Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (14672)	10/2/2005 12:36:47 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

You have got to be kidding. Durbin's intentional calumny in no way compares to Bennett's accurate & carefully caveated statements. Durbin should have resigned & been universally shamed for his outrageous, slanderous remarks. Durbin offered a pathetic non-apology apology. Bennett has absolutely nothing to apologize for. If anything those who have attacked Bennett should apologize to Bennett. And at the time of Durbin's calumnious outburst, Guantanamo was about unsubstantiated allegations about a koran being flushed down a fricking toilet by a left wing journalist. How the hell do you get from unsubstantiated allegations to direct comparisons to Nazi's? Hell, all of the allegations about turned out to be complete bunk! There isn't the slightest of connections whatsoever between Durbin & Bennett here. NONE! ...."A politician, actually anyone constantly in the public eye, must seek to avoid saying things that can be taken out of context, or where it is necessary to grasp the whole statement so the public is not put off by a seemingly disturbing part.".... How many times are you going to run that load of bull up the flag pole? The MSM, the DNC & libs like you relentlessly take conservatives words out of context & try to hammer them with it every single day of the week. Once again you are saying that no conservative should ever utter a word in any public forum "to avoid saying things that can be taken out of context". That is completely ludicrous on its face. And what's this "or where it is necessary to grasp the whole statement so the public is not put off by a seemingly disturbing part"?? Are you saying libs are wholly incapable of grasping an entire sentence or paragraph in one sitting? Or is this more of the same stifling of free speech your whole argument essentially advocates? ...."And having got caught making an error of judgment, he should know that it is more expedient to apologize and move on.".... What error of judgement should Bennett apologize for?? I fail to see any error whatsoever that necessitates an apology. Perhaps you can identify the specific error or errors of judgement for me. ...."A public figure cannot survive by telling a chastising public how wrong they are.".... This is insane. That happens hundreds of times every single day of the week by all manner of public figures who thrive on chastising large swaths of the public as to how wrong they are. In any event, Bennett wasn't telling the public any such thing. And even if he would have been chastising the public, why should he apologize if he said nothing inappropriate or offensive? ...."a smart politician will not try to be righteous, but will apologize and ostensibly kowtow to public sentiment.".... How does that apply to anything Bennett said? Please be specific. You seem stuck on righteous lately for no credible reason. Kowtowing to public sentiment seems to be the tactic libs were shooting for with their utterly baseless attacks against Bennett. It didn't work. Libs were wrong as usual & Bennett wasn't buying into faux outrage.

To: abstract who wrote (14672)	10/2/2005 12:44:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment. From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005 Statement By Bill Bennett "On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com). "I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime. "Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation. "The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington. "A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment. "In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine." bennettmornings.com