Remember the outrage?
- Thread starter ScoPro
- Start date
I remember when Clinton had to answer questions about smoking pot, and GWB blew off questions about cocaine abuse and alcoholism which included DUIs and rumored stay in rehab.
Things change.
__________________________________________________
As usual, avoid the question of whether something is right or wrong and point the finger at the other side. the american way.
Things change.
__________________________________________________
As usual, avoid the question of whether something is right or wrong and point the finger at the other side. the american way.
Art Vandelay
500+ Posts
Why do you say Clinton "had to answer questions" and GWB "blew off questions"??
His DWI and alleged cocaine use were huge stories that he wasn't able to just blow off.
His DWI and alleged cocaine use were huge stories that he wasn't able to just blow off.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Are you saying that Bill Clinton doesn't mind getting involved in a little shadiness as a means of advancing his agenda? Get the **** out of town!!!
Anybody who reads this board knows that I'm not a Bill Clinton fan, but, $31M can do a lot of good in the world. Does it outweigh the ill done to get it? Who knows?
But I can tell you this: $31M can fight a lot of AIDS. Had it not gone there, it probably would have been spread around to a lot of different real ******** for their personal use. Consider the charitable donation "bribery sequestration".
Anybody who reads this board knows that I'm not a Bill Clinton fan, but, $31M can do a lot of good in the world. Does it outweigh the ill done to get it? Who knows?
But I can tell you this: $31M can fight a lot of AIDS. Had it not gone there, it probably would have been spread around to a lot of different real ******** for their personal use. Consider the charitable donation "bribery sequestration".
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
general, isn't that exactly what ScoPro's doing in the initial post?
Damn, y'all can't figure out whether to wind your *** or scratch your watch. And one of you ends up having to whine about William J. knocking down mega Bens in the free market because ....someone else whined about Reagan 14 years earlier?
That's what psychologist call "penis envy."
And I must say it's good to be hung with the standard-bearer.
Damn, y'all can't figure out whether to wind your *** or scratch your watch. And one of you ends up having to whine about William J. knocking down mega Bens in the free market because ....someone else whined about Reagan 14 years earlier?
That's what psychologist call "penis envy."
And I must say it's good to be hung with the standard-bearer.
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
Yeah, but Bush lied!
Reagan's trip was an embarrassment to the office. You can't go back in time to change the fact that Reagan took a hefty fee from a foreign client just to come talk. I don't think presidents should do that.
There are plenty of bad things to say about Clinton, too. Using his name and prestige to raise huge amounts of money for good causes is not one of them.
No matter how much you dislike them, Carter and Clinton have used their influence and presence to improve the world more than any other presidents of my lifetime. The others mainly seemed to play golf, sit on boards of directors and set up a comfortable retirement. That doesn't make them bad men.
Scopro, do you think it is a good idea for a former American president to accept huge fees, such as Reagan's in Japan? To me:
1. It is unseemly for an American president to seem so blatantly buyable.
2. Couldn't the promise of a multi million dollar speaking engagement paid directly to the president in question be a bribe?
That was the source of my outrage, and I was outraged.
There are plenty of bad things to say about Clinton, too. Using his name and prestige to raise huge amounts of money for good causes is not one of them.
No matter how much you dislike them, Carter and Clinton have used their influence and presence to improve the world more than any other presidents of my lifetime. The others mainly seemed to play golf, sit on boards of directors and set up a comfortable retirement. That doesn't make them bad men.
Scopro, do you think it is a good idea for a former American president to accept huge fees, such as Reagan's in Japan? To me:
1. It is unseemly for an American president to seem so blatantly buyable.
2. Couldn't the promise of a multi million dollar speaking engagement paid directly to the president in question be a bribe?
That was the source of my outrage, and I was outraged.
NameAlreadyInUse
500+ Posts
NAIU,
It's the amount of money that makes the eyebrow go up. Is there an amount that would make you wonder if it was for something more than merely showing up to speak?
And the other thing is the unseemliness. It's not a legal thing, it's a vulgarity thing.
It's also sort of human. On the Tonight Show, Jimmy Carter was a guest around the time Reagan took the fee. When asked if he thought it was right, Carter paused which showed he thought it wasn't the best of ideas, then amusingly indicated he might be available for the same price. I wish I could recall the exact exchange.
It's the amount of money that makes the eyebrow go up. Is there an amount that would make you wonder if it was for something more than merely showing up to speak?
And the other thing is the unseemliness. It's not a legal thing, it's a vulgarity thing.
It's also sort of human. On the Tonight Show, Jimmy Carter was a guest around the time Reagan took the fee. When asked if he thought it was right, Carter paused which showed he thought it wasn't the best of ideas, then amusingly indicated he might be available for the same price. I wish I could recall the exact exchange.
You are assuming I didn't think anything was wrong with Reagan's speech & payment, which was embarrassing and a disgrace to say the least.
Do you feel the same way about Clinton's multimillion dollar speech business ($50 million so far) which is not related to this case?
I've checked out the Clinton Foundation website and am not impressed at all. Apparently it's primary function is to host seminars of "movers & shakers" to come up with ideas to save the cities & the planet. Then it takes credit for international organizations' accomplishments.
It gives out no grants, no scholarships.
In essence, it seems to be just a liberal think tank, not a charitable organization.
I would like to see an audit of it's assets - what it owns and who uses them - plus who works for it at what salaries, not to mention how it's expenses are disbursed.
Reminds me a bit of Kennedy's "Citizens Energy Corporation", which pays RFK Jr. $400,000 to hobnob with the likes of Hugo Chavez, obstensively to bring low cost heating oil to the poor & elderly.
But it is interesting to note that his actions are in contradiction to the humanitarian policy of the US, as noted in the article.
Does Hillary approve of this?
Please excuse me for being skeptical of anything that guy does. He has earned the cynicism.
Do you feel the same way about Clinton's multimillion dollar speech business ($50 million so far) which is not related to this case?
I've checked out the Clinton Foundation website and am not impressed at all. Apparently it's primary function is to host seminars of "movers & shakers" to come up with ideas to save the cities & the planet. Then it takes credit for international organizations' accomplishments.
It gives out no grants, no scholarships.
In essence, it seems to be just a liberal think tank, not a charitable organization.
I would like to see an audit of it's assets - what it owns and who uses them - plus who works for it at what salaries, not to mention how it's expenses are disbursed.
Reminds me a bit of Kennedy's "Citizens Energy Corporation", which pays RFK Jr. $400,000 to hobnob with the likes of Hugo Chavez, obstensively to bring low cost heating oil to the poor & elderly.
But it is interesting to note that his actions are in contradiction to the humanitarian policy of the US, as noted in the article.
Does Hillary approve of this?
Please excuse me for being skeptical of anything that guy does. He has earned the cynicism.
These are former presidents. Emphasis on former. They no longer have any say in policy discussions and I fail to see how any of them agreeing to a fee for a speech constitutes a bribe.
You can find it unseemly -- that's fine. But what is the difference between a speech and selling your memoirs? Seriously? The book took them longer than the speech?
Clinton's problem is political as his wife IS running for president and his actions do figure into that process and he has shown that he will be more than just First Consort or First Gentleman. Thus, the actions he takes with respect to his Foundation's dealings with foreign powers reflect on his wife's administration's ability to deal with those powers if she wins the election.
You can find it unseemly -- that's fine. But what is the difference between a speech and selling your memoirs? Seriously? The book took them longer than the speech?
Clinton's problem is political as his wife IS running for president and his actions do figure into that process and he has shown that he will be more than just First Consort or First Gentleman. Thus, the actions he takes with respect to his Foundation's dealings with foreign powers reflect on his wife's administration's ability to deal with those powers if she wins the election.
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
R V ;
You Posted : "Reagan's trip was an embarrassment to the office. You can't go back in time to change the fact that Reagan took a hefty fee from a foreign client just to come talk. I don't think presidents should do that."
reagan got 2 mil for a speech . he was properly critiicized.
If you don't think Presidents should take speaking fees how do you feel about Clinton's financial deal with leaders of Dubai?
at the same time his wife , a senator, is decrying letting dubai manage any operations at our posts?
Now we read clinton is trying to get out from under that partnership to the tune of 20 MILLION.
If you criticize a 2 million isolated speaking fee as hefty I can't wait to read your outrage at a 20 MILLION buy out. You don't even have to go back in time to criticize it. It is going on now
You Posted : "Reagan's trip was an embarrassment to the office. You can't go back in time to change the fact that Reagan took a hefty fee from a foreign client just to come talk. I don't think presidents should do that."
reagan got 2 mil for a speech . he was properly critiicized.
If you don't think Presidents should take speaking fees how do you feel about Clinton's financial deal with leaders of Dubai?
at the same time his wife , a senator, is decrying letting dubai manage any operations at our posts?
Now we read clinton is trying to get out from under that partnership to the tune of 20 MILLION.
If you criticize a 2 million isolated speaking fee as hefty I can't wait to read your outrage at a 20 MILLION buy out. You don't even have to go back in time to criticize it. It is going on now
Horn,
Read my post, I think it's wrong for ex-Presidents to collect huge fees for doing essentially nothing more than showing up. I've said that Clinton may be in the wrong, now you tell me how you feel about Reagan's whorish fee. It also has the stink of setting the precedent.
Above a poster says the fact that they are ex-presidents means they have no say. Ever heard of deferred payment? That's what the problem is and it was pretty much spelled out in my post.
Read my post, I think it's wrong for ex-Presidents to collect huge fees for doing essentially nothing more than showing up. I've said that Clinton may be in the wrong, now you tell me how you feel about Reagan's whorish fee. It also has the stink of setting the precedent.
Above a poster says the fact that they are ex-presidents means they have no say. Ever heard of deferred payment? That's what the problem is and it was pretty much spelled out in my post.
Horn,
I only qualify using "may" because I have not looked at any information. If he is doing as has been suggested, then he is in the same boat (maybe even a worse boat, satisfied?) than Reagan.
I've had no trouble pointing to things that Clinton did that I abhorred. The worst was waggling his finger while standing next to his wife and saying "I didn't have sex with that girl!" Semantics doesn't save him from that lie and the podium he chose was disgraceful.
The Marc Rich pardon was wrong. Other presidents have misused the pardon, some in cases to protect their henchmen in the Executive Branch which is worse, but that doesn't justify Clinton's wrong use of the power of pardon.
Will you give the guy credit for using his position for good causes worldwide?
We are not talking saints and devils.
I only qualify using "may" because I have not looked at any information. If he is doing as has been suggested, then he is in the same boat (maybe even a worse boat, satisfied?) than Reagan.
I've had no trouble pointing to things that Clinton did that I abhorred. The worst was waggling his finger while standing next to his wife and saying "I didn't have sex with that girl!" Semantics doesn't save him from that lie and the podium he chose was disgraceful.
The Marc Rich pardon was wrong. Other presidents have misused the pardon, some in cases to protect their henchmen in the Executive Branch which is worse, but that doesn't justify Clinton's wrong use of the power of pardon.
Will you give the guy credit for using his position for good causes worldwide?
We are not talking saints and devils.
"Will you give the guy credit for using his position for good causes worldwide? "
so far the only good cause I am aware he did worldwide was when current Bush sent former Pres Bush and Clinton to gather aid for the tsunami victims
and for that I give them both tons of applause.
if he has done other worthy things I would applaud those as well
In a really strange was I find myself in sympathy with what he and her are being subjected to by MSM now
so far the only good cause I am aware he did worldwide was when current Bush sent former Pres Bush and Clinton to gather aid for the tsunami victims
and for that I give them both tons of applause.
if he has done other worthy things I would applaud those as well
In a really strange was I find myself in sympathy with what he and her are being subjected to by MSM now
dognduckhorn
500+ Posts
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Negotiating price reductions for AIDS drugs is pretty tangible
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
I know the feeling Horns6721. I have always liked Bill and thought Hillary was good intentioned, though.
The media loves to pile on the Clintons.
If it comes down to a race between McCain and Obama, it will be interesting to see how negative the major news outlets will be on either.
The media loves to pile on the Clintons.
If it comes down to a race between McCain and Obama, it will be interesting to see how negative the major news outlets will be on either.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
