It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees (who is he speaking to?)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by David9176
 


Take off the partisan blinders for 2 seconds- every ex-president does this-do you know how much Clinton pulls down a year from this exact same thing?


partisan blinders lol.

I think your irony evades you. As if anyone critical of Bush supports Obama?

He's pointing out WHO he was giving speeches to.

edit on 21-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I pointed out that I didn't care about him making money speaking...they all do it...I KNOW THIS. I think I made that pretty clear in the op.

This thread was made to show exactly WHO he was speaking to....basically what I believe to be criminals.

How often is Bushy talking to the middle class or the poor?



edit on 22-5-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney all will speak to whomever writes the check. That's what public speaking is all about. People actually make careers in this line of work.

If we are going to put Bush through the wringer we have to put them all through the wringer. I'm certain that they have all had their fair share of interesting speaking engagements..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney all will speak to whomever writes the check. That's what public speaking is all about. People actually make careers in this line of work.

If we are going to put Bush through the wringer we have to put them all through the wringer. I'm certain that they have all had their fair share of interesting speaking engagements..


Why is it that you and everyone else apologizing for Bush in this thread are missing the point? The criticism is notthat he is speaking for money, but WHO he is speaking to. The OP makes this VERY clear, and yet here you are still trying to shift the focus.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




$15 million... for speaking. C'mon, even the die-hard supporters of Dubya can admit that "speaking" was probably not his strong point.


How much do you think Howard Stern makes "for speaking"? How about Rush Limbaugh? And many many others.

Don't be amazed.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Originally posted by jibeho
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney all will speak to whomever writes the check. That's what public speaking is all about. People actually make careers in this line of work.

If we are going to put Bush through the wringer we have to put them all through the wringer. I'm certain that they have all had their fair share of interesting speaking engagements..




Why is it that you and everyone else apologizing for Bush in this thread are missing the point? The criticism is notthat he is speaking for money, but WHO he is speaking to. The OP makes this VERY clear, and yet here you are still trying to shift the focus.


So, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Bush's audiences unless they meet with your biased approval? Sounds like you approve of censorship and burning of books, too.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

So, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Bush's audiences unless they meet with your biased approval? Sounds like you approve of censorship and burning of books, too.



Well, chalk another one up on the "completely missed the point" board.


The fact that he was giving private speeches to such controversial organizations and receiving much higher-than-average (even for a former president) compensation is slightly revealing about his inner ties that he held while president.

That's the crux of it. Nobody cares that he's giving speeches. More power to him.

However, it should be painfully obvious to everyone at this point that Bush was in the pockets of these outside financial interests.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

So, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Bush's audiences unless they meet with your biased approval? Sounds like you approve of censorship and burning of books, too.


Um, what?

Can't say I've ever burned a book. Although I may have used a page or two here and there for rolling papers, but I dont think that counts, does it?

I do enjoy how the partisans on either side like to point to the ills of the other party to defend the exact same ills of their party. You see, it's wrong when the Democrats do it, which is what makes it acceptable for the Republicans to do it.

If you dont see how this points to how Bush is likely getting his payoff from the special interests who put him in power, that's your choice. Although for same reason I suspect you would agree with the OP if the same information about Clinton's enormous speaking income was pointed out to have the exact same ramifications.I's okay, the Democrats are hypocrites too, which excuses any possible hypocrisy on your part. Your in good company!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
....................seriously?

Are we still on george bush? With all the crap that the current president is on, people are still trying to pull the ol Bush card?

Just sayin I dont understand why this has any relevance?

And what you have in bold, he already had booked and they probably already had paid for, he was obligated......besides I notice you didnt post WHY Bush said he didnt show up......

Keep pandering to Obama and bashin Bush..........Obama is leaving his own legacy of idiocy that threatens to rival any president weve ever had
edit on 20-5-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


Ah hahahhahaaa

The Bush supporters get to give incognito stars of approval for the favorite guy they pretend to hate.


I remember "George Bush is a liberal" - this is why our policies brought the DOW to 7,800


I guess yall are too, I bet you like his policies too,

wonder why you hate Obama?



edit on 22-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Shame on the people listening to him...

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
- George W. Bush



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 



Well, chalk another one up on the "completely missed the point" board.


The fact that he was giving private speeches to such controversial organizations and receiving much higher-than-average (even for a former president) compensation is slightly revealing about his inner ties that he held while president.

That's the crux of it. Nobody cares that he's giving speeches. More power to him.

However, it should be painfully obvious to everyone at this point that Bush was in the pockets of these outside financial interests.


Well, chalk another one up to the "accuse Bush of pandering to his 'inner ties' without a shred of proof, but I know it's true because I feel this way" idjut who plays judge, jury, and executioner partisan liberal Obama sycophant.

In other words, don't be so naive, bunky. When Boy Blunder leaves office, SEIU will be paying his worthless ass tons of money for all the graft he shoveled their way while in the WH.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas


Well, chalk another one up to the "accuse Bush of pandering to his 'inner ties' without a shred of proof, but I know it's true because I feel this way" idjut who plays judge, jury, and executioner partisan liberal Obama sycophant.

In other words, don't be so naive, bunky. When Boy Blunder leaves office, SEIU will be paying his worthless ass tons of money for all the graft he shoveled their way while in the WH.


I see. So you are saying it's 'naive' to say that this points to Bush being paid back for all his favors while in office, but then turn around and say that Obama will likely be getting payoffs after his presidency for HIS favors?

I;m spinning in partisan contradiction.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




If you dont see how this points to how Bush is likely getting his payoff from the special interests who put him in power, that's your choice.


Likely getting his payoff? Got any proof, Eugene? Have any charges been filed against him? Or are you just spouting innuendo and subjective feelings like a good little liberal?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jibeho
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney all will speak to whomever writes the check. That's what public speaking is all about. People actually make careers in this line of work.

If we are going to put Bush through the wringer we have to put them all through the wringer. I'm certain that they have all had their fair share of interesting speaking engagements..


Why is it that you and everyone else apologizing for Bush in this thread are missing the point? The criticism is notthat he is speaking for money, but WHO he is speaking to. The OP makes this VERY clear, and yet here you are still trying to shift the focus.


No shift of focus here. I understand the weak point that is trying to be made. Hence my statement that they ALL speak to whomever writes the checks. Bush probably makes more because he is the most recent POTUS. People will pay top dollar to hear an interesting speaker make a presentation or to simply ask questions. Clinton has earned $65 million in speaking engagements alone since 2001. 2/3 of which came from speaking in foreign nations.

I could care less who pays Bush,Clinton or anyone else because they are no longer sitting presidents. They are free to engage in a free market.

I am more interested in those groups and individuals who get personal face time with sitting presidents including the current Moron in Chief solely based on donations and political clout. Alan Trumka (AFL CIO) comes to mind with his frequent visits to the Oval Office. Hell, pick a union any union with the current administration.

Let's revisit this thread in 2012 when Obamba will be free to hit the speaking circuit. More than likely he will just end up looking for an open mic night in Chicago..
edit on 22-5-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Likely getting his payoff? Got any proof, Eugene? Have any charges been filed against him? Or are you just spouting innuendo and subjective feelings like a good little liberal?


Of course you want proof. Other than the article in the OP that clearly says who he was speaking to and what he got paid, I understand you want solid proof. No guessing or supposition for you.


Originally posted by mishigas
In other words, don't be so naive, bunky. When Boy Blunder leaves office, SEIU will be paying his worthless ass tons of money for all the graft he shoveled their way while in the WH.


Oh wait.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




I see. So you are saying it's 'naive' to say that this points to Bush being paid back for all his favors while in office, but then turn around and say that Obama will likely be getting payoffs after his presidency for HIS favors?

I;m spinning in partisan contradiction.


No, it's just your lack of reading comprehension that is once again giving you the vapors. He, and you, are naive because you seem to think, and infer, that Bush is the first to reap what he sowed. Your dilemma over partisan contradiction is self-inflicted, due to speaking beyond the scope of your text.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




I see. So you are saying it's 'naive' to say that this points to Bush being paid back for all his favors while in office, but then turn around and say that Obama will likely be getting payoffs after his presidency for HIS favors?

I;m spinning in partisan contradiction.


No, it's just your lack of reading comprehension that is once again giving you the vapors. He, and you, are naive because you seem to think, and infer, that Bush is the first to reap what he sowed. Your dilemma over partisan contradiction is self-inflicted, due to speaking beyond the scope of your text.


I see. Where has it been inferred ANYWHERE in this thread that anyone thinks this means Bush was 'the first'?

Was it when I and others pointed out Clinton's large speaking fees?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Such a good little Republican..defending their honor. Now bend over Dubya gonna make you really happy now,,,,



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




If you dont see how this points to how Bush is likely getting his payoff from the special interests who put him in power, that's your choice.


Likely getting his payoff? Got any proof, Eugene? Have any charges been filed against him? Or are you just spouting innuendo and subjective feelings like a good little liberal?


I just love it when posters contradict themselves in on the very same page^^^^^^^\/\/\/\/\/


Originally posted by mishigas
In other words, don't be so naive, bunky. When Boy Blunder leaves office, SEIU will be paying his worthless ass tons of money for all the graft he shoveled their way while in the WH.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join