>>I understand Bennett's next radio guest will be Rush Limbaugh.
>
>I don't think so. Bennet stated that it was a hypothetical scenario, qualified it, and then proceeded to discard it as s stupid and morally reprehensible idea. No way Rush will rush to this show.
>
>Just because an extreme example is used, it doesn't mean that there's any doltness involved.
>
>I read somewhere that 75% of black males between 15 and 25 years old (don't quote me on the age group) have had problems with police.
>
>Based on the above, and assuming that it's true, Bennet's argument, regardless of its bizarreness or political incorrectness, is sound.

Beg to differ here. The high crime rate among the colored population is not caused by their color, but by them being generally poor. Now if they weren't there, it's in the nature of today's capitalism that someone else would have to be poor. So the problem would just move elsewhere.

>Ah, a good one: If we were to nuke iraq, terrorism would be a thing of the past.

Today's terrorism would. The survivors would redefine terrorism.

>Better yet: Nuking the middle-east would really take care of the problem should the first idea fail.

True. With most of the oil reserves of the world gone, we'd have other bigger problems, and the problem of mid-East would be just a speck of dust.

>Nah, those wouldn't work: Let's nuke the US and all of europe (unless they convert to islam). That would definitely take care of the problem.

Problem? What problem? Ah, the remaining problem of the flavor of Islam that is to rule the world?

>Neither of the above 4 ideas are very intelligent, but there's a good chance they'd accomplish the goal.
>
>I agree with Peter and Jim in that Bennet is being quoted out of context here.

While his sentence would have a good place among your four, it's not the "ridiculous idea" that he's discarded in the next sentence that is the problem. It's his unspoken assumption that the black people are the criminal element per se.