Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bill Bennett


Henry

Recommended Posts

Kilmer,

I would bet the Bill Bennett of two plus days ago would tell you losing 8 million dollars in slots machine would be considered behavior that is immoral. I would bet (see gambling is ok) he would throw the first stone. Such a pias man Slick Willy is!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, he has written many books and articles on morality and not ONCE has mentioned gambling as immoral. So we can say with certainty that 2 days ago he wouldn't have cast that stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with gambling, however, and I don't know, but if this guy was the type of conservative who condenmed (spelling?) other for gambling, then he deserves what ever grief he gets... If he's not, then the story should just die away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by luckydevi

One of my favorite P.J. O'Rourke quotes

"Sen. Ted Kennedy: "And when the Reagan administration was selling arms to Iran, WHERE WAS GEORGE?" Answer: Dry, sober, and at home with his wife."

Gotta be talkin' about George Senior because that sure doesn't describe George Junior.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by luckydevi

by the way Regan never lied under oath

Question: is lying - boldfaced, upfront lying - more immoral if done "under oath"? Does a moral person require an "oath" in order to tell the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by codeorama

And Nixon didn't know about Watergate...:rolleyes:

Not meaning to nitpick, but Nixon likely did not know about Watergate until after the fact. Not that that excuses his subsequent coverup, mind you....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

Jack, he has written many books and articles on morality and not ONCE has mentioned gambling as immoral. So we can say with certainty that 2 days ago he wouldn't have cast that stone.

I guess it depends on what the word "is" means!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're missing one critical point here: Bennett has stated from the git go that he will cease the practice.....implicitly conceding some degree of hypocrisy. Hard to argue against that. As I recall, when Clinton lied to a grand jury...it was minimized by the left because the sexual harassment of an employer over an employee in a federal workplace was deemed silly....i.e. the evnts leading to the lie were trivial as far as the left ewas concerned.....sort of a "means unjustifiing the ends"............not the law, not right or wrong.........Clinton, because he understood the politics of conceding sexual harassment charges in the White House, fought the accusations from the very start...it took a stain to do him in...........

the reactions have been very different and no one has taken notice........

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

If gambling were immoral, I could see the point. But it's not.

I agree with alot of his writings and think he's an excellent spokesman. I also love to throw the dice. Nothing like hitting a 10 dollar midnight or drawing a pair of cowboys after splitting bullets.

Uh, Bill Bennet passes himself off as a moral personal with high values. Gambling is viewed by many and by religous people as immoral. Who's always fighting laws allowing gaming? Religious people. While there's nothing wrong with what he did, by presenting himself as a moral person and then doing something that his audience finds immoral; he loses a little credibility. Just say, the Christian Right wouldn't vote for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point fansince. Bennet's strighforward approach may just save his credibility in the long run.

But I do think it's a little early to properly gauge the right's reaction to this. Obviously some, like Kilmer, are taking the 'this is silly and trivial' approach. It may be a few days or weeks before we can get a feel for the backlash Bennett gets (or doesn't get.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kilmer, I don't think gambling is immoral, However, I would say that many religious people do. I am southern baptist and the church was totally against the lottery coming to Virginia and would never in a million years support Bingo, but you are correct that Catholics are not against it, Bingo is a staple for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The slippery slope is allowing everyone to determine morality. If Bennet didnt say gambling was immoral, and his moral compas (the church) says it's not immoral, then he's not a hypocrite.

I can say that walking a dog is immoral. That doesnt make all dog walkers hypocrites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by codeorama

The media has also stayed low key on Bush's past scandals. Bush himself was asked "Have you ever used Cocaine" and his reply was not "No" as mine would have been, his reply was "not in the past seven years". It amazes me that the media doesn't follow up on that. The reason why is because there is a certain line that you don't cross. Until these "rape" charges are more substantial or there is some evidence, what do you expect.

Code,

I'm a little late to the game, but, this was not at all what he said. We've had this discussion before. You posted bad info off an anti-Bush web page and in repeating it, it appears you've decided it's gospel. I recommend you actually educate yourself on something of this nature because that's not what Bush said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code, provide the quote in full now.

Provide the passage from North's testimony that expressly says, without a doubt, that Reagan knew. As a hint, you won't find it because North himself said he never saw the President's sign off on stuff, but he may have seen his sign off on another ancillary weapons sale that may also have been illegal, but not directly tied to the possibly illegal Iran Contra weapons sales.

It's really simple brother, if you hold an opinion, support it. Provide the data. Or, say sorry and shut up :).

As for Bennett, I think he is a pretty straight shooter and I'm certainly not upset by a person gambling. I, however, am not a religious man who may have a book that says gambling is bad to help form his opinions on what is good and what is bad.

I also know Bennett was a solid liberal for much of his life. He said he switched to the Republican party because the left fell in love with dictators instead of expressing moral outrage at them as they had when he was with the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art..... I said that Bush didn't answer the question, here's just one of tons of articles that say he was the only one of 12 candidates that would not answer the question. Why wouldn't he answer the question? I have no problem answering the question. Bush is your boy, so you don't care. Simple as that. The media COULD have made a huge deal about it but they made very little a deal about it. Someone in this article even questions that. Had Clinton refused to answer if he had used Coke..... what would you be saying?

Also, about Regan, it's one thing to say that we can't prove he knew, but another to believe he didn't know. That's like saying he wasn't in charge foriegn policy. You know he knew, and I know he knew, he just can't remember he knew.

BTW, I liked Regan and consider him my favorite president in my life time. I'm just using this as an example of how the right will cry about one thing, yet turn a blind eye to their own.

DRUG USE: A CAMPAIGN ISSUE IN THE MAKING

Bush Silence on Cocaine Query Feeds Media Quest for Answer

The New York Daily News asked 12 presidential candidates last week if they had ever used cocaine, but it was really only interested in the one who wouldn't answer.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush has steadfastly refused to say whether he used illegal drugs in what he calls his "irresponsible" youth. But news organizations appear increasingly disinclined to accept that response. And their persistence is making the question a campaign issue, despite the lack of any evidence tying Bush to past cocaine use.

"As soon as they ask it, it becomes a story and is put in circulation in a way that may be very unfair to the person who's asked," said Richard Lowry, editor of National Review. Still, he said of Bush's response: "Most people conclude if he can't answer no, there must be some problem."

The Daily News made its inquiries after Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle ( D-S.D. ) said at a press breakfast last week that past drug use was "a legitimate question" for presidential candidates and suggested journalists were giving Bush an easy ride.

Eleven of the 12 candidates denied through spokesmen that they had ever used cocaine; a Bush spokeswoman declined to answer. The headline: "Bush Won't Reveal If He's Used Cocaine."

"It seemed to me that asking the whole dozen of them was a more fair way than just singling out one," said Daily News reporter Timothy Burger, who attended the Daschle breakfast. "Somehow the question has become a fairly mainstream question. . . . With all the other candidates answering squarely, across the ideological spectrum, they appeared not to have a problem with the question."

Karen Hughes, Bush's communications director, said yesterday that "as a former reporter, I was stunned that the press has given as much attention to rumors that are completely unfounded."

Bush, she said, "has been honest about the fact he's made mistakes in the past. He's not going to play the game of trying to disprove the rumor du jour. This kind of rumor, gossip and innuendo drives people out of politics, and he is willing to take that on. He recognizes that will sometimes lead journalists to make mistaken assumptions."

The buzz is clearly growing louder. The cocaine rumor has been debated in recent days on "Fox News Sunday," CNN's "Capital Gang," CNBC's "Hardball" and ABC's "This Week."

A number of news organizations have posed the question. Two Washington Post reporters pressed Bush about cocaine use in reporting a seven-part series on his life. "I'm not going to talk about what I did years ago," the governor said.

A reporter for New Hampshire's WMUR-TV also asked the question on a CNN program. "It is irrelevant what I did 20 to 30 years ago," Bush said.

Questions about the personal lives of candidates have become far more common in the hypercompetitive media climate of the '90s. But they are often triggered by specific allegations, such as when Gennifer Flowers charged in 1992 that she had had a long-running affair with candidate Bill Clinton.

During that campaign, when the Daily News editorial board asked Clinton if he had ever used marijuana, he replied: "I have never broken the laws of my country." He later acknowledged in a television interview that he had tried pot while in Britain, adding famously that he "didn't inhale."

Other politicians, including Vice President Gore, have acknowledged past marijuana use with no apparent penalty. But an admission of having tried cocaine, the focus of major federal antidrug initiatives and much inner-city violence, could be more problematic.

The larger question for the media is whether there should be some kind of statute of limitations on rumors about youthful transgressions by candidates.

"On any question involving drugs, the press is just totally hypocritical," said Walter Shapiro, a USA Today columnist. "For those over 35 and under 70, there are significant periods of one's life that one tries to pretend didn't happen when you're asking about drugs." He added that it is "far more relevant what [bush] knows about foreign policy than what he knows about what went up his nose or didn't go up his nose."

Other journalists observe that Bush has talked openly about drinking heavily before he was 40 and has denied any extramarital affairs, rendering his silence on the cocaine question rather selective.

"The media's attitude is, if you're going to talk about your alcohol abuse and your relations with your wife, why won't you answer this question?" said National Review's Lowry. "I think eventually he'll have to answer it."

forgot the link:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n842.a09.html

the author writes for the Washington Post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

The slippery slope is allowing everyone to determine morality. If Bennet didnt say gambling was immoral, and his moral compas (the church) says it's not immoral, then he's not a hypocrite.

I can say that walking a dog is immoral. That doesnt make all dog walkers hypocrites.

I said in an earlier post that I know nothing about the guy, but if he was preaching about the immorality of gambling, then he deserves to be raked over the coals, but if he never did, then this is really a non story.

The church is a totally different issue... To say the majority of churches support gambling or don't think it's immoral is nuts... Other than Catholics, the rest are against gambling big time. I still remember the lottery coming to Virginia, the churches of different denomination all got together to protest.

If the church wasn't against gambling, there would be casino's all over the place as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bennett is a guy who writes books on morality and preaches morality he has a responsibility to remain purer than the average guy. After all, if you attempt to set yourself up as an icon of morality the standard is different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code,

The Reagan example isn't an example of showing how the right will defend that which it would be outraged over if the left did. In fact, it's another startling example of the depths the left, you, will go to try to mealy-mouth your way into an opposing point without actually KNOWING anything. It's just what the left does. The left takes Clinton's known and verified deception before Congress and compares it to Reagan doing the same. Only when confronted do you admit it's not the same. Reagan may well have lied utterly in saying he couldn't recall. But, that's different than what Clinton did, and he DID lie utterly.

The left is so desperate to accept the things they do they draw unequal comparisons to prop a faulty world view. If you're comfortable in that, then I can't help you any further. But, the difference between you and ASF is simple. He's a nut and he knows it. You're a nut and you don't.

As for the article you posted, I have a few questions. Chief among them is where is Bush's quote, the one you've repeatedly cited? You've stated on more than one occasion that Bush said, in response to the cocaine rumors, "not in the past seven years." I have now, on more than one occasion, asked you to provide that quote. Once again you've failed. So, here's our deal on this. Your next reference to the quoted material you continue to cite will be quoted. Absent that you can either be silent, or say sorry, and then restate what you are saying as, "If you didn't use cocaine, why not just say no, instead of not answering the question." If you want to say that, then knock yourself out.

If you want to continue to fabricate quotes and pretend a google search which made it gospel is important, then PROVIDE A SINGLE link to a single google page that made it so. One, Code. Surely this can't be that hard for you? My other questions about this article are less relevant and I'll supply you the time you need to support your position, or move from it. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...