The W
Views: 100011394
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 2038
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberals Will Enjoy This
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next(1616 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (61 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1398/4700
EXP: 21587244
For next: 249418

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#1 Posted on 5.5.03 0735.00
Reposted on: 5.5.10 0735.57
The Bookie of Virtue and Bad Bet by Bill Bennett

It's never a good thing when somebody is espousing moralism for twenty years runs up a debt promoting a sin. If it weren't for the fact that he had spent twenty years railing against this kind of thing(even if Bennett never did specificlaly mention gambling) I wouldn't have a problem with what he's up to.
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1034/2042
EXP: 6310777
For next: 82022

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 248 days
#2 Posted on 5.5.03 0847.28
Reposted on: 5.5.10 0847.31
Yep. "All vices are EVIL! (...except for the one I secretly partake in.)" Karma always comes around, Billy boy!

For every Swaggart, there is a cheap hooker in a motel waiting to happen. I hope to live long enough to see Jerry Falwell's biggest skeleton-in-the-closet (whatever it may be) come tumbling out.

Does Bennett need help? Sure. And I hope he gets it. But I won't deny myself a little bit of schadenfreude over the news.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 84/274
EXP: 300403
For next: 7710

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3852 days
#3 Posted on 5.5.03 0939.48
Reposted on: 5.5.10 0939.59
(even if Bennett never did specificlaly mention gambling)

I'm not saying that you're using this to modify his hypocrisy downwards, Grimis - but a lot of online conservatives are, and lord does it stick in my craw, because ultimately their argument is that Bennett was in fact saying "All sins are BAD - except the one I happen to enjoy!"
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1399/4700
EXP: 21587244
For next: 249418

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#4 Posted on 5.5.03 1003.37
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1005.49

    Originally posted by godking
    I'm not saying that you're using this to modify his hypocrisy downwards, Grimis - but a lot of online conservatives are,

Trust me I'm not. The hardcore moral conservatives make the entire party look bad...
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 912/1180
EXP: 2770566
For next: 99192

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#5 Posted on 5.5.03 1104.19
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1104.41
"Trust me I'm not. The hardcore moral conservatives make the entire party look bad..."

Why? Becuase they are the only ones who have the guts to take moral stands on controversial issues, which means that by definition of being human they are the ones that will have to face the music when they eventually fall? *Everyone* messes up at some time; what matters is how someone reacts when they do. And this also doesn't mean that they can no longer take stands on morality, because if we held that standard to everyone and took it to its logical end, then no one could say anything about *any* act or behavior, including really vicious ones.

DMC
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1297/2108
EXP: 6616836
For next: 33854

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on 5.5.03 1636.07
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1637.35
I don't sweat Bill Bennett at all. It's idiotic.

EVERYONE has their own definition of what's "virtuous." Bill Bennett never said or wrote anything about gambling being bad or not "viruous." Just because some people associate not gambling with being virtuous doesn't mean squat. I mean, I associate a lot of stuff Bill Bennett does with not being virtuous, but not anything he thinks of as not virtuous probably.

It's not like he's gambling away his child support payments here. He's got a ton of money, this is what he likes to do with it, it's perfectly legal, and he never said or wrote anything saying it was bad. So why the fuss?

And from my point of view, the 8 million he lost in Vegas is 8 million less that'll go to a lot of causes that I think are 180 degrees from virtuous. So it's all good in my book

"Virtuous" count: 6
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 1220/3943
EXP: 16734509
For next: 76906

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 5.5.03 2240.00
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2243.39

    Originally posted by vsp
    For every Swaggart, there is a cheap hooker in a motel waiting to happen. I hope to live long enough to see Jerry Falwell's biggest skeleton-in-the-closet (whatever it may be) come tumbling out.


Five bucks says that the Campari ad wasn't really satire.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 114/330
EXP: 393690
For next: 11085

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3834 days
Last activity: 2900 days
#8 Posted on 5.5.03 2301.53
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2306.52
The standard for gambling seems to be "if he does it in private, who cares?" I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder why the conservatives making this argument don't use the same line of logic with regards to the war on drugs.

(edited by Michrome on 5.5.03 2102)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 1907/5403
EXP: 27163257
For next: 689483

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 5.5.03 2314.30
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2317.47
Bennett is suffering from being guilty by association here. Yes, Bill personally never might have written anti-gambling screeds and diatribes. But enough of the people with whom he has been politically and ethically married to and to whom he has given aid and comfort have. You can't hang out with Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed and those folks without being painted with the same brush after a while. So the fact that he stood on the sidelines while people he supported financially, polticially and publically were calling gambling immoral and decrying the activity, all the while becoming a mega-whale, strikes me as a bit shady for someone who demands so much of others.

Because that's the problem DMC. People taking stands on moral issues is not the problem. People like Bill Bennett who presume to tell other people how to live in private, and then call the way they choose to live "immoral" or "ungodly" or "anti-American" are then putting themself willingly up to a much higher standard. Personally, I see nothing wrong with what Bill Bennett did in terms of enjoying himself as a gambler. I do have issues with the fact he will tell me how I should be able to enjoy myself in private and in a way that harms no one else while feeling free to indulge in what he feels is his activity of choice.
Lexus
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 278/1835
EXP: 5376621
For next: 55623

Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 6.5.03 0135.34
Reposted on: 6.5.10 0138.23



    Originally posted by vsp
    I hope to live long enough to see Jerry Falwell's biggest skeleton-in-the-closet (whatever it may be) come tumbling out.


Such vindictiveness, tut tut tut.

I think its funny that Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell, two "men of God" aren't on the same side.
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 337/2781
EXP: 9919503
For next: 80532

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 191 days
Last activity: 37 days
#11 Posted on 6.5.03 0911.37
Reposted on: 6.5.10 0915.43
Bennett was here in Green Bay the other day, and those who came to hear him speak were concentrating on his message and ignoring the whole gambling thing.

At least that's what my station said. (WBAY.com)

(image removed)
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1340/2241
EXP: 7240559
For next: 228382

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1431 days
Last activity: 339 days
#12 Posted on 6.5.03 1125.58
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1126.30

    Originally posted by Lexus



      Originally posted by vsp
      I hope to live long enough to see Jerry Falwell's biggest skeleton-in-the-closet (whatever it may be) come tumbling out.


    Such vindictiveness, tut tut tut.

    I think its funny that Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell, two "men of God" aren't on the same side.



Ah yes, we can't certainly can't defend our position without bringing up Al Sharpton, can we?

(for those taking bets at home, it was post #10)
IsaacYankem
Polska kielbasa
Level: 26

Posts: 112/130
EXP: 96654
For next: 5623

Since: 4.3.03
From: Cybertron

Since last post: 3940 days
Last activity: 3865 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 6.5.03 1230.14
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1232.43
"Some of Bennett’s losses have been substantial. According to one casino source, on July 12 of last year, Bennett lost $340,000 at Caesar’s Boardwalk Regency in Atlantic City and on April 5 and 6 of 2003 he lost more than $500,000 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Some casino estimates put his total losses over the past decade at more than $8 million. “There’s a term in the trade for his kind of gambler,” says a casino source who has witnessed Bennett at the high-limit slots in the wee hours. “We call them losers.”

http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/

It's nearly impossible not to succumb to schadenfreude here.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 92/274
EXP: 300403
For next: 7710

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3852 days
#14 Posted on 6.5.03 1452.32
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1456.26
*Everyone* messes up at some time; what matters is how someone reacts when they do. And this also doesn't mean that they can no longer take stands on morality, because if we held that standard to everyone and took it to its logical end, then no one could say anything about *any* act or behavior, including really vicious ones.

Agreed, but there's a difference between taking a positive stance and a negative one. For the last decade, Bennett has always been the first attack dog out in the streets whenever any public figure underwent some sort of moral humiliation, singling them out and tut-tutting about the moral fibre of America and why it specifically failed in this case or that example. There are tons of people who boost morality as a general concept who have done worse things than Bill Bennett, but they're not going around scourging others for their sins. Which is why he deserves his comeuppance.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 914/1180
EXP: 2770566
For next: 99192

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#15 Posted on 6.5.03 1657.31
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1659.01
"There are tons of people who boost morality as a general concept who have done worse things than Bill Bennett, but they're not going around scourging others for their sins."

Whether or not he "scourges" others is a rather subjective thing, in my book. I do agree that he puts himself out there as a moral leader and that this does harm his credibility a bit. *How much* it should is another issue. I can still agree with him on a stance he takes regarding a particular moral issue *even if* I disagree with some of the things he does, or has done. I guess my major point is that the ultimate measure of moral truth claims has really nothing to do with how that person lives their life, or if they follow everything they say and believe 100% of the time. Should we expect them to perhaps follow their beliefs more than other people do, and not simply constantly say one thing and do another? Sure, for it will help that person's moral message become more effective. Should we expect that person to not have any minor or major skeletons in the closet? No, and I think we all agree on that.

If you're looking for someone who lived perfectly, He lived 2,000 years ago in Palestine. He made Himself the ultimate proof that there *is* indeed right and wrong.

DMC



(edited by DMC on 6.5.03 1458)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1044/2042
EXP: 6310777
For next: 82022

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 248 days
#16 Posted on 7.5.03 0935.19
Reposted on: 7.5.10 0936.03
    Originally posted by DMC
    If you're looking for someone who lived perfectly, He lived 2,000 years ago in Palestine. He made Himself the ultimate proof that there *is* indeed right and wrong.


And he also said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," if I recall the story correctly.

Bennett has made a career out of flinging righteous stones. When someone like him catches a rebounding stone between the eyes, I giggle. A lot. I might even treat myself to some guffaws, a bunch of chuckles and a gut-laugh.

Not because I'm up on my own pedestal (as Bennett would) chanting "What you did was WRONG, what you did was WRONG," mind you -- it's his money, and if he wants to piss it away pointlessly, that's his business. But because every time someone who openly proclaims that HE knows how everyone else should live their lives proves incapable of managing his own, an angel gets its wings.

Of course, I'm one of those dangerous "moral relativists" that need to be driven into the sea. ;)

(edited by vsp on 7.5.03 0743)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1300/2108
EXP: 6616836
For next: 33854

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on 7.5.03 1040.39
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1043.00
I guess my major point is that the ultimate measure of moral truth claims has really nothing to do with how that person lives their life, or if they follow everything they say and believe 100% of the time.

Whoo boy. Well, I guess this is why I never agree with you. But why is it that "moralists" don't take this stance when it comes to people like, say, Bill Clinton?
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 915/1180
EXP: 2770566
For next: 99192

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#18 Posted on 7.5.03 1113.24
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1126.54
How exactly was Bill Clinton a moral crusader?

DMC
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1414/4700
EXP: 21587244
For next: 249418

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#19 Posted on 7.5.03 1203.15
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1206.23
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    But why is it that "moralists" don't take this stance when it comes to people like, say, Bill Clinton?

When willthe Democrats realize it was about the CRIME not the ACT? Clinton could've been banging a potted plant for all I care if it hadn't been breaking the law...

(edited by Grimis on 7.5.03 1303)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1302/2108
EXP: 6616836
For next: 33854

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#20 Posted on 7.5.03 1407.22
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1414.24
This from the party the almost elected Ollie North Senator.

Republican thought - commiting a crime that gives money to our avowed enemy & gives arms to terrorists is OK if you make up some patriotic sounding bullshit. So OK, you'll get a presidential pardon and end up almost running a Pentagon project designed to spy on Americans. However commiting a crime because you don't want your wife to know you got a blowjob from a fat intern is so heinous you ought to be impeached.

(edited by MoeGates on 7.5.03 1507)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: For consideration
Next thread: What's wrong with you Canadians, anyhow?
Previous thread: If The President speaks, you don't get paid
(1616 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberals Will Enjoy ThisRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.608 seconds.