Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (423288)	7/5/2003 3:09:41 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The Republicans and the Right Wing "Christians" are the most hypocritical people on earth.... constantly whining and preaching this righteous path while they have affairs, are homosexual, gamblers, environmental desecrators, or war mongering power junkies...... Those that talk the loudest should be under the most suspicion CC

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (423288)	7/5/2003 3:13:48 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I think the crux of the issue is, what happens to the money that he gambles? In the past, a good amount would have ended up in the hands of criminals. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. I'm no expert, but it seems that gambling is much more of a legitimate business, with investors, and the resulting stimulus to the local economy (at least in Vegas). Although I believe that Bennett is being at least a bit hypocritical, he made his money by offering a product for sale that was purchased willingly by others. Saddam stole his from the people he repressed. Not quite the same thing...

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (423288)	7/5/2003 4:53:54 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Ann, re:Bill Bennett's gambling away millions is almost equivalent to Saddam Hussein's 80 palaces--both men are extremely selfish & lack human empathy for those less fortunate than themselves--that's immoral. There is a difference and if you cannot see it then the 2004 election for the liberals is over before it starts. Of course with Terry still running the show, the 2004 election is already over. Steve

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (423288)	7/5/2003 6:54:02 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I believe it is irresponsible for a human being who has excess funds to throw away millions in quest of a fleeting thrill. Well, I understand this belief of yours. I can even identify with it. But the “responsibility” you are assigning to Bennett is not ours to assign. What you may call a “fleeting thrill” may be to Bennett exactly the preferred medicine to help him relax and make it another week or month. Since he has the relative few bucks to spend on himself here, he is as free to spend it as you are to buy a ticket to watch the Giants. No natural moral code is broken – at least no more broken than when we spend time here to yell at one another, as opposed to using the time to help starving kids. It is immoral to be so insensitive to the fact that children die every day in 3rd world countries for lack of food & basic medical attention. I would wager Bennett gives more assistance to starving children than practically all of his critics. Charity is not the issue here. We must not forget that the money he “wasted” was his to waste. Many goofy liberals have made demands upon others' money based upon completely invalid and utterly subjective claims to moral authority. In truth, Bennett bought a product, one that was apparently very expensive and of little worth to you, but that to him was quite valuable and worth the money. That is what we call a market. Bill Bennett's gambling away millions is almost equivalent to Saddam Hussein's 80 palaces… Quite false - indeed the two circumstances are polar opposites. Saddam took wealth from his own countrymen, in fact the very people he led; and he used it selfishly. Bennett did nothing of the sort. He worked hard, earned his money honestly, gave some of it to charity (when he didn’t have to), took care of his financial obligations and then played with some of it in a casino. There was no natural immorality here in the least – nary a bit. --both men are extremely selfish & lack human empathy for those less fortunate than themselves--that's immoral. Very well then. We will simply disagree. I am not prepared to judge Bennett as harshly as you simply because he gambled in a casino with money he could afford to lose. Even a dollar spent in an office poll or raffle can help save the life of a human. So by your standard these activities are immoral also. Bennett spent his money to acquire a product. Had he spent it on a year-long vacation across the world, he would have done the natural moral equivalent of gambling in a casino. In both cases he spent his own hard-earned money to enjoy an experience. I blame Bennett for failing to be above reproach. He should have known others would place moral demands upon him as you have done, whether those demands are valid or not. I also blame him for indirectly supporting an industry that he knows is brimming with shady characters, general immorality, pain and shattered lives. But even here these judgments come from a source that I cannot expect Bennett to understand. They are judgments that come from a standard by which I aim to live. Because I aim to live in this way, I might choose not to fraternize with Bill Bennett, this, for the sake of my younger, less reasonable children, my older, but just as unreasonable neighbors and countrymen, etc...