Replies

He did not "come close to breaking even". Yeah, right.

Look, if a guy walks into a casino with $1000 in his pocket and plays the slots until its gone, it is likely that, replaying his winnings, he threw $31,250 into the machines- gradually losing it over the course of the evening. If you ask that fellow how he did, and he says he came out "close to even", he is lying. He walked in with $1000 and walked out with nothing. Claiming to come out close to even would make him guilty of Clintonian wordgames....in which case I'd still lose respect for him.

First, we are not talking about walking in with $1000 and came out with zero, and then making a claim about how he did that evening. We are talking about a man with perhaps $100,000,000 and about how he did on average over 10 years. He denies he lost $8 million and I suspect the reports of his losses are total losses not net losses, reported by people with an agenda trying to make it look worse.

I don't know how much he lost but I am sure he came out ahead some days and behind others. I think he played video blackjack which is the closest thing to 50-50 odds that is offered. I don't see it as word games at all to say you came close to even when you lost less than, I would say, about 10% of what you bet. Sure if you depleted all you assets and in your example I would agree with your way of looking at it, but he did not go to zero, he is still rich.

I am no fan of his either, and I disagree with him on many issues such as the drug war but people attacking him here are on weak ground especially since they seem to be unable to come up with quotes of him preaching against gambling.

Let me see if I understand. If someone is anti-drug and anti-adultery, then they have to be anti-gambling and abstain from gambling or else they are a hypocrit? Is this what passes for logic?