Online Casino reviews at 777 Online Casinos

カジノ

$100K a year.

Bennett makes that much in two hours on the lecture circuit. Would you say your buddy had a problem if it took him two hours a of work a year to cover his gambling expenses?

http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=P330_0_1_0

As far as lobbying for certain ideas is concerned, all I can say is that WE, (Norm and David), don’t do it enough!

While I’m not sure I completely agree with the ability of everyone to self-regulate (considering that 90% of the population are complete idiots), I will give you the claim that you can determine what is right for you. I feel the same about myself, although it would be imprudent for me not to question or analyze my own ability to do so. That is not the point I take to task. The point is that if you allow yourself to be responsible for self-regulation, you must allow all citizens that ability. The problem arises, as you said, when an individual decides for another what that individual is or is not capable of. To simplify, while *you* may be saying “excessive FOR me”, Bennett (and every other agent of the moral majority) is saying “excessive FOR me” when it comes to themselves *AND* “excessive TO me” when it comes to the rest of us non-lobbying taxpaying bastards.
Am I way off base or missing the point here?

David says: “Oh and by the way, what’s excessive for me, may not be for you.”

That’s exactly the point, David….

I also take an drink occasional drink. Does this make me a hypocrite? I don’t think so. Now, in anticipation of the next retort…

Do you think all alcohol counselors need to be teetotalers? What do they make their livings doing?

If you can’t grasp the difference between doing something occasionally and benignly, and doing something excessively and self-destructively, you need to get a grip.

This flap about Bennett is a silly.

Oh and by the way, what’s excessive for me, may not be for you.

Sean Hackbarth, Roger, Will, I would love nothing more than to be able to ignore Bill Bennett’s moralizing, but some of it already codified into the law of the land. As John T. Kennedy pointed out on No Treason!, *that* is Bennett’s crime. The issue is *not* that Bennett gambled, and Radley never claimed it was. Jeez, did you people even read the post?

I’ve avoided the William Bennett story for a few days now mainly because I didn’t consider it to be news.

Yeah, it would be fine for Radley to say it was immoral for Bennett to gamble if that was what Radley thought. But that’s not what Radley thinks.

What’s odd is how much criticism Bennett’s getting from people who presumably think his gambling is his business.

Bennett is guilty of real offenses, none of which would be ameliorated if he abstained from gambling.

Since he’s rich he can apparently wager a lot of money and not jeopardize the other things he wants to do with his life. No evidence has been offered to the contrary.

“And, of course, he’s rich because he’s made himself the chief spokesperson for vice and virtue in America.”

Um, how does one do that Radley? Can you do it? Were people snapping up his books because they thought he was a saint? He got rich off his writing by trading value for value and I fail to see how his gambling, or even hypocrisy, invalidates that.

Martin Luther King was a public moralizer. Do you dismiss him because he was a philanderer and a plagiarist? Unlike Bennett’s case, King’s vices weren’t victimless.

Gambling is not an offense against anyone. Moralizing is not an offense against anyone. Hypocrisy is not an offense against anyone. You’re mostly complaining about the wrong things.

In order to criticize someone else’s behavior, must one have NO faults/vices/sins of their own? That’s the position most seem to be taking, and the notion frightens me.

Since we all have some issues in our past, I suppose none of us can criticize anyone for anything anymore.

As for Bennett, I am uncomfortable with some of his opinions, particularly regarding drugs, and I don’t care ONE BIT about his gambling habit, particularly if it is victimless (besides himself, of course). Frankly, I think the issue is grossly overblown. If you don’t like what he is saying, stop listening. That’s what I’ve chosen to do and it’s working nicely.

Yeah, right.

He “gambles” his money at high stakes slot machines and video poker. It is not only unlikely that that he would be even over the span of 10 years playing the stakes he does…. it is absolutely impossible. The percentage varies, but over the long term the casino will take anywhere from 1.5% to 15% of a gamblers money, more if you jump machines a lot. Those things aren’t “games of chance” for the casino.

If Bennett wants to comment on other people who make personal choices, its only to be expected that he should feel the heat of others.

This Bennett flap is way out of control. He is a private citizen persuing his own happiness at no one else’s expense. If you don’t like his books, don’t read them. If you don’t like his lectures, don’t listen to them.

Like any other industry, casinos are based on profit and loss. You win some and you lose some. Would you be so outraged if Bennett sat down at a friendly card table once a week among friends?

Man up, Radley. You’re stooping to the level of personal attack to further your ideology, and it is transparent. That is the tactic of liberals, of late, and it doesn’t become you.

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinion, and please keep doing so. It inspires further debate which is the linch pin of a free society.

Don’t think that I am some rabid Bennett fan. I am not. When I first heard the story, I was a bit disgusted. However, it’s his money to burn (or redistribute depending on how you look at it).

Anyway, I believe that this media hype over Bennett’s personal proclivities is unjust – a witch hunt, if you will.

Will