount of crime in our country, regardless of reason (which is a different discussion). (...) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) That is an accurate summary of what he said. It's not up to the headline to provide the context; that's what the article and the original transcript are for. I suspect that you're taking issue with the use of "Republican" here, and that's not (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) But the "out of context" charge doesn't work, either, because Bennett's comments are little redeemed even if you read the entire transcript. For him to claim "not guilty by reason of quoting out of context," he would have to show that his (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Bennett should have said "the crime rate would go down if you aborted all babies." The absurdity would have been more succinctly demonstrated, and he would have avoided any perception of racism. The fact that he explicitly singled out an (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Sorry to butt in when you were on a roll:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Really? "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican". That doesn't come off as a proposal? Please. (...) Therein lies the rub-- "accurate". (...) That's my whole point, Lenny! It is a non-story. The "story" comes as a result of the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. I should have read the title better :) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Not at all! In fact, I state that the rag is even unworthy of smearing:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) In fact, John is not only metaphorically smearing it, he is proposing literally smearing it as well ;) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I'm not John. But I think the title of the article is the smeary (or 'sensationalist' if you prefer) part, not the body. But then, so's the title of this thread (as John chose it), it smears the Guardian, doesn't it? It does so in the name of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
