The "gotcha" hypocrisy fetishists attack

[KingRat]

The "gotcha" hypocrisy fetishists attack (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg050503.asp)

Even the authors of the articles admit that the only thing Bennett has done is spend a lot of money on something you wouldn't expect Bill Bennett to be spending his money on. In other words, the "news" here is not that a "moralizer" or "virtuecrat" has betrayed his convictions, broken the law, or anything of the sort. The news here is that he likes to have a good time in a perfectly legal and unhypocritical way. But, the manner in which he has a good time shocks liberals who think "moralizers" can't enjoy life. We don't drink, except maybe in that bitter-white-guy way. We don't tell dirty jokes except perhaps as racists or sexists. We're either prudes or hypocrites or both. And so, when a prominent conservative "moralist" ends up behaving in a way that seems inappropriate in the light of liberal assumptions about conservatives, it must be newsworthy.

The last paragraph is the best...
Oh, and one last thing. You might have noticed that I keep putting quotation marks around the word "moralizer." I do this for the simple reason that Green, Alter, Marshall, and the legions of other liberals who don't like "moralizers" are shocking hypocrites if not outright liars. Everyone moralizes. The suggestion that liberals aren't moralizers is so preposterous it makes it hard for me to take any of them seriously when they wax indignant about "moralizers." Almost everyday, they tell us what is moral or immoral to think and to say about race, taxes, abortion — you name it. They explain it would be immoral for me to spend more of my own money on my own children when that money could be spent by government on other peoples' children. In short, they think moralizing is fine. They just want to have a monopoly on the franchise.

[a_unique_person]

Funny, that's what I thought about the attack on clinton. consensual sex between adults. I didn't think he should have done it, but the moral outrage was incredible.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Funny, that's what I thought about the attack on clinton. consensual sex between adults. I didn't think he should have done it, but the moral outrage was incredible.

Yes, lump them all in together.

A. People who think relations between a higher ups and interns are poor in the workplace and therefore were totally outraged bu the behavior in their leader.

B. People who were merely upset at the perjury of a sitting president who is also a lawyer and should know better.

C. People outraged at Clinton's impassionaed national denial of the whole thing.

D. People who were outraged that he didnt resign.

E. People who were outraged that he would conduct himself in such a manner and not have more respect for his countrymen and office. The least he could do as president is try to be a gentleman.

F. The people who were outraged that he committed such a blatant act of infidelity while sitting as president. Outraged that he would subject his wife and child to the consequences of a messy scandal.

G. The people who were outraged by the fact that he had sex.

I take it that the "G" people are the ones you are referring to? I for one have never met one. I think those people were made up by James Carville and the spin machine to make anyone who was outraged look like Quakers.

[Fade]

A. People who think relations between a higher ups and interns are poor in the workplace and therefore were totally outraged bu the behavior in their leader.

The idea that Monica wasn't anything but 100% willing and probably ASKED to do it means nothing, right?

B. People who were merely upset at the perjury of a sitting president who is also a lawyer and should know better.

He was asked questions which had nothing to do with him having broken any law, and lied about something not a single person in America would admit too. If it weren't for the idiot moralizers he wouldn't have been sitting there in the first place.

C. People outraged at Clinton's impassionaed national denial of the whole thing.

Because some prudes don't like the fact that the president gets BJs.

D. People who were outraged that he didnt resign.

Round and round they go. It shouldn't have been brought to the public eye, much less had him sitting before congress testifying. But the moralizers had their way. They went in for impeachment. They lost. Boo hoo I say. Boo freaking hoo.

E. People who were outraged that he would conduct himself in such a manner and not have more respect for his countrymen and office. The least he could do as president is try to be a gentleman.

What are you referring too? He was questioned about his PERSONAL LIFE about something THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL and was IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT SOMETHING EVERYONE WOULD LIE ABOUT. You are trying to dance around the point that the entirely partisan effort was anything OTHER than blatant right wing moralizing. It's A-OKAY for the right wing to fund corrupt businessmen, take bribes, and send troops to die for a meaningless cause. But a LIBERAL getting a BLOW JOB? What is this nation COMING TOO?

F. The people who were outraged that he committed such a blatant act of infidelity while sitting as president. Outraged that he would subject his wife and child to the consequences of a messy scandal.

What? The scandal was, as I said, an entirely partisan effort to discredit the sitting president. Perhaps you should lay the blame where it is due, which I can assure you is NOT on Clintons lap. If I had a time machine, I would go back and air the dirty laundry of all the past presidents. This was, in the grand scheme, a minute infraction (which I remind you again IS NOT illegal), and was nothing compared to the actions of others.

But when a "moralizer" commits acts which many people think distasteful, it's A-OKAY because it's uh.. perfectly legal!

Wait, wait, that's not right.

It's A-OKAY because he's not a Democrat.

Edit-

The only person in this entire country who had a right to know what happened is Hillary Clinton.

They are still married.

So, the only person that mattered forgave him.

That too, means nothing though, because we must express our utter shock and dismay that any man in that sort of position have fun in a perfectly legal way.

[Cain]

They are still married.

That's worth noting given the number of Republicans on their second and third wives. Newt Gingrich was f*cking a choir girl at the time.

Oh, and one last thing. You might have noticed that I keep putting quotation marks around the word "moralizer." I do this for the simple reason that Green, Alter, Marshall, and the legions of other liberals who don't like "moralizers" are shocking hypocrites if not outright liars

This is absurd! Bill Bennett has been sanctimoniously lecturing the public for years on all matters of morality.

He's a hypocrite for rationalizing the consumption of alcohol in moderation while going scorched-earth against anyone who smokes pot.

[Gregor]

Bill Bennet -
He has said for years he enjoyed gambling. It's legal, not immoral, not unethical, and he's never lied. Nice try at a double standard though.

As to Slick Willy-
Fade, while you posted Corplinx's seven grounds of complaint, you really only addressed two. You trot out the same rebuttals to each one, either (i) it was consensual or (ii) hey, I would have lied, too. And I hope you really don't believe the second.

Put me down for:
1. Think a president ought to keep his gun holstered for 4 or 8 years for the good of the country. Not impeachable, just reprehensible. Start filandering again once your out of office.

2. Think a president shouldn't lie under oath. No, make that NO ONE should lie under oath. If a president does it, he should be impeached.

3. Think a president shouldn't get on national television and lie about "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Not impeachable - just reprehensible. Shows his moral character.


The "he should have lied because it was a private matter" position is really shocking when you think about it. You're basically saying that any individual has the right to reject our entire rule of law if he/she thinks the actions of others are wrong.

Look, the guy was being sued for compulsory sex with a co-worker. He was asked "have you ever had sex with Ms. Lewinski, another co-worker." His high-priced lawyers objected to answering such questions and had a hearing. The United States District Judge considered the issue and ordered him to answer the questions. He decided, screw the constitution - I'll just lie under oath, they'll never catch me.

Tell me that's how a sitting president is supposed to towards the rule of law. It's not about sex, it's not about political parties, it's a guy who made a calculated decision to disregard a court order - that's how he got sanctioned by the court for a hundred thousand dollars.

[Dancing David]

Bill Bennett was part of the RETURN MORALS to the SCHOOLS thing, not that he really know squat about secondary education, it is hypocrisy.

On Slick WillY; HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SEX WITH A WHITE HOUSE INTERN! And he should not have lied about it, that man was the first one I voted for who got elected. When you run for office, you do have to live by a different standard than the shmo down at the Seven-Eleven.

Fade: are you serious, if you are married or get married you would consider it OKAY to have sex with another woman? I mean if Hillary had agreed to it thats one thing, but what if she hadn't? FDR had anothet woman in the White House but then Elenore knew about it.

But then Ron Regan subverted the Constitution and he is some sort of hero, go figure huh?

Peace
dancing David

PS Corplinx: your rhetoric still does not rise to the JK standard, keep trying!

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
Put me down for:
1. Think a president ought to keep his gun holstered for 4 or 8 years for the good of the country. Not impeachable, just reprehensible. Start filandering again once your out of office.



*Yawn* Why should anyone care about your own moral standards? Why should this be relevant to his job?



2. Think a president shouldn't lie under oath. No, make that NO ONE should lie under oath. If a president does it, he should be impeached.



I agree with this. He shouldn't have lied.

Of course, he shouldn't have been in a position where he was required to talk about his private sexual life in a public court, either.



3. Think a president shouldn't get on national television and lie about "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Not impeachable - just reprehensible. Shows his moral character.



*shrug* Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone makes decisions that are "morally reprehensible" to someone.



The "he should have lied because it was a private matter" position is really shocking when you think about it. You're basically saying that any individual has the right to reject our entire rule of law if he/she thinks the actions of others are wrong.



Disregarding the rule of law because you think the actions of others are wrong is exactly what people did in Germany when they hid Jews from the Nazis.

I agree it isn't the same, but be careful about assuming that the law is always to be obeyed. I for one will not obey any law that violates my moral code.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
When you run for office, you do have to live by a different standard than the shmo down at the Seven-Eleven.


Why? They're both human. I hold them to the same standard.



Fade: are you serious, if you are married or get married you would consider it OKAY to have sex with another woman? I mean if Hillary had agreed to it thats one thing, but what if she hadn't? FDR had anothet woman in the White House but then Elenore knew about it.



*chuckle* Who really cares? I mean, it's not like affairs haven't been going on for all of history. It's not like becoming president suddenly makes you immune to temptation and robot-like. I expect the president to be as human as anyone else.

Also, it might come as a surprise to you, but there actually ARE people who think it's ok to have sex with another woman when they're married.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Bill Bennett was part of the RETURN MORALS to the SCHOOLS thing, not that he really know squat about secondary education, it is hypocrisy.




How is it hypocrisy to legally gamble and at the same time want morals in the school?

[Gregor]

Ladies and gentlemen

The nominees for weakest/lamest argument on a web site are:

1. "Stalin was an atheist. Stalin killed millions. You are an atheist - do the math" from Darth Mal

2. "Armaggedon is coming and you all will burn, but that Tim Lehaye is obviously wrong" from Ceilingfan 200

and

3. "Bill Clinton's lying under oath saved hundreds of Jews from extermination" - Valmorian

And the winner goes to
.
.
.
Valmorian

Congradulations

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
3. "Bill Clinton's lying under oath saved hundreds of Jews from extermination" - Valmorian

And the winner goes to
.
.
.
Valmorian

Congradulations

Do you win the award for "Completely unable to read a post"?

Can you even point out where I SAID that?

Didn't think so. But congratulations for making yourself look like a complete idiot.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Gregor
It's legal, not immoral, . . . It's considered immoral by enought state legislatures that it is illegal in most forms in most of the country.

[Gregor]

gambling illegal? Check your facts

38 states have the lottery in one form or another

48 states allow bingo in one form or another

There are 84 horse tracks in the US that allow wagering

There's dog tracks, casinos in 6 states, casinos on Indian reservations, and etc.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
gambling illegal? Check your facts

38 states have the lottery in one form or another

48 states allow bingo in one form or another

There are 84 horse tracks in the US that allow wagering

There's dog tracks, casinos in 6 states, casinos on Indian reservations, and etc.

I'm SURE you realize this, but legal isn't the same as moral.

Now, if the person in question is condemning gambling as immoral one day while gambling in the next, that would be hypocricy. Of course, I have no idea if he does that. *shrug*.

But then again, I'm not sure YOU do either, considering how you say things like:
"3. Think a president shouldn't get on national television and lie about "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Not impeachable - just reprehensible. Shows his moral character."

But then lie about what I said. Not impeachable, just reprehensible. Shows your moral character.

[Gregor]

My penultimate post was in response to Mr. Redman's statement of the illegality of gambling.

And your analogy of (i) Mr. Clinton's lying and flouting of the laws to save his skin to (ii) contientious (sp?) objectors to unjust laws who try to save the lives of others was SOOOOOOO over the top, it was ridiculous. Thus, I posted a parody that was apparently too apt for you. Do I need to explain the difference between sarcasm or a parody and lying?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
My penultimate post was in response to Mr. Redman's statement of the illegality of gambling.

And your analogy of (i) Mr. Clinton's lying and flouting of the laws to save his skin to (ii) contientious (sp?) objectors to unjust laws who try to save the lives of others was SOOOOOOO over the top, it was ridiculous.



First of all, I was not drawing an analogy, I was pointing out the problems with your position that the rule of law is more important than one's moral code.



Thus, I posted a parody that was apparently too apt for you. Do I need to explain the difference between sarcasm or a parody and lying?

It's not a very good parody, considering that it totally ignores the point I was making. You stated the following:


You're basically saying that any individual has the right to reject our entire rule of law if he/she thinks the actions of others are wrong.


I was pointing out that it isn't always a bad thing to reject the rule of law if you think the actions of others are wrong. It has nothing to do with that PARTICULAR case (which, had you bothered to actually READ what I said, I pointed out right afterwards that it was not the same), rather I was pointing out that using 'the law' as a guide to moral behavior isn't always advisable.

Secondly, it WAS lying, since I never even REMOTELY stated anything like what you quoted me as saying.

Now, does this mean you're as bad as Clinton now? You're misrepresenting me in that post.

Seems like your own moral code is rather flexible.

[Gregor]

cheese with that whine?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Funny, that's what I thought about the attack on clinton. consensual sex between adults. I didn't think he should have done it, but the moral outrage was incredible.


If anything, stories about pissing away hundreds of thousands dollars in casinos( by self righteous political activists), hummers in the Oval Office and prancing around in g-suits really don't deserve the attention they're getting.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Gregor
gambling illegal? Check your facts

38 states have the lottery in one form or another

48 states allow bingo in one form or another

There are 84 horse tracks in the US that allow wagering

There's dog tracks, casinos in 6 states, casinos on Indian reservations, and etc. Check your facts. You've mentioned a handful of exceptions. Good for you. So there is some legal form of gambling in mosts states. So what? No one claimed all gambling was illegal. Most forms of gambling are still illegal in most of this country, and most of the gambling in this country is of the illegal variety.

The claim that gambling is neither illegal nor immoral is simply false. It can at times be legal, and the issue of morality is obviously subjective.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Gregor
It's legal,

True, but rendered irrelevant by his support for the criminal status of other activities involving consenting adults.


not immoral

Whoa, there, not so fast. Not quite everyone agrees on this. Of course, such disagreement is a concept Bennett has failed to understand with regard to some of the things he considers immoral.


Nice try at a double standard though.

Please. The double standard is made painfully obvious by the way he set himself up as an expert on what is "immoral" for others. If anything, nice try at spinning it as anything other than obvious.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I'm SURE you realize this, but legal isn't the same as moral.

Shh! That's all the Bennett apologists have going for them.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
cheese with that whine?

Thanks for verifying my previous suspicion of your childish behaviour. I guess morals aren't as important to you as you claim, hm?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by WMT1


Shh! That's all the Bennett apologists have going for them.

Yeah, I'm just really pissed off at his misrepresentation of what I was talking about. I guess he just couldn't understand it though.

[Gregor]

Val - Either you are truly an obtuse individual, or you post without thinking. I'm not taking a morality position on these issues.

I'm not arguing that Bennett's 'moral' stance is correct or that I objected to Willy on 'moral' grounds. You haven't the intellectual capacity to realize that.

[Gregor]

Mr. Redman
You claimed that gambling in most forms is illegal in most states. I disagree with that - as do the facts.

Just because casinos are not legal in many states does not support your assertion.

If your state says OK to horse track betting, bingo, dog track betting, Indian casinos, and the lottery (as many, if not most states do), do you want to argue that 'gambling' is illegal just because they do not permit casinos?

[Fade]

Gregor:

I only rebutted with two responses because that was all I needed.

The -fact- of the matter is the republicans had NO BUSINESS interrogating him about this in the first place. Please, point out to me the law that states it is illegal to get a blowjob from somebody other than your wife. In what universe is it okay to put somebody up on the stand and force them to tell the world about their consensual, adult sex life?

I will tell you. It's a world ruled by partisan crapflinging republicans. It's -not your business- who he sleeps with. It's not -my business- who he sleeps with. They had no right to question him, and he had every right to defend himself in the way he did. In fact, I will point out that he didn't lie at all. Oral "sex" isn't sex.

But of course, when you're flying from only the right wing, any chance to fling mud is a good chance.

[Tmy]

Strip clubs are legal. How many people think they are moral?

He's not an elected offical. Bennets whole existance revolves around his morality thumping so he nest be squeaky clean.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Fade
Gregor:


The -fact- of the matter is the republicans had NO BUSINESS interrogating him about this in the first place. Please, point out to me the law that states it is illegal to get a blowjob from somebody other than your wife. In what universe is it okay to put somebody up on the stand and force them to tell the world about their consensual, adult sex life?



I think you bring up a good point here. Why was clinton being questioned in the first place?


I will tell you. It's a world ruled by partisan crapflinging republicans. It's -not your business- who he sleeps with. It's not -my business- who he sleeps with. They had no right to question him, and he had every right to defend himself in the way he did. In fact, I will point out that he didn't lie at all. Oral "sex" isn't sex.

Of course clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". You're right, oral sex isnt sex, but it is sexual relations.

But of course, when you're flying from only the right wing, any chance to fling mud is a good chance.

:rolleyes:

[Gregor]

Fade
I posted the very reason why they were asking him about it - they were allowed to so by a United States Judge. The lawyers had every right to ask, because a judge said they could.

If I were that federal judge (Democratically appointed, I believe) and they asked me whether I'd let them get into other sexual escapades, I might say "no" or I might say "yes." The question of prior bad acts may relate to habit, practice, or routine. But what matters is this judge said "yes" and this man decided to lie.

Your argument has no relationship to the facts of the case. It's more leftist rhetoric.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Gregor
Val - Either you are truly an obtuse individual, or you post without thinking. I'm not taking a morality position on these issues.


Oh really? What does:


Put me down for:
1. Think a president ought to keep his gun holstered for 4 or 8 years for the good of the country. Not impeachable, just reprehensible. Start filandering again once your out of office.

2. Think a president shouldn't lie under oath. No, make that NO ONE should lie under oath. If a president does it, he should be impeached.

3. Think a president shouldn't get on national television and lie about "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Not impeachable - just reprehensible. Shows his moral character.


Mean then hm? Sure sounds like moral judgement to me. Whether they are the same as Bennet's is irrelevant to me. I was simply pointing out that you were suggesting that one should use the law as a moral guideline, as per the following:


The "he should have lied because it was a private matter" position is really shocking when you think about it. You're basically saying that any individual has the right to reject our entire rule of law if he/she thinks the actions of others are wrong.


Which suggests that you believe someone SHOULDN'T reject the rule of law when he/she thinks the actions of others are wrong. This is what I was pointing out with the Nazi comment. Had those people in Germany accepted the rule of law over what they felt was right, then they would have turned in those Jews, not hidden them.

Once again, because you seem to be incapable of understanding my point:

I am objecting to your insinuation that one should obey the rule of law regardless of what you think is right.

HOPEFULLY the law would reflect my own moral code, but if it didn't, I would break it.



I'm not arguing that Bennett's 'moral' stance is correct or that I objected to Willy on 'moral' grounds. You haven't the intellectual capacity to realize that.

I've never claimed you WERE, but then that would require actually READING what I post, something that you appear to be quite unwilling to do. I'll take your slander about my intellectual capacity with a grain of salt, since you certainly appear to lack it in spades. Just look at how you mangled my point above with your so-called "parody".

[Fade]

Then send over all your female relatives, please, I promise I won't have sex with them.

Of course oral sex is sex.

If they want to have sex with you, far be it from me to deny them.

I hold a differing opinion. Oral sex is not sex.

Of course clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". You're right, oral sex isnt sex, but it is sexual relations.

That's just another way of saying "sex"

I contend that he never had sex with Lewinsky.

I posted the very reason why they were asking him about it - they were allowed to so by a United States Judge. The lawyers had every right to ask, because a judge said they could.

Which law was the judge referring too when he allowed them to ask the question?

You seem to be under the impression that a judges word is somehow canon. It isn't. If this had been a republican president, I doubt any scandal would have been raised.

For evidence, simply look to Enron. No hubbub was raised.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Fade





That's just another way of saying "sex"




I think its a matter of opinion. Thats why he said "sexual relations", he knew it was an ambiguous term and took advantage of it. It was a clever move, too bad it didnt work.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Fade


He was asked questions which had nothing to do with him having broken any law, and lied about something not a single person in America would admit too. If it weren't for the idiot moralizers he wouldn't have been sitting there in the first place.


"you or I would have lied about it"
"it was okay because I hate his detractors"
"lying under oath was okay because he didnt lie about breaking a law"

Its amazing the lengths of crappy reasoning people employ. If you notice, I didnt say whether or not the different reasons I gave for people being outraged were correct. I just gave them in response to what I saw as a gross oversimplification by AUP of people being outraged.

I'm still glad Clinton has a few apologists left who will defend what he did no matter what.

[Gregor]

Fade
I beg your pardon?

People don't have to follow a court order? Federal Rule of Evidence 404 doesn't apply to some people? (I'm just guessing what was argued)

But defending Clinton in this manner reminds me of the guy who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. I pointed out contradictions, he side-stepped them. I pointed out logical fallacies, he claimed it was a plot by atheists. It seems he was so adamant about his unfounded beliefs that no facts could disuade him from him position.

I posit that "Jesus is the divine savior as told by the Bible" is held with the same fevor as "Clinton didn't lie, it was a right-wing conspiracy, and it's nobody's business."

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Fade


If they want to have sex with you, far be it from me to deny them.

I hold a differing opinion. Oral sex is not sex.



That's just another way of saying "sex"

I contend that he never had sex with Lewinsky.



Which law was the judge referring too when he allowed them to ask the question?

You seem to be under the impression that a judges word is somehow canon. It isn't. If this had been a republican president, I doubt any scandal would have been raised.

For evidence, simply look to Enron. No hubbub was raised.

I was against Clinton's impeachment, but I think one has to accept Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Remember he was fined $75,000 for it, and he had to publicly acknowledge it.

According to Lewinsky he did some things to her, which I won't get into that definitly fit the definition they gave him. He never denied these things.

But hey I am sure glad that is over....:cool:

BTW the law in question that allowed him to be questioned about his sex life was the sexual harrassment law passed in 1994 with his signature.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes, lump them all in together.

A. People who think relations between a higher ups and interns are poor in the workplace and therefore were totally outraged bu the behavior in their leader.

B. People who were merely upset at the perjury of a sitting president who is also a lawyer and should know better.

C. People outraged at Clinton's impassionaed national denial of the whole thing.

D. People who were outraged that he didnt resign.

E. People who were outraged that he would conduct himself in such a manner and not have more respect for his countrymen and office. The least he could do as president is try to be a gentleman.

F. The people who were outraged that he committed such a blatant act of infidelity while sitting as president. Outraged that he would subject his wife and child to the consequences of a messy scandal.

G. The people who were outraged by the fact that he had sex.

I take it that the "G" people are the ones you are referring to? I for one have never met one. I think those people were made up by James Carville and the spin machine to make anyone who was outraged look like Quakers.

Like I said, I didn't think it was eithical of him to do it, and I would expect someone in that position to have higher standards. If there was someone around with higher standards, it would have been good of them to take over when he resigned. From what I can see, however, sex on the side is one of the pasttimes of politicians, and there are women who chase men in positions of power.

The legalities of it all stemmed from the pursuit of his actions. That is, the legal aspects related to trumped up charges as a result of his immorality.

Apart from all that, there was a lot of humbug and hypocrisy about the whole thing. If there was anything that should have been chased as much as legal, consensual sex, were rape allegations. What happened to these?

[Skeptic]

Oh, C'mon. You make it sound like he was seen betting $50 in a blackjack table one night when he was doing a lecture in Las Vegas, and that this was somehow perverted by the evil liberals to destroy his image.

He lost $8,000,000 gambling, for goodness' sake. That's a bit much to count as "innocent fun". You don't need to be a "moralizing liberal" to suspect the guy might have a problem with gambling.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If there was anything that should have been chased as much as legal, consensual sex, were rape allegations. What happened to these?

The woman had no hard evidence of her claim, merely her confession to someone else that it happened while she was still disheveled.

I believe the statute of limitations had run out anyway.

[peptoabysmal]

Too bad he didn't use a State Lottery to gamble. He could have claimed that he was supporting our schools or some such. (Your mileage may vary on what "good thing" is done with the lottery money depending on your state).

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Gregor
Mr. Redman
You claimed that gambling in most forms is illegal in most states. I disagree with that - as do the facts.

Just because casinos are not legal in many states does not support your assertion.

If your state says OK to horse track betting, bingo, dog track betting, Indian casinos, and the lottery (as many, if not most states do), do you want to argue that 'gambling' is illegal just because they do not permit casinos? Try placing a bet on the University of Texas football team next fall, without leaving the state of Texas. Many will, of course, all illegal. Ever know anyone who wasn't in Vegas to bet money on the NCAA basketball tournament? Illegal. Sit in the privacy of your Texas home and play cards on an internet casino? Illegal. Bunch of guys get together for a little friendly poker? In most places, illegal. You don't need a casino to gamble.

Your assertion was that Bennett isn't a hypocrite because gambling is legal and moral. Like prostitution, gambling is legal only in certain forms, and certain places. That certainly doesn't mean that it is accurate to simply call it "legal", nor does it support the idea that it isn't immoral. Sure, it is legal in a lot of places and forms, and many don't consider it particularly immoral, this is quite far from what you appear to have been claiming when you said simply that gambling wasn't illegal or immoral. It's not nearly that simple.

Besides, there are many moral aspects to what he did besides simply the morality of gambling itself. Isn't Bennett a "Christian" man? Is gambling $8 million the kind of stewardship Jesus expected when he blessed Bennett with that kind of money? Couldn't a virtuous man find a better use for it than gambling? Are there no needs in society he could have met? Is it virtuous to allow people to suffer when you can help?

The idea that Bennett can somehow rationalize what he did as consistent with the actions of a champion of virtue is ridiculous.

[crackmonkey]

Why? If he played the lottery once a week, would that still be considered 'immoral' by you? At what point does gambling become immoral? Do you know what Bennett's annual income is? WHat percentage did he gamble? Can you even level the accusation of gambling excessively without knowing how much the man earns?
I still see no hypocrisy here, just a fervent desire by many to cry hypocrisy. Bennett never lied about it, he never claimed that gambling one's disposable income was morally wrong, gambling is legal... where's the beef?

[Gregor]

I guess we disagree on legality. I would say that gambling is legal in all (or almost all) states. It is regulated, so some forms are prohibited, but the concept is legal in all states. This is different than prostitution.

And do I think that there's some spin going on from both sides? Absolutely. Spin, not baseball, is the national past time. (e.g. whether he lost $8 million over X-number of years and won $7 million over the same span; whether he, like Michael Jordan, makes hundreds of million and can afford to lose more than you or I, or whatever).

Do I think that it's problematic to profess Christianity and gamble? I do. But that's a problem I have with Xianity as a whole. I'm of the belief that Xianity has too many logical contradictions to comport with alot of ordinary and extraordinary conduct.

But I still think the story is way overblown.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Gregor
I guess we disagree on legality. I would say that gambling is legal in all (or almost all) states. It is regulated, so some forms are prohibited, but the concept is legal in all states. This is different than prostitution.

I think what Redman is saying is that although gambling is legal in most states, most of the gambling that occurs in most states is illegal.

Consider, for example, if CA legalized medical marijuana. We could say that while smoking marijuana is legal in CA, most of the marijuana smoking that occurs is illegal.

[Gregor]

Thanks - and I think it is factually incorrect to say that gambling is illegal in most states. It is legal in all (or most) states, but the permitted forms of gambling may be only one kind (lottery) or the state may permit dozens of kinds of gambling.

And I'm not sure that anyone really claims that the act of gambling (e.g. playing bingo for money) is immoral. At worst, they'd view it as a gateway to immoral acts.