G. W. Bush's secret speech in the Cayman Islands

[W.D.Clinger]

I also believe in the marketplace. If serious investors believe Dubya's remarks are worth thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money, then that must be what they're worth.

You've assumed that the attendees paid the big bucks to hear W. Maybe they paid to hear other, credible people so paid to attend in spite of not because of W.

You raise a good point.

As it happens, however, I was thinking of the serious investors who organized the conference. They must have thought Dubya's remarks would be worth thousands of dollars to the attendees. If not, why would they have paid Dubya the big bucks?

What we have here are a willing seller (Dubya, of his time and wisdom) and a willing buyer (the organizers of the conference). Are you denying the perfection of the marketplace?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

People here think nothing of the sort. The discussion is about why Bush did not voluntarily allow his remarks to be public. You do see the difference, don't you?

ETA: Beaten to the punch by RandFan.

If a private citizen wants their remarks that they made in private to not be made public and takes reasonable measures to do so then what's the problem? Just because you or I don't like someone is not a reason to invade their privacy or to try to take away their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bush is no longer president, isn't holding or seeking to hold another office or out there stumping speeches on the campaign trail for someone else. This talk was not being held in a public auditorium or a stadium or even on a soapbox on a street corner. He is now a private citizen just like anyone else in that regard and he can get together with a small group of people in a room to talk about whatever he wants to as long as he's not breaking any laws while doing so, if he does it because he's getting paid by them then more power to him. When Obama's out of office he can do the same thing if he wants to (and he probably will).

 

[JeanFromBNA]

You've assumed that the attendees paid the big bucks to hear W. Maybe they paid to hear other, credible people so paid to attend in spite of not because of W.

You're probably right. In the 1990's I was at a conference at which General Colin Powell was the keynote speaker (after his first retirement). The conference had nothing to do with actual warfare.

The conference website wasn't locked down, so if you or anybody else who wanted to, including reporters, had the money to pay the conference fee, you could have attended and listened to Bush speak. Alternatively, you can pick up a copy of the proceedings in a week probably for a fee. It may or may not include Bush's speech.

I think that Sam I Am is right. Bush probably noted that investment tax strategies will need to be different based upon the outcome of the US election, and he didn't want to be a distraction.

 

[RandFan]

Not without your help.

Don't include me in your fevered paranoia.

 

[RandFan]

Hum.... People here think it would be a good thing if W's privacy was violated.

People here think nothing of the sort. The discussion is about why Bush did not voluntarily allow his remarks to be public. You do see the difference, don't you?

ETA: Beaten to the punch by RandFan.

If a private citizen wants their remarks that they made in private to not be made public and takes reasonable measures to do so then what's the problem?

Her is a hint. DON'T speak in public. Seriously. Calling an event "private" isn't a magical incantation. You can, like John Edward and Sylvia Browne do, exclude the media but if you think doing so is some kind of incantation you are only fooling yourself.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not without your help.

Don't include me in your fevered paranoia.

Why not?

You're the only person who's offered that diagnosis of my condition. Doesn't that suggest some degree of paranoia on your part? Have you taken your own temperature lately?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Her is a hint. DON'T speak in public. Seriously. Calling an event "private" isn't a magical incantation. You can, like John Edward and Sylvia Browne do, exclude the media but if you think doing so is some kind of incantation you are only fooling yourself.

Calling it private and then locking the door behind you after letting in only those that you want to speak to is the very definition of private. Your standard for private seems to be a hermit living on a deserted island in a cave on a remote mountaintop.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/private

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private

 

[RandFan]

Why not?

I'm not paranoid.

 

[RandFan]

Calling it private and then locking the door behind you after letting in only those that you want to speak to is the very definition of private.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private

Which is why John Edward and Sylvia Browne call their public appearances "private".

"If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects." --Brandeis

And we know why this kind of "private" public BS is protected by Edwards, Browne and Bush so strongly. The light of day exposes BS for what it is.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm not paranoid.

Then you need to replace your irony detector.

If you'll calm down and look at the record, you'll see that you were given hints, winks, and smilies:

This is beyond silly, so allow me to respond in kind.

I admire Dubya for trying to earn an honest living instead of following the example set by so many others of his social class and becoming one of the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what.

People in Bush's "social class" vote for Obama? And you really are going to propagate that stupid meme that only irresponsible people would vote for Obama?

Not without your help.

Don't include me in your fevered paranoia.

Had you been willing to put forth a little effort, you might even have discovered my well-documented admiration of Dubya's wit and wisdom.

 

[SezMe]

You raise a good point.

As it happens, however, I was thinking of the serious investors who organized the conference. They must have thought Dubya's remarks would be worth thousands of dollars to the attendees. If not, why would they have paid Dubya the big bucks?

You raise a good point.

Are you denying the perfection of the marketplace?

You're kidding aren't you? The "perfection" of the marketplace? Yes, I'll deny that by shouting from the rooftops. The immediate and obvious piece of evidence is that the marketplace does not deal with externalities very well. That's a hugely important disruption.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Which is why John Edward and Sylvia Browne call their public appearances "private".

"If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects." --Brandeis

And we know why this kind of "private" public BS is protected by Edwards, Browne and Bush so strongly. The light of day exposes BS for what it is.

Wanting to know what someone said in private (or speculating about it) is one thing. Violating that privacy to find out exactly what was said and by whom is something entirely different, especially when it is explicitly described as private ahead of time.

I'm not familiar with the other incidents that you're speaking of. Was it a talk at a conference held in a private hotel like this one was or were they something else much larger or held in a location more open to the general public? The OP article doesn't say how many people were there for the Bush talk (but it did show a picture of Bush at a very large Public event which smacks of a bit of propagandizing on their part if you ask me).

Just calling something private may or may not meet the criteria for it actually being private however calling something private and then taking active measures to keep it that way does. On an individual level it's the same concept as the old metaphor of keeping your nose out of other peoples bedrooms.

 

[SezMe]

If a private citizen wants their remarks that they made in private to not be made public and takes reasonable measures to do so then what's the problem?

None whatsoever.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Are you denying the perfection of the marketplace?

You're kidding aren't you?

Of course.

Although there are people who hope to be taken seriously despite saying almost exactly the same things I've said.

 

[SezMe]

You're kidding aren't you?

Of course.

Ah, one of the classic internet dodges. Someone posts some lunacy and get called on it. The response? "Ha. Ha. 'Jes kidding"

Riiiiight.

 

[RandFan]

Just calling something private may or may not meet the criteria for it actually being private however calling something private and then taking active measures to keep it that way does. On an individual level it's the same concept as the old metaphor of keeping your nose out of other peoples bedrooms.

Here's a hint, it's not a bedroom. If you are afraid that your contempt for 47% of the population is going to get out then perhaps you ought to change your world view.

Bush has a right to his privacy but I have to warn him, it's hard to keep things secret when you are saying them to a room full of people.

 

[RandFan]

Then you need to replace your irony detector.

If you'll calm down and look at the record, you'll see that you were given hints, winks, and smilies:

Had you been willing to put forth a little effort, you might even have discovered my well-documented admiration of Dubya's wit and wisdom.

I'm thick and miss things all of the time. Oddly enough people misunderstand me often enough also. Difference is that I let them in on it as soon as I can. But thanks and I hope it made your day.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, one of the classic internet dodges. Someone posts some lunacy and get called on it. The response? "Ha. Ha. 'Jes kidding"

Riiiiight.

And then there's that.

 

[JohnnyG]

Wow. Private citizen gives speech at private event. Hyperpartisan bozos go bananas. Film at 11.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Here's a hint, it's not a bedroom. If you are afraid that your contempt for 47% of the population is going to get out then perhaps you ought to change your world view.

Bush has a right to his privacy but I have to warn him, it's hard to keep things secret when you are saying them to a room full of people.

Here's a hint. It was a metaphore and I even said as much when I said it. Giving private paid talks is nothing new for ex presidents (and in the first seven years of Bush's presidency Clinton raked in $65 million doing the exact same thing). I don't really care what the content of the talk was as long as it wasn't illegal and if they want it to be private then it's none of mine or anyone elses business outside of those who were there and paid to hear it.

At least you have finally acknowledged that it was private and not public. You still haven't explained what you meant in your comparisons of other politicians remarks to those by Bush in this instance.