Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

Personally, I'm more worried that Palin is getting around $75k+ per gig.
 
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Attributed to Winston Churchill
 
Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

BeAChooser said:
Disgusting. Says an awful lot about those who shelled out such sums to a man who has probably violated just about every law that could be violated. A sign of our times, I guess.
Click to expand...

bikerdruid said:
dude......when bush spoke in calgery last year, people paid $1000 to hear him and he made $100,000 for his speech.
now that's disgusting, because, he actually is a bona fide war criminal.
Click to expand...

no comment, bac?
it's fine when a repugnian ex-pres does it, but not for clinton?
 
Ausmerican said:
Luke joined the forum 1 month after you did BaC. What does the number of posts he has made have to do with wether or not he is familiar with your posting history?

Nothing?

That's what I thought too.

Keep up the sideshow about all of Clintons 'crimes' though. It'll be amusing to watch another of your threads head off to Conspiracy Theories.

Contractually obligated content for BaC thread to follow:
:D LOL :D LOL
Click to expand...

Can I get a check cut for that million?
No? Too easy?

Contractually obligated content for BaC thread to follow:
:D LOL :D LOL
 
ANTPogo said:
Yes. I'm also currently growing a third arm from the middle of my chest and am only posting because the motorcade bringing my jeweled crown for my upcoming coronation as Emperor of Known Space is still on its way to my palatial mansion on Mars.
Click to expand...

So I take it your answer is no? Then don't take what I've posted so personal. :)

ANTPogo said:
Because you're tossing around eye-rollingly dumb things like "Clintonphile" and "Clinton groupies who have flocked to this thread"
Click to expand...

I see very little reason for JREFers to be defending Clinton on this thread unless they are "Clintonphiles", "Clinton groupies" or just can't read. I've voiced no objection to politicians making money with speeches or books after the fact, or to capitalism, or to anyone else making money in a capitalist manner. I've voiced no objection to them keeping that money (not giving it to charity) if they wish. I'm not even objecting to the Clintons SPECIFICALLY making money. They will do what is in their best interest regardless. Like everyone else. That's human nature.

My point from the very beginning ... as clearly stated in the OP and repeated several times … is that the act of people heaping accolades and millions of dollars on someone like Bill Clinton (or Hillary) … given what appears to be his (their) extensive past criminal activities ... says a lot about the people doing the giving. Either that they are ignorant of the facts surrounding the Clintons' past or they don't care if the Clintons are criminals. Either is not very flattering.

And I've also objected to distortions and lies that certain posters have made regarding the Clintons' past and present statements. They do not give most of their earnings to charity as one poster claimed. Let's deal in fact, not wishful thinking. And I'm more than willing to back up my assertions regarding the various 'gates' and specific types of crimes that I claim Bill (and Hillary) committed with respect to those scandals. Now if you wish to challenge something specifically, regarding the above, go ahead.

ANTPogo said:
, which I just happened to find remarkably, almost eerily, similar to when you called me "desperate to defend the Clintons" way back during what is, I believe, our first discussion about Klinton Konspiracies, just a few months after I registered here
Click to expand...

LOL! Anyone reading that post and the thread it came from can easily see that you were indeed stepping in to defend the Clintons from accusations of criminal activity and that you distorted (or should I just say lied) about certain facts while doing that. Which smacks of desperation, IMO. And here you are again, jumping into a thread to defend the Clintons and distort the record. Sort of a pattern, isn't it?

As I noted to you in the thread you linked, it was interesting that you didn't see that I was one acting like the anti-truther in the discussion (you tried to smear me with the "truther" label in your second post on that thread … obviously without even bothering to read much of the material I'd posted at JREF before you came along). So I pointed out to you specifically why the other side is the one acting like 9/11 "truthers" in this matter (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4226476&postcount=94). And you ignored my response. You didn't say *you, know you're right* (and I am) but instead again tried to dishonestly link me to 9/11 Truthers again (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4229405&postcount=130 ). And then you did what truthers do, dismiss everything I'd posted (and all my sources) out of hand and try to suggest that a conspiracy (in the Foster case) was just silly, again stating that I remind you of a "Truther". In short, you employed dishonest, fact avoiding tactics. Like a Truther.

And when I responded to your post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4229780&postcount=136 ) by pointing you to even more evidence and to websites hosted by people who were even eyewitnesses in the Foster Case and who'd compiled material that was ordered, by a court, be attached to the Starr Report on Foster, you turned around and dismissed all of that information as mere CT too (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4229977&postcount=145 ). And then you tried to distort the facts and our conversation even further. I kept responding to your dishonest Truther-like tactics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230235&postcount=153 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4244275&postcount=170), in order to set the facts straight and provide yet more sources and additional facts pointing to murder and a coverup. All of which you then again simply dismissed or tried to discredit by mischaracterizing (lying about) the facts and what eyewitnesses (like Knowlton) and investigators (like Rodriguez) actually said (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4245585&postcount=185 ). I responded (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4246438&postcount=193 ), pointing out specifically where you'd lied or misrepresented the facts and I presented you with some specific challenges.

And you just continued the same *desperate tactics*: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4246638&postcount=199 . I continued to respond (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4247193&postcount=204 ) but it was clear that no amount of logic, no amount of factual material, no amount of proof that statements you were making were false, no amount of asking questions that you clearly couldn't answer, was going to stop your hand waving, fact-ignoring, dishonest, Truther-like, Clinton-defending tactics. You were a true believer … a desperate believer. I was simply wasting my time trying to convince a Truther. Doesn't mean I didn't try some more though: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4249107&postcount=218 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4250806&postcount=232 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4251604&postcount=241 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4251875&postcount=243 . But at some point even that became pointless. Because you argued just like a Truther and I finally got tired of going around and around and around in circles with you. That's what happens often times when debating Truthers.

So lately, I've simply taken to responding to your lie filled posts by highlighting your outright dishonesty and Truther-like behavior in posts like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6471238&postcount=678

:D

ANTPogo said:
as well as insinuating that another "doubter" was "a member of the Cult of Clinton"
Click to expand...

What posts from Lonewulf would give you reason to believe he's not a Clintonphile? He shows up on a thread where I'm busy pointing out the facts about the Clintons' sorbid history to simply attack me … not by trying to argue the facts, mind you, but with nothing more than ridicule, and you expect me to think he isn't an Clintonphile? LOL! Look at his posts on this forum and you find plenty of posts of him mocking Bush, mocking Nixon, mocking republicans … but none mocking Clinton. No, you find other instances of him stepping in to defend Clinton's record on other threads. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4971257&postcount=23 . In post 82 on that thread he even admits he'd like the chance to meet and talk to Hillary. In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4973848&postcount=11 , he harshly criticized a poster for simply calling Bill Clinton, William Jefferson. I guess he didn't like that notion that someone might be mocking Bill by calling him "William Jefferson" … just like Obamaphiles object to folks using Obama's full name. That sounds like the behavior of a Clintonphile to me. In post 29 on that thread he says "I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a horrible monstrosity." An Clintonphile wouldn't. And here's a post where Lonewulf was literally drooling over Hillary: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4067683&postcount=93 . So seriously, ANTpogo, what would lead you to believe that Lonewulf's anything but a toe-tag democrat and Clintonphile? :D

ANTPogo said:
(bonus! That thread also contains Darth Rotor recounting the time you accused him of being a Clinton lover for debunking your Klinton Konspiracy nonsense!).
Click to expand...

LOL! DR wrote in the post you linked that "I was accused of being a Clintoninte by BAC when I called BS on his Ron Brown dead by deliberate murder in Dubrovnik rubbish, which beachnut kindly put to bed with a multi page series of posts." Now do you realize the beachnut PLAGERIZED his multi-page series of posts (text and images) from www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". He has NEVER given that source credit, even after being challenged about that. And more important, do you realize that material he plagerized was publish BEFORE the allegations in the Ron Brown case even surfaced? In other words, BEFORE the military photographer and military pathologists (real experts) came forward with eyewitness accounts, photos and x-rays suggesting the strong possibility that Brown had a bullet wound? BEFORE the military then punished those military personal for blowing the whistle? BEFORE several civilian expert forensic pathologists joined those military experts in saying the evidence clearly suggests a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied? BEFORE the military forensic pathologist (Gormley) who actually conducted the examination of Brown's body at Dover and who stated in the official report that Brown died by blunt force trauma admitted on live TV that he was mistaken … that the reasons he gave for calling it blunt force trauma were not true? BEFORE he admittted in a deposition provided to a court of law that the photos and x-rays show the opposite of what he claimed in the official report … they show a "red flag" suggesting a bullet wound? And given all that, you think DR was correct in saying beachnut put my Ron Brown "BS" "to bed"? LOL!

I'd pointed those facts out to Darth Rotor before he made that statement, so I think I was perfectly justified in calling DR a Clintoninte (or a label to that effect). I had also pointed out to DR that beachnut ran after I suggested that he was dishonoring his CLAIMED pilot "friend" by allowing him to be smeared as a bad pilot. After I asked beachnut if as a CLAIMED "friend" of the family he had ever told the family that they were lied to in the AIB report. After I asked him whether as a CLAIMED "friend" he ever told the family that military pathologists and a military photographer suspected foul play. After I asked how his CLAIMED "friend's" family felt about being lied to by the acting Secretary of the Air Force, who sent a letter that I proved was filled with lies. For those who'd like to verify this, just go here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 or here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2905050 .

As I told DR, beachnut (and I'm now telling you), all you've EVER done in that case is regurgitate the "official story" … which I have shown in debate after debate is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts. Lies by omission, if nothing else. Now DR also claimed to have a friend who was "familiar" with the case. One who was "on the scene" at the crash site (some "guy" named "Gary"). DR claimed the Brown case came up in conversation, he showed Gary my "silliness", and that Gary did a "face palm." But like beachnut, when I asked DR for details of what Gary told him, he ran. If DR still wants to post what Gary specifically told him, I'm all ears. Because I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies by Gary as well. Or outright lies. Care to test me on that, ANTPogo? Go ahead … get DR to join this thread and ask him to get "Gary" to speak directly to me. I'll be here. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
My point from the very beginning ... as clearly stated in the OP and repeated several times … is that the act of people heaping accolades and millions of dollars on someone like Bill Clinton (or Hillary) … given what appears to be his (their) extensive past criminal activities ... says a lot about the people doing the giving. Either that they are ignorant of the facts surrounding the Clintons' past or they don't care if the Clintons are criminals. Either is not very flattering.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they realize that people spreading conspiracy theories about Clinton are about as loony as twoofers, and that the Clintons haven't been convicted of any criminal activity.

Just thought I'd add that to your false dichotomy.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Why is this thread?

Clinton/antiClinton doesn't belong in conspiracies anyway.

Sheesh. Slow news week?
Click to expand...

It's probably here because of the conspiracy theories:
BeAChooser said:
Hillary had enough money to play the cattle futures back in those early day, somewhat mysteriously making nearly $100,000 in just 10 months of trading. Surely she wasn't gambling what she couldn't afford to gamble? ;)

And one has to wonder where some of the brown paper bags of cash that floated into the Whitehouse from Red China actually went. We know for a fact that Hillary's personal secretary accepted (illegally, by the way) some of those brown paper sacks. :D

Perhaps some of that money went into a Swiss bank account? Why do I suggest this? Because Vince Foster was the Clintons' personal attorney. And he made a lot of one-day trips to Switzerland just prior to and during the Clinton Presidency. One has to wonder whether those trips were connected to the Clintons since nothing has come out suggesting Foster himself had a reason to go.

Furthermore, Foster handled the establishment of the Clintons' blind trust after Bill became President. And it must have been a big, complicated trust (suggesting lots of assets) because he spent months and month and months preparing it … much longer than it took previous Presidents to establish their blind trusts. He was running 6 months behind schedule. In fact, he wasn't finished at the time he died (although curiously, it was completed just three days after his death … with his signature on it). Maybe the delay came from figuring out how to hide fraudulent assets.

For example, the Clinton's claimed to own no house. Yet Carolyn Huber later testified that a file cabinet in the private residence contained paperwork on the Clinton's "condo". What else wasn't listed? Obviously, inconsistencies like these would have caused Foster a great deal of problems. And would belie Hillary's claim they had no money before leaving the White House.
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
My point from the very beginning ... as clearly stated in the OP and repeated several times … is that the act of people heaping accolades and millions of dollars on someone like Bill Clinton (or Hillary) … given what appears to be his (their) extensive past criminal activities ... says a lot about the people doing the giving. Either that they are ignorant of the facts surrounding the Clintons' past or they don't care if the Clintons are criminals. Either is not very flattering.
Click to expand...


Do they only appear to have a criminal past or are they actually criminals?

What was the last (most recent) crime they committed?
 
Chaos said:
People have tried that approach...
Click to expand...

No they haven't. However, they've tried what you're trying now ... OUTRIGHT LYING ... numerous times. Which is what makes them (and you) no better than 9/11 Truthers.

Chaos said:
The point is, YOU HAVE NO FACTS.
Click to expand...

LOL! NO facts? How much of a Truther are you, Chaos? Let's see ...

Are you denying the fact that a military photographer and about half a dozen highly regarded forensic pathologists, all of whom were experts in gunshot wounds, publically stated that Ron Brown had what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the head and he should have been autopsied? Yes or no?

Are you denying the fact that Miquel Rodriguez, the man Ken Star picked to head his investigation of the death of Vince Foster, publically stated that the investigation was a sham and that he saw photographic evidence that Foster was shot in the neck, totally contradicting the official story? Yes or no?

Are you denying the fact that the man who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon is on the record stating that "Clinton's abuse of the IRS was far worse than Nixon's, and that Clinton should have been impeached a second time" and that "n his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes"? Yes or no?

Are you denying the fact that handwritten FBI interview notes from May 9, 1994 show that Lisa Foster told the investigators Vince was "fighting" a "prescription" for sleeping pills dispensed several months earlier for insomnia, but the typed FD-302 report of the interview states in the equivalent location that Foster had been "fighting depression"? Yes or no?

Are you denying the fact that three well known handwriting experts have gone on record stating the so-called suicide note, that Clinton officials claim to have found in Foster's briefcase days after it had been searched in front of Park Police and nothing was found, is an obvious forgery? Yes or no?

And I could go on and on and on testing these water, but let's start with these five questions just to see if you'll admit I have presented more than "no" facts ... just to see how big a Truther you are, Chaos. :D
 
How come people with the most dirt on the Clintons are still alive; Flowers, Jones, Star, Lewinsky?
 
Hans said:
I believe BAC that people have already tried that- haven't they?
Click to expand...

No. If you doubt this, go back and actually read the many threads where these issues have been discussed in great detail. You will find that I was the one offering SOURCED facts. Everyone else was basically acting like 9/11 Truthers.

If you want to challenge me over something specific I've claimed in the death Ron Brown, the death of Vince Foster, Chinagate, Filegate or Rapegate, go ahead. I predict you won't. But I'll respond if you do. Best to do it on a thread where that item was the primary topic and where I've already posted the bulk of my evidence on that topic so we aren't just starting from ground zero.

For example, would you like to discuss the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster? Would you be willing to discuss even one specific aspect of the allegations? I direct your attention specifically to the following post by me ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 ... on a thread discussing Vince Foster. That post summarizes the inconvenient facts surrounding the so-called "suicide" note. Facts that strongly indicate the note can't be anything other than a forgery, yet it was claimed to have been found in Foster briefcase. I predict that you won't even want try to explain it. Because I don't think any explanation you might offer will appear rationale or logical. And if you can't, then that suggests I am right about that note being a forgery.

And if the note is a forgery, then that clearly means someone highly placed in the Clinton WhiteHouse had to have tampered with Foster's briefcase and the investigation. And that, in turn, would mean that someone was trying to make people believe Foster's death was a suicide. And that would suggest that it wasn't. And the note being a obvious forgery (which is what four experts on handwriting all concluded) would clearly mean that the FBI, Fiske and Starr, through incompetence or corruption, didn't care once it was exposed as a forgery. Which would suggest their investigations were a sham from the beginning, just as the man who headed the investigation for Starr until he quit in disgust (Miquel Rodriguez) went on record stating. And that suggests there was no "justice" in the Vince Foster case. Just a coverup. With the President, First Lady and their staffs controlling and tampering with the investigation. Proving what I've been saying.

And that, by the way, is only a fraction of the sourced, fact-based case I've made against Vince Foster's death being a suicide. Only a fraction of the case that folks like Chaos and ANTPogo have had to completely ignore in order to maintain their Truther-like "positions". So I invite you to investigate further and become an informed skeptic, rather than what seems to pass for *skeptics* here at JREF. :D

Hans said:
I also believe that people have found that you don't listen, deny contra evidence and ignore other peoples positions
Click to expand...

False, False and False. I listen carefully enough that I do what I'm doing here with you. I take each of my opponents posts apart, line by line, and respond to everything they say or claim. I do not "ignore" their "position", as you claim. I do not ignore what they claim. But that's done to me all the time. And frequently my positions, behavior and claims are mischaracterized/misrepresented by my opponents. Just as you're attempting to do right now.

And contrary to what you claim, I don't deny contrary evidence either. IF they can actually prove what they claim. But that hardly ever happens (you'll notice who supplies almost all the links?) and the threads here at JREF prove it. Which is why I have no hesitancy (as in the case with ANTPogo above, for example) referring people back to the threads where I've debated.

Most of my opponents do just what Chaos did ... they don't provide ANY actual evidence. They simply throw out some adhominems and dismiss what I've presented out of hand. When they do make a claim of contrary fact regarding the topic (not me), I take apart line by line, item by item, what they claim and 99 times out of 100, they are distorting the facts or outright lying. But most of the time, they simply ignore the material I've established as fact ... as the questions I just asked Chaos illustrate.

Hans said:
Might I suggest ...
Click to expand...

... you stop acting like a 9/11 Truther where the Clintons are concerned? Why don't you come debate me about Foster … starting with the "suicide" note? :D
 
Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Disgusting. Says an awful lot about those who shelled out such sums to a man who has probably violated just about every law that could be violated. A sign of our times, I guess.
Originally Posted by bikerdruid
dude......when bush spoke in calgery last year, people paid $1000 to hear him and he made $100,000 for his speech. now that's disgusting, because, he actually is a bona fide war criminal. no comment, bac? it's fine when a repugnian ex-pres does it, but not for clinton?
bikerdruid said:
Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

no comment, bac?
it's fine when a republician ex-pres does it, but not for clinton?
Click to expand...

ya, that kinda what i thought......:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom