Earlier, Scrat wrote:
Quote: lola - I must admit to considerable ignorance of Bennett, both his history and present day actions.
Scrat used that excuse in order to ask Lola:
Quote:Can you give us some specific examples of his engaging in what you call "self righteous finger pointing"?
Then Lola (quite properly in my opinion) wrote:
Quote:Good night, Scrat. Where do you live? If you haven't seen Bill Bennett self righteously pointing his finger dozens of times, then you must be livin in a cave somewhere. He's been on Larry King Live on CNN repeatedly. He's been all over the place. The very voice of virtue and purity. Why he's so f--kin pure he makes my stomach turn.
To which, Scrat now writes:
Quote:I guess I live in a cave then, because no, I haven't seen much of Bennett over the last year other than him pimping for his k12.com venture.
Interesting that Scrat would now limit the knowledge of Bennett to just the last year.
MY GUESS: Scrat has heard Bennett and heard his sactimoneous bullshit just as the rest of us have. But as Blatham pointed out, Scrat was probably just trying to set Lola up -- rather than arguing the comments on their merits.
What nonsense!
I surely hope Lola, Blatham, or someone else calls Scrat on this -- because Scrat is apparently bright enough not to engage me in debate.
Earlier, when Scrat wrote: "(Possibly) He (Bennett) considers it (gambling) a vice and left it out in an attempt to avoid being hypocritical"...
...I questioned him/her with:
"I would be interesting in the reasoning that causes you to suppose that by "leaving it out" Bennett would be attempting to avoid being hypocritical.
Why would leaving it out -- which seems to me to be blatantly hypocritical whether he thought it a vice of scale or a vice per se -- -- not be considered hypocritical in your opinion?
Scrat ducked the question. Perhaps one of you could pose it to Scrat again. I'd be interested to hear a response.