Skip to comments.
The Man of Virtues Has a Vice (Bill Bennett gambles)
Newsweek ^
| 1/2/03
| Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green
Posted on 05/02/2003 1:27:57 PM PDT by Callahan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 421-433 next last
To: WhyamIalwaysonthefence
He is a liar, he lied to all of us..
221
posted on
05/02/2003 3:07:08 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: discostu
But how is his gambling ruining some one else's life? That arguement is completley disigenuous and complete ignores the very simple concept of cause and effect. How many people are going to NOT destroy their family with gambling if Bill stops? None. So why should he bear the moral burden for their addiction?
Because he preaches societal responsibility. The majority of people who try drugs do not get addicted. Many drug users can use drugs responsibly. Why is it morally righteous for him to gamble, but not for the guy down the street to grow and smoke marijuana in his home? How many people are going to NOT destroy their family if that guy stops smoking marijuana. Why should he bear the moral burden for those who can't handle their drugs?
To: Callahan
This is very embarassing and disturbing.
Video Poker? Slots?
Why can't Bill play real games like poker, craps and blackjack?!
223
posted on
05/02/2003 3:07:31 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Stultis
True. Perhaps we can extend this argument:
Drinking isn't necessarily bad; but girly-drinks are sinful.
To: amused
"This is a shame but hey when you preach, you also better follow."If sinner's didn't preach, there wouldn't be any preaching.
The standard Bennett is holding up is not wrong. And it is not wrong for him to hold it up. Those virtues are good standards and we should all aspire to them. We should all hold them up, whether we successfully attain to them or not.
If you applied the same "Standard bearer must be perfect" to everything we do. There would be no standards. The US couldn't even advocate for democracy, when things like Palm Beach happen and democratic vote buying occur.
225
posted on
05/02/2003 3:08:59 PM PDT
by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: zoyd
As soon as I read the "drugs", I knew it wasn't worth responding to.
No way, now how.
Call it personal experience with friends. Not going there.
To: moneyrunner
I guess "truthandlife" isn't going to reply to your post.
Actually, if one plays 9/6 jacks or better video poker perfectly, the return is 99%. The casinos rebate up to 1% in cash back to loyal players. Additional comps for free suites (RFB) airfare ect. can amount to 3% or more.
If Bill plays the high limit slots the return is around 96%. For every $1,000 fed into the machines he would lose $40 if he played for 50 years. If you add his comps into the mix, his enjoyment may more than warrant his gambling "vice".
IOW, slots and video poker are not necessarily the "worst" odds in the house.
227
posted on
05/02/2003 3:09:44 PM PDT
by
Kahuna
To: zoyd
Well, use that argument for gambling, and you'll understand why casino gambling is illegal in the majority of states in the US. Drugs are illegal everywhere.
Gambling is illegal in states because of bluenoses and fundamentalists who frown on drinking and dancing too.
Casino gambling is virtue neutral; it is certainly not immoral.
You're way too exercised over this issue as evidenced by this hysteria:
Drinking a beer doesn't make you immoral, but alcohol causes hundreds of thousands of deaths a year. Throwing a quarter into a slot doesn't make you a bad person, but losing your life savings and flushing your kids' college fund on a losing hand of blackjack is definite harm.
Railing against everything that could possibly be abused would mean nobody would eat, drive cars, drink Coca-Cola, or shop in a store.
Bill Bennett is not doing anything but gambling, as some people play golf or fish. IT'S VIRTUE NEUTRAL if it doesn't harm him or his family life!
Bennett and his organization, Empower America, oppose the extension of casino gambling in the states. In a recent editorial, his Empower America cochair, Jack Kemp, inveighed against lawmakers who pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner. The group recently published an Index of Leading Cultural Indicators that reports 5.5 million American adults as problem or pathological gamblers. Bennett says he has his gambling under control. When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol. I view it as drinking, Bennett says. If you cant handle it, dont do it.
Bennett is so "conservative and Christian."
What an example to follow!
To: Warhead W-88
I'm thinkin' some libs were sent over to disrupt.
To: zoyd
Wait just a damn minute. You mentioned drugs; are the drugs evil, or is the addiction to the drugs evil; or is the taking of the drugs evil? Is gambling immoral; or is placing a wager immoral; or is accepting winnings immoral; or is offering moral advice while not being absadamnlutely perfect immoral? What Bill is doing is stupid from a couple of perspectives, but to moralize on the man and try to persuade us to stamp him immoral over his 'controlled' gambling, is just plain hypocritical in and of itself!
231
posted on
05/02/2003 3:11:07 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
To: Kahuna
Yeah, but who plays games of chance "perfectly"?
No one, except for professional gamblers & cheats/advantage players.
If you're playing that mechanically, you're not in it for the gambling.
Gamblers-- entertainment gamblers -- are in it for the rush and for betting on mojo, and that keeps them from playing perfectly.
To: chasio649
>can't anyone see this guy as a shyster? am i alone here?
No. You are not alone and I do not see him as a shyster either. But, as you say, he has cast "a whole butt-load of stones", and maybe he has been the wrong guy to cast them.
You know what? If one can afford to gamble big, and one wants to gamble big, I don't really care if that one gambles big. But this man gambled BIG, and people are going to want to know where the money came from and just who he was to be so critical of others.
Pwersonally, I always liked the guy.
To: Porterville
It's not your business.
He didn't wave it in your face.
He didn't make you watch it.
He didn't force you to do it.
Get a job with Hillary Clinton if you want to be a Communist, but leave decent folks alone!
To: zoyd
Can you make a distinction between LEGAL and MORAL? Gambling is certainly not a virtue, whether or not it's legal.
Drinking shots of tequila is legal, but drunkenness is cetainly not a virtue, is it?
These three sentences show the flaw in your argument.
First, by what standard do you deem gambling immoral? Social mores seem to accept gambling in moderation, it is legal where he participates, and there seem to be no objective religious restrictions on the practice. If he participated in gambling where it was illegal, it would then also be immoral (breaking the law, if not the gambling itself.)
Gambling may be not be a virtue, but neither is eating, playing catch with your kids, or reading a good book. Gambling is not a vice unless done to excess.
You demonstrate the ultimate flaw in your logic in the last sentence. Drinking in moderation is not immoral; drinking to excess is. Thus, by your own argument, gambling is not immoral;gabling to excess is. There is nothing in this article to suggest Bennett gambles to excess, based on his personal financial situation.
To: Warhead W-88
Not that I'm saying I care either way about Bennet's gambling, you understand.
I'm just saying-- peddle that 99% return nonsense somewhere else; I ain't buying.
All of a sudden, with all this talk of gambling, I've turned into Sky Masterton.
To: Hildy
I don't see what the big deal is...it's legal and he can afford it. So what?And if he had that attitude towards the rest of us, this wouldn't be news. Nobody is making a big deal about how [insert name of famous athlete here] likes to gamble.
237
posted on
05/02/2003 3:13:27 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: chasio649
I think Bennett has cast a whole butt load of stones....can't anyone see this guy as a shyster? am i alone here? Yes, you are alone. Thanks for asking.
To: moneyrunner
I should clarify my statement. Video poker's odds vary on skill and game type. The thing that the casinos bank on is the amount of hands you can play in video poker. You can play up to 600 hands per hour in video poker making you a surebet loser if you are playing long enough.
ODDS IN VIDEO POKER
High pair (Jacks, Queens,
Kings and Aces) 43 out of every 200 hands
Two pair 13 out of every 100 hands
Three of a kind 1 out of every 13 hands
Straight 1 out of every 90 hands
Flush 1 out of every 92 hands
Full house 1 out of every 97 hands
Four of a kind 1 out of every 423 hands
Straight flush 1 out of every 9,610 hands
Royal flush 1 out of every 40,120 hands
To: Warhead W-88
I'm a big fan of Hearts, more cooperative games like Bridge just don't do it for me. There are a number of card games I can play without going buggy, Gin and its family, Pinochle, less traditional games like Milborne. What I love about poker is the stare down, trying to figure out what the other guy has just by his bet, trying to lie about what you have using just your bet. Problem is if there's real people and physical object changing hands the brain goes bye-bye and the urge takes over. It's a strange thing, but it's not terrible to live with.
240
posted on
05/02/2003 3:15:13 PM PDT
by
discostu
(A cow don't make ham)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 421-433 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson