I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I
wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over.'
<<
Another lie he's told us?
Karen
Update on Bennett
Hi. What lie are you referring to? The guy likes to gamble just as the
rest of us do. He apparently has enough money to enjoy gambling without
putting himself and his family at risk. I don't think he ever spoke out
against gambling or inferred that it was evil. Give the man a break.
Dick M.
krallison416@aol.com wrote:
>>I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I
wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over.'<<
Another lie he's told us?
Karen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[Image]
[Image]
What's new?
[Image]
vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
While you are correct that he himself does not oppose gambling his organization does. But more important, he is a self-proclaimed arbiter of what is moral. Like most persons of his ilk he only opposes those things that he personally does not enjoy. But by making himself out to be more moral than the rest of us and telling us how to behave he sets himself up to be shot down when we discover that he engages in activities that others believe to be immoral and sinful. What's good for the goose.............
···
At 09:52 AM 05/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Hi. What lie are you referring to? The guy likes to gamble just as the
rest of us do. He apparently has enough money to enjoy gambling without
putting himself and his family at risk. I don't think he ever spoke out
against gambling or inferred that it was evil. Give the man a break.
Dick M.
Unless there's something specific that some of you have in mind, I'd suggest
that what have been mentioned so far are merely generalizations. Nothing in
the media has shaken Bennett's standing as a champion of good values, unless
you believe that gambling is immoral.
···
While you are correct that he himself does not oppose gambling his
organization does. But more important, he is a self-proclaimed arbiter of
what is moral. Like most persons of his ilk he only opposes those things
that he personally does not enjoy. But by making himself out to be more
moral than the rest of us and telling us how to behave he sets himself up
to be shot down when we discover that he engages in activities that others
believe to be immoral and sinful. What's good for the goose.............
The only problem I have with this guy is that he just doesn't seem to fit the Joe Gambler stereotype. Yes, he plays video poker; Yes, he's addicted to it as well as the high-limit areas. But he's rich!
My question is this. Is it Immoral to gamble? I don't think so !!!!!! I have never, ever, seen anywhere where, where it is immoral to gamble. However, the problem is when one over indulges in any activity. If you gamble so much that you put you or your love ones at risk. To me that immoral. If you drink to a point where you put yourself or the others around at risk then it is immoral. I do not see a problem with Bennett. I surely don't think he spilled so many lies, that one can say categorically that "he has lied to us again!!!!" Besides, I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a hard enough time living my life, much less casting judgments on others. The bottom line is that I stand in front of a glass door too, so I surely don't want to heaving any rocks at anybody!!!!! The world according to Dave,
Bill Coleman <billc140@mindspring.com> wrote:While you are correct that he himself does not oppose gambling his
organization does. But more important, he is a self-proclaimed arbiter of
what is moral. Like most persons of his ilk he only opposes those things
that he personally does not enjoy. But by making himself out to be more
moral than the rest of us and telling us how to behave he sets himself up
to be shot down when we discover that he engages in activities that others
believe to be immoral and sinful. What's good for the goose.............
···
At 09:52 AM 05/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Hi. What lie are you referring to? The guy likes to gamble just as the
rest of us do. He apparently has enough money to enjoy gambling without
putting himself and his family at risk. I don't think he ever spoke out
against gambling or inferred that it was evil. Give the man a break.
Dick M.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Its not that we think gambling is immoral or we wouldn't do it. Its that Bennett sold himself as a model of virtue, and condemmed other people who did things he thought was immoral (like premarital sex and gay sex). That's being a hippocrite. Its like Gary Condit when he wanted to put the 10 commandments in all the schools, but got caught committing adultery. If your going to be one of those bible-thumping folks, you better make sure your own record is perfect. Ned C. The Wild Joker
Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net> wrote:Unless there's something specific that some of you have in mind, I'd suggest
that what have been mentioned so far are merely generalizations. Nothing in
the media has shaken Bennett's standing as a champion of good values, unless
you believe that gambling is immoral.
While you are correct that he himself does not oppose gambling his
organization does. But more important, he is a self-proclaimed arbiter of
what is moral. Like most persons of his ilk he only opposes those things
that he personally does not enjoy. But by making himself out to be more
moral than the rest of us and telling us how to behave he sets himself up
to be shot down when we discover that he engages in activities that others
believe to be immoral and sinful. What's good for the goose.............
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
···
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The last couple of posts have definitely included some specifics and
I agree that Bennett's "selective" choices of issues is a concern to
some who like what he has to say otherwise.
The point is, other than the media exposure of his gambling--which
wasn't a secret in the first place--nothing has changed. The
objections seem to be that because he enjoys an activity that "some"
people regard as immoral then he's not qualified to speak on other
issues of morality.
But those who posted on this issue don't think that gambling is
immoral either, do they? So if Bennett does something we view as
moral, why charge him with hypocrasy for speaking on morality issues?
Is it because these people just don't agree with his stances on
thosevarious issues?
What about a reformed gambler who now campaigns against gambling and
who also happens to be gay? Hypocrite? Nope, and neither is Bennett.
Let me restate my position. I do not call him a hypocrite even though that
label is not inappropriate due to his organization's stand against the
spread of legalized gambling on moral grounds.
I do object to any individual who attempts to impose his own view of what
is and is not moral and appropriate on all others. Since he seems to
justify his attitudes because the activities he opposes may be harmful to
some individuals, he would therefore need to defend his approval of other
activities on the reverse (something that is impossible to do in respect to
gambling), particularly when many of his allies take the opposite position.
The same can be said for his silence on the use of alcohol. Anyone who sets
himself up to be the final say on what everyone can do morally must be
ready to defend his positions both in favor and against any activity whatever.
To all who say it's been known for a long time I am a news junky and have
never heard a whisper about him. I believe that many people agree with most
of his positions are willing to forgive him his lapse if forgiveness is
needed. Most of his opponents are gleeful that this apparent contradiction
between his public and private persona has been brought to the forefront.
However, anyone who takes the political stage, particularly when they come
across as moral guides must be ready to take the heat when, like every
human being, they turn out to have feet of clay.
···
At 08:43 PM 05/06/2003 +0000, you wrote:
The last couple of posts have definitely included some specifics and
I agree that Bennett's "selective" choices of issues is a concern to
some who like what he has to say otherwise.The point is, other than the media exposure of his gambling--which
wasn't a secret in the first place--nothing has changed. The
objections seem to be that because he enjoys an activity that "some"
people regard as immoral then he's not qualified to speak on other
issues of morality.But those who posted on this issue don't think that gambling is
immoral either, do they? So if Bennett does something we view as
moral, why charge him with hypocrasy for speaking on morality issues?
Is it because these people just don't agree with his stances on
thosevarious issues?What about a reformed gambler who now campaigns against gambling and
who also happens to be gay? Hypocrite? Nope, and neither is Bennett.Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
vpFREE Links: <http://tinyurl.com/a7ga>http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill Coleman wrote:
Let me restate my position. I do not call him a hypocrite even though
that
label is not inappropriate due to his organization's stand against thespread of legalized gambling on moral grounds.
I do object to any individual who attempts to impose his own view of
what
is and is not moral and appropriate on all others.
My teenage grandaughter agrees with you and says this applies to me.
Dick M.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>f6e6e5d.jpg
>
>vpFREE Links: <http://tinyurl.com/a7ga>http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This goes to show that even within the conservative community and
the "religious right," there is disagreement as to what is "moral"
and what is not. For instance, a large faction of the "religious
right" is Catholic. While I am a Protestant and don't begin to count
myself as an authoirty on Catholic beliefs, I do know that they don't
hold the same beliefs regarding adult beverages or gambling as many
of the Protestants who are their political allies. And even though
Bennett is politically tied to the likes of Rev. Pat Robertson, he is
a Roman Catholic. Therefore, given the teachings of his church, he
sees nothing wrong with gambling or adult beverages.
That's not to say that Bennett doesn't have a bit of hypocrisy going
on here. The best-selling "Book of Virtues" that he edited (still
good reading, no matter what you think of Bennett's actions) contains
numerous passages that would tend to frown on gambling as an anathema
to the old-fashioned work ethic.
Where this will hurt Bennett the most is among his core constituency,
the religious conservatives. There's a lot of Southern Baptists and
such here in the South that are pretty unhappy with him right now.
It'll hurt him more in book sales and TV appearances. Of course, if
he really does stay away from the slots, the net effect to his bank
balance will probably be a wash. 
Bill Coleman wrote: Since he seems to justify his attitudes because the
activities he opposes may be harmful to
some individuals, he would therefore need to defend his approval of other
activities on the reverse (something that is impossible to do in respect to
gambling).
Whom did Bennett hurt with his gambling (possibly other than himself)? His
wife doesnt seem to have been affected that much.
I am a news junky and have never heard a whisper about him.
An easy one is the Time magazine piece from 1966 that was reprinted last
weekend on the Web. And the author, Margaret Carlson, discussed it at length
on the Imus radio program, including information about her own familys
gambling.
A far more interesting question that should be asked is just how Newsweek
obtained access to what are supposed to be confidential records?
And to imply that those casinos extended five- and six-figure lines without
knowing his home address and telephone number is preposterous on the
surface. Maybe the contact notations were entered to make it easier for the
casinos to access his accounts while he was traveling, possibly through his
bank, broker or other financial adviser.
This distortion is what happens when maybe 20 or 30 percent of a story is
sliced out and dished to a basically uninformed public.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
An easy one is the Time magazine piece from 1966 that was reprinted last
weekend on the Web.
Sorry. Make that 1996.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"realkyhick" <realkyhick@y...> wrote:
That's not to say that Bennett doesn't have a bit of hypocrisy
going on here. The best-selling "Book of Virtues" that he edited
(still good reading, no matter what you think of Bennett's actions)
contains numerous passages that would tend to frown on gambling as
an anathema to the old-fashioned work ethic.
The key question isn't whether or not one embraces a "work" ethic,
but rather how one chooses to define acceptable "work."
Is it possible for community leaders to decide on a fixed definition
of what constitutes "work" (i.e., what actions are of benefit to the
community) & then force or coerce all community members to engage in
that specific type of work? For instance, religious leaders might
decide that it's only "work" if you're using your muscles & sweating,
& therefore they'd condemn gambling. They'd also condemn, for
instance, making a living by being a banker (lending money), as
indeed Christian churches have done in the past, & some Muslim groups
still do.
On the other hand, I'd argue that no one knows for sure what benefits
the community at any given time. Therefore, I'd rather have each
individual decide for himself what constitutes "work," rather than
having anyone impose one definition on everyone. It's perfectly
possible that certain non-muscles-and-sweat activities (e.g., risk-
taking) might ultimately be of benefit to the community, even if the
majority or leaders don't recognize it as such.
Stuart (RandomStu)
sresnick2@attbi.com
http://home.attbi.com/~sresnick2/mypage.htm