Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/6/2003 10:35:34 PM EDT
Well?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:40:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:44:12 PM EDT
I dont like him or most of his views, but he's not a hypocrite. NOr do I think he's a victim.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:45:03 PM EDT
Bill is the genesis of the '94 AWB. His thoughts brought us the original import ban of AWs. He is kinda innocent though, he was heavily influenced from this conservation think tank, but I can't remember the name of the org and whom.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:58:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 10:59:52 PM EDT by TigerStripe]
If he has preached/moralized about gambling then he's a hypocrite. (I don't know, so I didn't vote) I'd like to see some links or at least some info on where he was the "root" of the '89 and '94 bans. Not saying it isn't true, I just haven't seen or neard it myself. TS
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:08:09 PM EDT
Bill "Drug Czar, drug=guns=drugs" Bennett, need anymore excuse?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:09:27 PM EDT
TigerStripe: I read it in a Soldier of Fortune Magazine, 11 years ago. Can't provide links etc, maybe you can do a Goggle search and see what you can turn up. I can't for the life of me remmember the conservative think tank and its pres, but Bennet don't know jack about guns, and the elder Bush didn't either. Bennett held some kind of staff position in the older Bush's inner cicle. Even though the elder Bush sought Bennett's advice on guns thus result in the '89 import ban of AWs.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:10:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:17:41 PM EDT
The problem is he didn't actually condemn gambling. He did argue against expanding casino gambling to other states, but that's not the same thing as condemning gambling. According to Catholic doctrine gambling falls into sin only when it harms the gambler. If you can afford the losses it's harmless. Buying a lottery ticket once a week or playing bingo does not send you to hell. I do object to his choice of games. Slot machines--sheesh. Little old lady game. I think he's lying or deluding himself when he says he was 'about even' over his gambling career. The slots will take a consistent percentage of the wager, and over the long run you will discover why casinos can afford to build such nice buildings in the desert.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:20:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: Bill is the genesis of the '94 AWB. His thoughts brought us the original import ban of AWs.
View Quote
BULL-shit. WTF are you talking about? Are we talking about the same guy even? You cant say something like that without backing it up with proof. Bennett never even talks about guns.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:22:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:28:03 PM EDT
I read the links and I think the author must be confused. Bennett was "drug czar" not Secretary of the Treasury who then controlled the ATF. Why would he have even been in the loop with regards to a decision about firearms?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:37:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: I read the links and I think the author must be confused. Bennett was "drug czar" not Secretary of the Treasury who then controlled the ATF. Why would he have even been in the loop with regards to a decision about firearms?
View Quote
No shit. I hate it when people dont know what the fuck they're talking about. I had a professor who claimed that "Even Bill Bennett, Mr. Conservative, is in favor of legalizing marijuana." I corrected him, saying he's thinking of Bill Buckley, another arch-conservative who unlike Bennett, favors marijuana decriminalization. Bill Bennett, Mr. Morality, Mr. Drug Czar, would never in a million years advocate legalizing dope. Ever. My professor says "No, I know for a fact it's Bill Bennett". I bet him $100 he's wrong, and the SOB declines to take me up on it. It's trivial, so I dont press it any further. Look warlord, Bennett doesn't really care about guns. He's involved with drugs, education, morality, children, etc.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:58:08 PM EDT
Thanks for the info, WarLord and thanks Sherrick for the links. And as for Imbro's comment, I agree about the drug war, even if that was not the spirit of it. The drug war is in the same shape that the Korean War ended. Neither side won. As for those who say, if you legalize it they'll be selling it to my kid, it will be everywhere. It is everywhere. The only difference in the drug wr and Prohibition is that the "Prohibitionists" admitted and/or they were wrong and it was getting nowhere. Again for those who say it will be everywhere if it's legal, tell my where you can legally smoke a cigarette. If drugs where legalized there would be "drug stores" selling them instead of gangs who commit most of the drug crimes. TS
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:05:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By warlord: Bill is the genesis of the '94 AWB. His thoughts brought us the original import ban of AWs.
View Quote
BULL-shit. WTF are you talking about? Are we talking about the same guy even? You cant say something like that without backing it up with proof. Bennett never even talks about guns.
View Quote
I'm real positive. I'm pretty sure he IS the guy who brought us the import ban of '89 or at least had a very heavy hand in it. Oh I remember now, the conservative think-tank, it was called the Heritage Foundation. The founder of the Heritage Foundation had a thing against guns, and Bennett just parrotted his views to Bush Sr. and voilá the import ban of '89.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:10:36 AM EDT
BILL "DRUG CZAR" BENNETT WAS the one who introduced and with help from bush sr.'s presidential decision directive, got to the 1989 "assault weapon" import ban. Using the drugs=guns propaganda, the stupid sheeple bought it and actually believed the subsequent bullshit from Bennett and the GOP that the import ban was only temporary and would be repealed "real soon". How many more times are you people going to grab your ankles for the neo-cons?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:35:08 AM EDT
Guns=Drugs....sounds pretty stupid then, sounds pretty stupid now...F-him! IMBROGLIO!....glad to see you are back. [hail2]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:36:14 AM EDT
See line below.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:42:41 AM EDT
Just a wealthy man enjoying a highstakes passtime. Some people spend alot of money on stamps, cars, guns, etc. If he can afford it who cares?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:17:07 AM EDT
The thing that disgusted me was the way the media was gloating over it, like he had been caught with kiddie porn. The way I see it, it was his money. So long as he's not doing anything illegal or not providing for his family, it's his business. I don't even know why it was considered to be newsworthy.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:39:32 AM EDT
I have never heard him criticize gambling, so I don't see him as a hypocrite.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:39:11 AM EDT
Let's not forget that Bennett gets points for being a hypocrite in other areas. While he was Drug Czar he was addicted to tobacco and would have some good stiff drinks as early as 10:30AM. He was only against those drugs that he didn't use. As for the drugs=guns=drugs thing, that has been the basis for anti-gun legislation from the very beginning. Drug prohibition drives gun prohibition.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:39:13 AM EDT
He has stated that it is not a problem for an individual to gamble. Bill Bennett has only taken stands on gambling insofar that he is opposed to the expansion of government in to gambling. A perfectly consistence stace… The same people taking some much glee in this are the ones that think it is OK for a President of the United States to diddle the help in the work place and then lie about it under oath.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:07:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13: Don't forget Mr. Bill (Nobody should gamble except me) Bennett was one of the major players behind the Bush Import Ban in 89. His is all about BIG GOVERNMENT. He is a dick. His duplicity did not surprise me in the least and I hope he now fades into obscurity.
View Quote
Bennett is a hypocrite, and is one sick SOB. He is using the classic alcoholic excuses. He's in denial. Pile that on top of sherricks post, and one can see he's useless too. Typical neo-con. Just useless.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:19:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Max_Mike: He has stated that it is not a problem for an individual to gamble. Bill Bennett has only taken stands on gambling insofar that he is opposed to the expansion of government in to gambling. A perfectly consistence stace…
View Quote
Yeah, he is perfectly consistent. His habits are good while the habits of others are bad. The best example is his own drug use while Drug Czar. He used the drugs that account for about 99 percent of all drug-related deaths in the US, while campaigning against the drugs that cause about one percent.
The same people taking some much glee in this are the ones that think it is OK for a President of the United States to diddle the help in the work place and then lie about it under oath.
View Quote
So how about we agree that they are both louses? Perhaps Clinton's only saving grace is that he wasn't seeking to put people in jail for habits that were just as bad as his own habits.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:20:11 AM EDT
P.S. I have never heard Bennet say anything against gambling... In order for him to be a hypocryte, he'd have to do that first...
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:28:31 AM EDT
Bill Bennett is a victim. He was a valued customer of Bellagio and another casino company while some liberal prick on an ideological assault mission leaked his customer records to the press. How would you like it if some anti-gun health 'professional' leaked your mental health records to the press? I expect the "high-rollers" to be leaving those casinos in droves, now that they know there is a mole who will compromise their privacy. Bennett should have been guaranteed privacy for engaging what is a legal activity that harmed no one. Despite what he bet, his lifestyle is more than sufficient to cover his losses. I never heard Bennett saying gambling with one's money was immoral. He was subjected to a drive-by reporting driven by leaked information. No one should be happy about that.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:31:46 AM EDT
Oh.. On another note... One of the biggest problems the 'pro-drug' crew has, besides what their actual position is, is the nature of the group... I, and most people that I know, see them as a bunch of hedonistic stoners who want nothing more than the ability to legally get high (and to hell with what it does to society, just so I can get high)... Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERY SINGLE PRO-DRUGGIE I'VE MET IN PERSON IS. ALL OF THEM. DITTO FOR THE 'MEDICINAL MJ' CROWD (At least where I've met them, it's 'Oh, then I can say I have migranes, and legally get pot').... Now on the off chance that some of you who advocate legalization have NEVER smoked pot, this was not aimed at you personally. But think about the majority motivation behind requests for legalization. It's simply 'So I Can Get High'... It's just fortunate that we got to the current crop of illegal drugs before they became as ingrained as booze & tobacco. That's the only reason why the prohibition of 'everything else' still stands: there IS a majority in favor of it... And as long as it keeps drug users stigmatized and confined to a specific subset, we'll be fine... Let loose, and there goes the negiborhood...
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:39:40 AM EDT
I'll take Bill Bennet over: Terry McAulliffe Bill Clinton Katrina Vandenheuval E.J. Dionne Chris Matthews Mike Malloy Chuck Schumer etc... ANY DAY! I could really care less if they don't know anything about guns. It is disturbing that they are willing to go along with the political winds on some issues.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:56:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A: P.S. I have never heard Bennet say anything against gambling...
View Quote
Yeah, when he wrote his book on virtues, he made it clear that anything he does isn't included in the category of sins.
In order for him to be a hypocryte, he'd have to do that first...
View Quote
How about using drugs while he was Drug Czar?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:02:41 AM EDT
Bill Bennett gave up SMOKING when he was drug czar so he wouldn't look like a hypocrite. I'm going to look into his connection to the bans on assault rifles (and I doubt there is one).
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:08:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: Bill Bennett gave up SMOKING when he was drug czar so he wouldn't look like a hypocrite.
View Quote
Only after it was pointed out that he was a hypocrite. And he remained a pretty stout drinker. Just FYI, his two drugs of choice kill more people in the US every year than all the people killed by all the illegal drugs in the last century or so. So this guy is really concerned about the health and safety (and virtues) of the American public? Yeah, right.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:08:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: I dont like him or most of his views, but he's not a hypocrite. NOr do I think he's a victim.
View Quote
Ditto. Gambling like drinking is legal where he did it. Neither one is harmful if you know the limits. In gambling, it's never bet more than you can afford to lose. I don't think he did that. No victim either. He is a big boy & a public figure. Talk the talk, you better walk the walk.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:13:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A: Oh.. On another note... One of the biggest problems the 'pro-drug' crew has, besides what their actual position is, is the nature of the group... I, and most people that I know, see them as a bunch of hedonistic stoners who want nothing more than the ability to legally get high (and to hell with what it does to society, just so I can get high)... Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERY SINGLE PRO-DRUGGIE I'VE MET IN PERSON IS. ALL OF THEM. DITTO FOR THE 'MEDICINAL MJ' CROWD (At least where I've met them, it's 'Oh, then I can say I have migranes, and legally get pot').... Now on the off chance that some of you who advocate legalization have NEVER smoked pot, this was not aimed at you personally. But think about the majority motivation behind requests for legalization. It's simply 'So I Can Get High'... It's just fortunate that we got to the current crop of illegal drugs before they became as ingrained as booze & tobacco. That's the only reason why the prohibition of 'everything else' still stands: there IS a majority in favor of it... And as long as it keeps drug users stigmatized and confined to a specific subset, we'll be fine... Let loose, and there goes the negiborhood...
View Quote
It is pretty obvious that 1) you don't know many people involved in the movement for reform and 2) you have never read any of the most basic research on this subject. Yes, a large part of the American public does support the drug prohibition laws. That is primarily a product of abject ignorance. The one common thread between the people who want to prohibit guns and the people who want to prohibit drugs is that neither one of them knows anything about the subject. Like you, for example. Care to try to answer some basic factual questions about the subject? I would bet that you wouldn't do any better than the anti-gun folks when you ask them about guns. BTW, did you happen to catch the fact that drug prohibition drives the calls for gun prohibition? Gun prohibition laws always follow an intense period of drug prohibition. The first example was the National Firearms Act at the end of alcohol prohibition.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:18:08 AM EDT
I think he may have a problem with gambling. A lot of good, otherwise healthy people do. It can be an addiction like alcoholism or drug dependence and has many of the same symptoms, including rationalization. Of course I'm not qualified to diagnose him, but it sounds like he's squandered a lot of money that could have been passed on to his heirs or given to charity rather than fattening the pockets of casino owners.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:20:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord:
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By warlord: Bill is the genesis of the '94 AWB. His thoughts brought us the original import ban of AWs.
View Quote
BULL-shit. WTF are you talking about? Are we talking about the same guy even? You cant say something like that without backing it up with proof. Bennett never even talks about guns.
View Quote
I'm real positive. I'm pretty sure he IS the guy who brought us the import ban of '89 or at least had a very heavy hand in it. Oh I remember now, the conservative think-tank, it was called the Heritage Foundation. The founder of the Heritage Foundation had a thing against guns, and Bennett just parrotted his views to Bush Sr. and voilá the import ban of '89.
View Quote
Senator Kennedy: "Are you going to make a recommendation to us to ban the manufacturing and production and the distribution of those weapons [assault rifles] in the United States?" Mr. Bennett: "No, I'm not Senator. . . . We do not want to -- we've had this discussion before -- interfere with the legitimate rights of gun owners and collectors and hunters." --Discussion between Senator Edward Kennedy and Drug Czar William Bennett during September 7, 1989 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee. [url]http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm[/url] Americans watched in horror when television showed the Cambodian school children killed by a deranged criminal with a Kalashnikov rifle, in a Stockton, California, schoolyard in January 1989. America's "Drug Czar" William Bennett informed the American people that Kalashnikovs were guns made only for drug traffickers, like the Crips and Bloods gangs in Los Angeles. Through Bennett and the television networks, America heard one story about semiautomatic rifles. Another, equally dramatic story, never was heard outside Los Angeles. In May 1988, the Bloods attacked a Los Angeles housing project containing Cambodians. The Cambodians fought back with M1's and Kalashnikovs and drove away the Bloods." [url]http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/assault.weapon.html[/url] So kind of a mixed bag. Doesn't seem like Bennett's fundamentally opposed to gun ownership, but was pushing for an import ban as part of the asinine war on some drugs. Sorry for saying you guys didn't know what you were talking about. I didn't know about Bennett's involvement with the import ban, and he hadn't written or spoken about guns (the I know of)since.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:23:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A: It's just fortunate that we got to the current crop of illegal drugs before they became as ingrained as booze & tobacco.
View Quote
You need to check out the 16 to 26 crowd (demographic) it's pretty damn well ingrained. TS
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:39:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Bill Bennett is a victim. He was a valued customer of Bellagio and another casino company while some liberal prick on an ideological assault mission leaked his customer records to the press. How would you like it if some anti-gun health 'professional' leaked your mental health records to the press? I expect the "high-rollers" to be leaving those casinos in droves, now that they know there is a mole who will compromise their privacy. Bennett should have been guaranteed privacy for engaging what is a legal activity that harmed no one. Despite what he bet, his lifestyle is more than sufficient to cover his losses. I never heard Bennett saying gambling with one's money was immoral. He was subjected to a drive-by reporting driven by leaked information. No one should be happy about that.
View Quote
I have no sympathy for anyone of any persuasion who puts himself out in the public as some paragon of virtue as Bennett has done. If you work as a street whore, you can expect to get AIDS. If you work in politics, and/or present yourself as a public paragon of virtue, you can expect that, sooner or later, someone will get you. He made a lot of money telling everyone how virtuous he was. He has nothing to cry about now.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:09:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Bill Bennett is a victim. He was a valued customer of Bellagio and another casino company while some liberal prick on an ideological assault mission leaked his customer records to the press. How would you like it if some anti-gun health 'professional' leaked your mental health records to the press? I expect the "high-rollers" to be leaving those casinos in droves, now that they know there is a mole who will compromise their privacy. Bennett should have been guaranteed privacy for engaging what is a legal activity that harmed no one. Despite what he bet, his lifestyle is more than sufficient to cover his losses. I never heard Bennett saying gambling with one's money was immoral. He was subjected to a drive-by reporting driven by leaked information. No one should be happy about that.
View Quote
I have no sympathy for anyone of any persuasion who puts himself out in the public as some paragon of virtue as Bennett has done. If you work as a street whore, you can expect to get AIDS. If you work in politics, and/or present yourself as a public paragon of virtue, you can expect that, sooner or later, someone will get you. He made a lot of money telling everyone how virtuous he was. He has nothing to cry about now.
View Quote
With all due respect, you sound like an "end justifies the means" kinda guy. I take it you believe it's okay to dig into someone's private records without his permission so you can attack his role in public debate because you disagree. You're right about people in politics being targets for those who "will get you." But do sneaky pricks and lowlife scum that have to comb through trash in order to attack the person and not the position really add value to the discourse? I believe Bennett made a name for himself pointing out there are two ways to conduct oneself, especially in a leadership role: honest and dishonest. He was doing nothing more than laying out the choices and consequences just like every minister or priest or rabbi does every weekend. I'm thinking you figure those clergy people are nothing more than 'altar whores' who should expect to get some kind of perverted sinner's comeuppance.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:31:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:04:24 PM EDT
He insists on preaching morals to people.... HK-91=Bad no one has a legit purpose for having one Pot=Bad people do not have the ability to control their use of it Gambling=Bad unless you are him Though I didn't give a shit who gambles, hell I know I do all the time. This is the reason I am a Libertarian
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:32:13 PM EDT
He was doing Nicorette gum and drinking when he was drug czar.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:57:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:02:25 PM EDT
Top Top