A-hole of the year...

[Gato_Solo]

Bill Bennett has placed his foot firmly in his mouth...So much for his career, since he is totally unapologetic for that remark he made.

Here is his lame-assed response.

 

[Gonz]

tsk-tsk-tsk, Look at your source.

Now look at the whole picture...discussing the potential government revenue of the aborted babies since Roe v Wade...

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe. Maybe. But we don't know what the cost would be, too. I think -- does abortion disproportionately occur among single women?

CALLER: Uhhh...

BENNETT: Do you know?

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics but quite a bit are, yes.

BENNETT: All right. Well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book, Freakanomics, is that they make is that the declining crime rate -- you know, they deal with this hypothesis that one of the reasons that crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think so it is either.

CALLER: Yeah.

BENNETT: I don't think it is either because, first of all, I think there's just too much that you don't know. 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.

BENNETT: That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Well, this --

BENNETT: So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

He does not condone & in fact recognizes the ridiculous nature of the statement but used it only to make a point.

 

[Gato_Solo]

tsk-tsk-tsk, Look at your source.

I'd've used Fox, but some of the folks here like Fox less than you like CNN.

He does not condone & in fact recognizes the ridiculous nature of the statement but used it only to make a point.

Then why use that point, instead of this one...

"A good-thinking guy that is a former secretary of education could give the hypothetical that if you expose people to education," then you would alleviate the conditions that cause crime, he said.

He didn't think before he opened his big mouth, and is diminished for it...just as a lib would be in the same circumstances.

 

[chcr]

He does not condone & in fact recognizes the ridiculous nature of the statement but used it only to make a point.

Doesn't matter in the least. If it gets repeated often enough (and it will) it will be believed enough.

 

[Gonz]

"If it gets...", hell, it's already in stone.

Then why use that point, instead of this one...

Because they were discussing the potential of dead baby revenue.

 

[Gato_Solo]

"If it gets...", hell, it's already in stone.



Because they were discussing the potential of dead baby revenue.

They were discussing crime reduction. The caller brought up abortion as a tool to reduce crime, and he could've easily countered that caller without bringing race into the equation. He chose the race route.