# George W Bush charged a charity $100,000 to guarantee his attend



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aiser-military-veterans-wounded-Iraq-war.html

George W Bush charged a charity $100,000 to guarantee his attendance at a fundraiser for military veterans wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been reported.
The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.
It transpires the extortionate fee was in fact a reduced rate, bartered down from $250,000.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

So, he's cheaper than Hillary


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aiser-military-veterans-wounded-Iraq-war.html
> 
> George W Bush charged a charity $100,000 to guarantee his attendance at a fundraiser for military veterans wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been reported.
> The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.
> It transpires the extortionate fee was in fact a reduced rate, bartered down from $250,000.


Let me 'splain something to you...You want to go after the big money, the deep pockets?

You bring in the heavy hitters.

Several years ago I was involved with a university that was trying to raise money for a certain project. Fund-raising was lackluster, by anybody's standards.

The decision was made to bring in George H.W. Bush for a private luncheon, another private afternoon tea and a speech to the student body and alumni.

That decision netted the university an additional $3M for its project. It was well worth the investment.

Bill Clinton purportedly charges $1M for an appearance. If I needed it, and I thought he could deliver the goods, I'd have the jet pull up for him, tomorrow.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

George Bush gave $150,000 to this veterans group!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure he did and the OP just cherry picked out what was charged up front, not to make a point just slam Bush one more time.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

The funny things is some of you defend this group and some the other group but they both deserve to be bashed as they are scum suck crooks. 

the end


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Sure he did and the OP just cherry picked out what was charged up front, not to make a point just slam Bush one more time.


I just read the article -- there was no mention of his giving the charity $150,000. So where is the cherry picking?
Here's another take on the issue: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-charity-george-bush-charged-100000/story?id=32251253
This article does not mention his donating the fee either.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Well then, if ABC and CBS didn't include it, it must not have happened. I mean, they wouldn't leave something like that out to slam a Republican, would they?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I just read the article -- there was no mention of his giving the charity $150,000. So where is the cherry picking?


He cut his normal rate by $150,000



> It transpires the extortionate fee was in fact *a reduced rate*, bartered down from $250,000.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He cut his normal rate by $150,000


Yes - that reduction was explained in both articles. But both PoBoy and Arabian Knight slammed the OP for "cherry picking" by saying he gave the charity $150,000, which indicates he gave back his fee plus an additional $50,0000. But I can't find any links that state that. 

So... the personal opinion of two individuals on HT outweigh media reports? What makes those two people so knowledgeable? Not trying to start an argument -- I'd just like to know what really happened and why the OP was slammed for reporting what was in several publications?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

It's pretty much a non-story, ginned up by a Democrat-sympathetic press, during the start of the campaign season.

It's about as newsworthy as the stories about the size of Ms. Clinton's derriere.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is a non story. Just as the thread about Hilary was a non starter.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/politics/539877-hillary-charges-charity-$200k-speech.html


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Belfrybat said:


> Yes - that reduction was explained in both articles. But both *PoBoy and Arabian Knight slammed the OP* for "cherry picking" by saying he gave the charity $150,000, which indicates he gave back his fee plus an additional $50,0000. But I can't find any links that state that.
> 
> So... the personal opinion of two individuals on HT outweigh media reports? What makes those two people so knowledgeable? Not trying to start an argument -- I'd just like to know what really happened and why the OP was slammed for reporting what was in several publications?


I didn't say word about the OP!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I find it soooo telling that the OP found an article that didn't tell the WHOLE truth.

DMN has it in 7/9/15. 

"According to the charity's yearly IRS reports, it raised about $2,540,000 after expenses, from that event, ABC reported. The report said the following year, the gala netted the charity substantially less, about $1,000,000. 

"Speaking and traveling fees for the former president were paid by the charity, but the amount was UNDERWRITTEN BY A PRIVATE DONOR, the charity's lawyer told ABC news."

Contrast this w/LyingCorruptIneptClintoncouple's activities.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I find it soooo telling that the OP found an article that didn't tell the WHOLE truth.
> 
> DMN has it in 7/9/15.
> 
> ...



Are you making this about me instead of the post? That is against the rules and insulting.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Where's that gal that gets ticked off when the political threads aren't in politics?
This is a non story dredged up to make Clinton look a little less appalling.
It didn't work, it just makes her look even more vindictive and slimy.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Where's that gal that gets ticked off when the political threads aren't in politics?
> This is a non story dredged up to make Clinton look a little less appalling.
> It didn't work, it just makes her look even more vindictive and slimy.


Me? Bush is no longer a politician, the politics forum is for discussing politicians and politics, right?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Me? Bush is no longer a politician, the politics forum is for discussing politicians and politics, right?


No.

*George Walker Bush* (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd President of the United States


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

po boy said:


> No.
> 
> *George Walker Bush* (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd President of the United States


He's a former president, and does not currently hold political office nor is he campaigning for office in the US, right? Link wiki all you'd like... 

I'm not the one that _decides_ if they go in politics anyway...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> He's a former president, and does not currently hold political office nor is he campaigning for office in the US, right? Link wiki all you'd like...
> 
> I'm not the one that _decides_ if they go in politics anyway...


Then why is it a problem how he earns a living?
Clinton is running for office, takes money from foreign countries in exchange for favors, charges twice what Bush does, yet we don't get to complain about her unless we want to be called whiners.
There, now it's political.:thumb:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Then why is it a problem how he earns a living?
> Clinton is running for office, takes money from foreign countries in exchange for favors, charges twice what Bush does, yet we don't get to complain about her unless we want to be called whiners.
> There, now it's political.:thumb:


Where did I say it was? Can you point it out please?


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> He's a former president, and does not currently hold political office nor is he campaigning for office in the US, right? Link wiki all you'd like...
> 
> I'm not the one that _decides_ if they go in politics anyway...


Meh..."was" a politician, "is" a politician...the ONLY reason some organization is paying them is BECAUSE of their specific connection, past or present, to politics.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Now you see why I think they should be one forum. It is all the same crap.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Actually, this was political from the start. You just wanted to try to make it appear nonpolitical to set a trap to try to make a point.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Actually, this was political from the start. You just wanted to try to make it appear nonpolitical to set a trap to try to make a point.


I never said it was on or the either and why would I try to set some type of trap to prove one or the other. Paranoia sure reigns in this forum.

I personally don't think it is politics. It was to point out how people on this forum jump on something because it fits with their local cause de jour. It showed that quite well. Those who jumped on Hilary for the same thing are defending Bush.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hippygirl said:


> Meh..."was" a politician, "is" a politician...the ONLY reason some organization is paying them is BECAUSE of their specific connection, past or present, to politics.


If that's how you feel ask for it to be moved. I don't, so I didn't. Dang.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Actually, this was political from the start. You just wanted to try to make it appear nonpolitical to set a trap to try to make a point.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Paranoid. No. Just observant of the interactions of a few used to get desired reactions to make their points, defend like minded positions or to attack selected targets. It can be entertaining until take to its absurdity. Which is happening more often lately. Carry on.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Paranoid. No. Just observant of the interactions of a few used to get desired reactions to make their points, defend like minded positions or to attack selected targets. It can be entertaining until take to its absurdity. Which is happening more often lately. Carry on.


I have been watching other members here and following their example. Like the poster who posted about the posters regarding Muslims and then claimed it was because she wanted to see what people would say.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have been watching other members here and following their example. Like the poster who posted about the posters regarding Muslims and then claimed it was because she wanted to see what people would say.


See! Traps.

I didn't say who the few were. And I didn't single out one side or the other. Just made an observation that it was occurring.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> See! Traps.
> 
> I didn't say who the few were. And I didn't single out one side or the other. Just made an observation that it was occurring.


Okay, I will admit it could be viewed as a trap. I did not intend it. I was not even going to respond in the thread. I did want to see what they would say. I only responded when certain posters were making it about me instead of the story.

That seems to be the pattern these days.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


>


Yes it was!:nana:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Yes it was!:nana:


I like Admiral Ackbar, OK? Geesh.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It is a non story. Just as the thread about Hilary was a non starter.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/politics/539877-hillary-charges-charity-$200k-speech.html



WRONG!!

George is not running.
Hillary is.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I never said it was on or the either and why would I try to set some type of trap to prove one or the other. Paranoia sure reigns in this forum.
> 
> I personally don't think it is politics. It was to point out how people on this forum jump on something because it fits with their local cause de jour. It showed that quite well. Those who jumped on Hilary for the same thing are defending Bush.


But that is exactly what you did and I don't think you did it to demonstrate your superiority to others.
Of course there are people who select stuff because it supports their beliefs. The trouble is that the people who do it just see it as the truth while the people who don't support it call it a pack of lies but never see their own similar posts as the same thing. 
What- have you joined a group called the "Reform the Righties" and intend to out Herod Herod to prove your point? You should edit your own group's violations first. Of course, seeing those violations in the first place is a reach.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm a troll. It means I have a different opinion than you do. :facepalm:


You must not have received the memo. Unless you are on the right you are a trolling trap setter on a mission to make fun of those on the right by exposing their hypocrisy, bigotry and racism. Please refrain from offering your opinion unless you know how to walk in lock step with those that must be right.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> You must not have received the memo. Unless you are on the right you are a trolling trap setter on a mission to make fun of those on the right by exposing their hypocrisy, bigotry and racism. Please refrain from offering your opinion unless you know how to walk in lock step with those that must be right.


Nonsense- mocking other people's posts is not having a different opinion. It's trolling in the most basic form. 
So you have just admitted you have formed a group to drive posters you don't like off the forum?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm a troll. It means I have a different opinion than you do. :facepalm:


I thought I was on ignore because I quoted you. I guess I must be pretty interesting or else you are off the ignore list.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense- mocking other people's posts is not having a different opinion. It's trolling in the most basic form.
> So you have just admitted you have formed a group to drive posters you don't like off the forum?





That sounds like the is a group formed with plans that are not nice.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I thought I was on ignore because I quoted you. I guess I must be pretty interesting or else you are off the ignore list.


Well, I was hoping to maintain contact with some liberals who did not conduct vendettas so I ignored only those who quoted especially mean snarky posts. I was letting just ordinary snarky pass. 
But you have been blinded by the groping for power. So good bye to you too.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Party time, It's a celebration. No more personal attacks.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

When you are quoted..by someone not on my ignore list... in a post..... is shown.
Other than that I have the choice to learn what's up in your views.
It's a time saver.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Party time, It's a celebration. No more personal attacks.


You quit? :drum:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jolly said:


> You quit? :drum:


Unfortunately, in the pursuit of my personal goal of avoiding bullies, I need to avoid the repeating of the nastiness in quotes, so need to ignore these too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> That sounds like the is a group formed with plans that are not nice.


There have always been cliques

There will always be cliques

Don't pretend they don't exist, and don't pretend they are one-sided

The "like" button displays them on most every thread, and they are easy to predict


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have always been cliques
> 
> There will always be cliques
> 
> ...


Like.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

This is the " everybody does it" excuse plus contains antidotal incomplete information.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Like.


You're a sneaky little thing, aren't you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

OffGridCooker said:


> This is the " everybody does it" excuse plus contains antidotal incomplete information.


Someone has to be poisoned to require antidotes


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're a sneaky little thing, aren't you?


I can't like your post. I am not sure if I want to be in you clique. I think you have bashed my opinions quite hard a few times.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I can't like your post. I am not sure if I want to be in you clique. I think you have bashed my opinions quite hard a few times.


I'm an equal opportunity basher
Liking my posts will gain yourself enemies


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm an equal opportunity basher
> Liking my posts will gain yourself enemies


I needed a few more enemies. I don't have everyone yet but I'm trying and getting closer every day!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I was mistaken; it appears that we have at least two recently arrived trolls.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Woops
Clinton charges $500,000 to talk to homeless vets
http://heartlandchronicle.com/news/hillary-clinton-charges-homeless-veterans-500k-for-speech/


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Woops
> Clinton charges $500,000 to talk to homeless vets
> http://heartlandchronicle.com/news/hillary-clinton-charges-homeless-veterans-500k-for-speech/


I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
I don't like Hillary!
But, your story is false!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Woops
> Clinton charges $500,000 to talk to homeless vets
> http://heartlandchronicle.com/news/hillary-clinton-charges-homeless-veterans-500k-for-speech/


They all do it. And it's pretty insulting.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Woops
> Clinton charges $500,000 to talk to homeless vets
> http://heartlandchronicle.com/news/hillary-clinton-charges-homeless-veterans-500k-for-speech/


That's just funny as....! Gotta love those articles. Plenty to hate her for without made up reasons in gotta articles. But I can see this being true if she had to speak the truth.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> They all do it. And it's pretty insulting.


Please open the link and read the article. Guess we all should read the links in their entirety!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Please open the link and read the article. Guess we all should read the links in their entirety!


http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...l-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/sorry-boys-and-girls-hillary-charged-kids-charity-200000-speech

They do though. All of them. Bushes, Clintons... Doesn't matter. The difference really is just which news outfits actually decide to blow it up. If it's Hillary; Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Breitbart...they'll all lose their minds over it. If it's Bush, well let's just say Bush stories bring in more $$. It's actually really hard to verify Hillary stories. I think maybe because they're counting on 8 years of Hillary to make billions and billions of dollars. Which is one of the reasons I think it's been so hard for us to get Bernie Sanders covered.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...l-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/
> 
> http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/sorry-boys-and-girls-hillary-charged-kids-charity-200000-speech
> 
> They do though. All of them. Bushes, Clintons... Doesn't matter. The difference really is just which news outfits actually decide to blow it up. If it's Hillary; Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Breitbart...they'll all lose their minds over it. If it's Bush, well let's just say Bush stories bring in more $$. It's actually really hard to verify Hillary stories. I think maybe because they're counting on 8 years of Hillary to make billions and billions of dollars. Which is one of the reasons I think it's been so hard for us to get Bernie Sanders covered.


For the first time, we agree.

But, the fact remains that you posted without reading the link which seems to be a pet peeve of yours as you seem to relish calling others out for doing that. Just saying!

And yes, all of them should be paid exactly what they deserve for their speeches, not one red cent! Both sides. All sides. Every sociopath seeking election or all those ever elected!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> For the first time, we agree.
> 
> But, the fact remains that you posted without reading the link which seems to be a pet peeve of yours as you seem to relish calling others out for doing that. Just saying!
> 
> And yes, all of them should be paid exactly what they deserve for their speeches, not one red cent! Both sides. All sides. Every sociopath seeking election or all those ever elected!


First of all. Take a deep breath, it looked like a )_($ link, and I was right... But I threw you all a bone because I don't think the Clintons deserve a free pass from the media while Bush takes all the heat.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> First of all. Take a deep breath, it looked like a )_($ link, and I was right... But I threw you all a bone because I don't think the Clintons deserve a free pass from the media while Bush takes all the heat.


Throwing bones my backside. You got caught doing what you accuse others of and are trying to spin out of. You go on believing your intellectual superiority to all us less intelligent, racist, bigoted, homophobes. I had hoped you were actually more than you appeared, but alas, I was in fact wrong on that. Troll away.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Throwing bones my backside. You got caught doing what you accuse others of and are trying to spin out of. You go on believing your intellectual superiority to all us less intelligent, racist, bigoted, homophobes. I had hoped you were actually more than you appeared, but alas, I was in fact wrong on that. Troll away.


You know what.... No. I could let you decide how I feel, what I think, but I'm not going to. I didn't want to argue because I really just knew that they all do this. I didn't think the link was worth looking at, and I wasn't going to disagree with anyone in the thread, so I posted. Maybe I shouldn't have clicked "quote", because I was going to say what I was going to say regardless. It really didn't matter to me who she charged or how much according to that link, I know she's done it, and I don't need to read more about it, so I left it alone. 

And you're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. You all have reacted very emotionally to my opinions in general, and I've certainly escalated my tone as a result, but at no point did I "troll," you all just can't seem to handle dissenting opinions like adults. And you all think you can read posts on the internet and "read between the lines" to find out what a persons entire world view is. That's half your problem right there, by the way. Talk about a lack of humility, presumption....blah blah blah etc. It's arrogance, to be honest. You don't know me, you don't know the first thing about me. Do I have strong opinions? Yup. Do I think I'm "intellectually superior?" No. I just think I'm not lazy or subjective when I do my research. I think you all are. Does my not clicking on that link say anything about that or put me on a level playing field with you all? No... Because it was one occasion, whereas you all have shown me multiple times that you will form an extremely entrenched position on something you haven't read. I really didn't have an opinion about that link that I wanted to share. I had previous knowledge....a fact which I immediately demonstrated.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> If that's how you feel ask for it to be moved. I don't, so I didn't. Dang.


The forum in which a topic is posted isn't real high on my list of pet peeves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Let me 'splain something to you...You want to go after the big money, the deep pockets?


Maybe so, but you do have to wonder why Bush didn't offer to do it for free.

I suspect this story has enough legs to stay in the news for awhile. We'll see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I needed a few more enemies. I don't have everyone yet but I'm trying and getting closer every day!


Stick with me and they will add up quickly


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> I was mistaken; it appears that we have at least two recently arrived trolls.


"Trolls"..........

That label gets tossed around a lot, often by people who exhibit identical behavior at different times, and who ignore identical behavior when their buddies do it.

Who are your two Trolls de Jour?

It's hard to keep score without a program


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Trolls"..........
> 
> That label gets tossed around a lot, often by people who exhibit identical behavior at different times, and who ignore identical behavior when their buddies do it.
> 
> ...


I'd like to know too...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Are you making this about me instead of the post? That is against the rules and insulting.


Did your article tell the entire truth or not?
Were you just 'baiting'? Did you KNOW the whole truth? 
Just sayin'.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But that is exactly what you did and I don't think you did it to demonstrate your superiority to others.
> Of course there are people who select stuff because it supports their beliefs. The trouble is that the people who do it just see it as the truth while the people who don't support it call it a pack of lies but never see their own similar posts as the same thing.
> What- have you joined a group called the "Reform the Righties" and intend to out Herod Herod to prove your point? You should edit your own group's violations first. Of course, seeing those violations in the first place is a reach.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Woops
> Clinton charges $500,000 to talk to homeless vets
> http://heartlandchronicle.com/news/hillary-clinton-charges-homeless-veterans-500k-for-speech/


Ah, Corny, doncha know the Clintons can do NO wrong? 

There's the one of them who exposes themselves whenever and if this doesn't help obtain sex, forces themselves on many.

Then there's the other, who did some dirty stuff decades ago, but shoot-alls forgiven now. B/c "...what difference does it make now...?". "Ds" don't care.
This one also came up w/most idiotic non-workable UNhealthcare plan when in office b/4, even the Ds rejected it!

B/4 that, was 'dissmissed' from the watergate investigative panel for being sooo unethical-by the head who is a "D". 

Prolly my fav thing to hate is the defense of a child rapist-got him off scot free-by insinuating in court that the 12 yr old girl who was raped by this monster, who failed the polygraph-that the victim was asking for it. 

There's sooo much more-the 'foundation', the Benghazi & tons of other lies. 

I'd really like to hear from those who continue ON THIS SITE to defend such beings, who on earth they would.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Trolls are those who post insulting messages without any basis in fact. 

For example, this one started with Bush's fee for speaking. The poster may not know of the Clinton fees, or the Clinton "donations" from overseas benefactors who stand to gain from Clinton influence. 

The O/Poster may not be aware that almost all politicians take fees for personal appearances (ignorance) or simply chose to inflame the site (trolling) with a derogatory post.

Since any person intelligent enough to operate a computer should be aware of the practice of paid appearance by speakers I would speculate that we have a troll, and not a very subtle one either.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

po boy said:


> I don't like Hillary!
> I don't like Hillary!
> I don't like Hillary!
> I don't like Hillary!
> ...


Ah, but the OP is not entirely true-does that matter? A donor paid Bush's fee, NOT the charity!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but you do have to wonder why Bush didn't offer to do it for free.
> 
> I suspect this story has enough legs to stay in the news for awhile. We'll see.


B/c a DONOR gave him the reduced rate-NOT the charity! 
He's "...gotta pay the bills". right?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

hippygirl said:


> The forum in which a topic is posted isn't real high on my list of pet peeves.


 It does not interest me either, and mostly these things are thrown out to see what will stick on the wall, and they thrown it just like that same stuff that hits the fan at times by those that are just baiting a few and then they are just doing this.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

How to tell a troll........
A troll goal is to control- not debate, defend or illuminate. Just control the other posters.
And that is the differentiating characteristic. A thread has a natural drift of conversation- people giving and taking opinions and ideas. A troll will insert a deliberately crafted statement to derail that. 
For example- if a debate is passionate, some people end up calling each other names. A troll however will insert name calling into a thread suddenly, without any previous run up to raise emotions. They intentionally run threads off track into the place where the conversation dead ends. They do this consistently.
A troll is a control freak who can not deal with difference, can not tolerate opposition . They can not let be ever. They have to control by disruption and not by discussion. And that is their win- dragging everyone into dancing to their tune, even if they don't like the tune themselves.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> It does not interest me either, and mostly these things are thrown out to see what will stick on the wall, and they thrown it just like that same stuff that hits the fan at times by those that are just baiting a few and then they are just doing this.


Like a thread about an 8 year old court case?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> For example- if a debate is passionate, some people end up calling each other names.


You mean a name like "troll?"


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

where I want to said:


> How to tell a troll........
> A troll goal is to control- not debate, defend or illuminate. Just control the other posters.
> And that is the differentiating characteristic. A thread has a natural drift of conversation- people giving and taking opinions and ideas. A troll will insert a deliberately crafted statement to derail that.
> For example- if a debate is passionate, some people end up calling each other names. A troll however will insert name calling into a thread suddenly, without any previous run up to raise emotions. They intentionally run threads off track into the place where the conversation dead ends. They do this consistently.
> A troll is a control freak who can not deal with difference, can not tolerate opposition . They can not let be ever. They have to control by disruption and not by discussion. And that is their win- dragging everyone into dancing to their tune, even if they don't like the tune themselves.


If someone is behaving trollish, I find not interacting is an effective tactic. Difficult at times but effective. :gaptooth:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You mean a name like "troll?"


Hard to discuss the issue without using the defining word. But yes, that can be name calling at the end of a history of debate. It happens. But if the word 'troll' is used at the first opportunity, it can be trolling itself. Took me awhile of observing the deliberate and consistent nature of what is going on now to arrive at the conclusion that trolling had become a weapon in certain hands.
You are not a troll, accusing me of name calling in not trolling. However, refusing to acknowledge trolls are trolls is not a sign of civility either.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

no really said:


> If someone is behaving trollish, I find not interacting is an effective tactic. Difficult at times but effective. :gaptooth:


Trying very hard to do that. But the current trolling is deliberately making almost every post in GC or politics an opportunity to troll. Don't like what some says, mock them. Consistantly and ruthlessly. 
The really sleazy part is the contorted logic where this is turned into a self proclaimed virtue of defending others.
What makes it hard to avoid, is that so many are dragged into it, that, even if you ignore the actual trolls, so many others, who you would like to hear, are engaged in debate with them.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, Corny, doncha know the Clintons can do NO wrong?
> 
> There's the one of them who exposes themselves whenever and if this doesn't help obtain sex, forces themselves on many.
> 
> ...


Dems care more than you think. Check out Bernie Sander's rising popularity.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Dems care more than you think. Check out Bernie Sander's rising popularity.


Yup. I certainly see him as more likeable.

Sadly, I see so many women chosing the 'wrong' candidate. How many have even looked at any backgound at all? Even if you don't beleive the Bengahzi cover up, surely another woman who defended a guilty child rapist, got him off by shaming & insinuating the 12 y/o victim asked for it-OH!-then LAUGHED when someone confronted her about it. 

Do supporters KNOW these things? And they want her anyway?

But back to Bernie, I'm thinking even the progressive "Ds" don't want the socialist label-yet. I could be wrong. Lots might stay home...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> *Did your article tell the entire truth* or not?
> Were you just 'baiting'? Did you KNOW the whole truth?
> Just sayin'.


LOL
That's funny, considering you posted a link to Walid Shoebat as "proof"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trolls troll by calling others trolls, while pretending they aren't trolls themselves


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Trolls troll by calling others trolls, while pretending they aren't trolls themselves


Nonsense- according to your thinking no one can mention the word troll without being one themselves.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Trolls troll by calling others trolls, while pretending they aren't trolls themselves


But then again, maybe it does apply to trolls who troll by calling other trolls for calling others trolls while pretending they aren't trolls themselves while pretending they are trolls themselves.......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense- according to your thinking no one can mention the word troll without *being one themselves*.


"Troll" is seldom mentioned without the implication that someone else on the thread happens to be one.

It's reality


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But then again, maybe* it does apply* to trolls who troll by calling other trolls for calling others trolls while pretending they aren't trolls themselves while pretending they are trolls themselves.......


Now you're getting it.

No one is different, so don't try to pretend one is worse than the other.

Just don't complain about it all the time, and there will be fewer trolls all around


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're getting it.
> 
> No one is different, so don't try to pretend one is worse than the other.
> 
> Just don't complain about it all the time, and there will be fewer trolls all around


Amazingly, you still miss the point that you can't logically say what you said while I can logically complain about trolls. Who certainly were consistantly trolling before I started complaining about it. For although more perceptive than most, I did not know that trolling would take over before it- well- took over.

And if they stop trolling, then I can guarantee I will not complain about nonexistent trolling.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Troll" is seldom mentioned without the implication that someone else on the thread happens to be one.
> 
> It's reality


Hello..... of course that is a given. What is illogical is to say calling someone a troll makes them a troll themselves because of course you have just said you were a troll because you called called someone (me?) a troll for calling someone a troll. So are you going to keep insisting you are a troll?

Now my position is clear- I don't believe that calling someone a troll makes me a troll. I makes me a realist.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2015)

Now I am really confused........ hey Abbott, whose on first....


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> Now I am really confused........ hey Abbott, whose on first....


And What's totally off base?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Amazingly, you still miss the point that you can't logically say what you said while I can logically complain about trolls.


And you miss the point that one is no different than the other, except for the pretending


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you miss the point that one is no different than the other, except for the pretending


Well, at least that is an opinion that is not internally illogical. But I disagree. I am better than Hitler, Jessie James and a whole bunch of people. On the other hand, I am not as good as St. Francis, Daniel Moynihan, my sister and a whole bunch more.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2015)

where I want to said:


> And What's totally off base?


Nothing that I see, I was just doing a mini troll, lol,,, practicing my one line cutting criticisms based solely on facts, not belief, to insure people's opinions mean not. But seriously not directed at you, I saw some humor in the exchange.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

dlmcafee said:


> Nothing that I see, I was just doing a mini troll, lol,,, practicing my one line cutting criticisms based solely on facts, not belief, to insure people's opinions mean not. But seriously not directed at you, I saw some humor in the exchange.


I never so assumed it was- obviously my parting shot hit the wrong target. I thought your remark was funny and was joking back.


Added- and I thought the exchange was funny while I was doing it too. Sort of like that remark in the Lion in Winter where Richard says " I know- he knows I know and I know he knows I know. We're a very knowing family."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> That's funny, considering you posted a link to Walid Shoebat as "proof"


I have no idea what you are referring to, I posted an excerpt from the DMN.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Now I am really confused........ hey Abbott, whose on first....


I know what I am but what are you. 
No thats not it, what's that stupid childish saying?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Trolls, They're all Bushes fault.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

This is kind of a weird thread ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yup. Why is it not in politics? Is there a 'preferred' status of who gets to start posts where?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup. Why is it not in politics? Is there a 'preferred' status of who gets to start posts where?


Report it. Won't bother me where it is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I have no idea what you are referring to, I posted an excerpt from the DMN.


Your "proof" that gay bakers refused to bake cakes for Christians was directly from Shoebat, who is well known for making up lies.

He's also an admitted Palestinian terrorist (or so he claims)


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your "proof" that gay bakers refused to bake cakes for Christians was directly from Shoebat, who is well known for making up lies.
> 
> He's also an admitted Palestinian terrorist (or so he claims)


I'm soooo glad you posted ALL the facts. MY PROOF??? When did I say anything about having any proof of that?
B/c in that thread, I found links I wished to post. In passing, I mentioned a link I SAW-the TITLE of the link. A couple, or 1, not sure, asked for that link. I posted it. Then I get slammed. B/c non-conserves cannot stand the truth, the TRUTH that was in the links I searched for & posted. The other link was an aside I'd mentioned-not posted-til asked.
In retrospect, I shoulda said I was not interested in that link, hadn't even opened it. 

How very Alinsky. How very kill the messenger, how very rude to the bone. How veryveryvery progressive lib.

Still wondering why libs think its just ducky for a corrupt, lying inept vile being who defended a guilty cahild rapist by demeaning the 12 y.o victim IN COURT by insinuating she'd wanted it, who now charges charities 250K are bashing Bush for doing a speech PAID FOR BY A DONOR, NOT the charity involved???

This is what progressives libs do. Why no one sees thru them is really strange. Why do one sees the irony, is strange.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm soooo glad you posted ALL the facts. MY PROOF??? When did I say anything about having any proof of that?


You posted as proof, regardless of what you said at the time



> How very Alinsky. How very kill the messenger, *how very rude* to the bone. How veryveryvery progressive lib.


I posted a link from a Christian website explaining how Shoebat was a fraud, and now you are calling *me* names.

How is that not rude?

You say you want truth, then get mad if someone shows it to you :shrug:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You posted as proof, regardless of what you said at the time
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did NO such thing...I DID NOT post the link as proof of anything & you are putting words onto my posts. You who so often whine the loudest about such an activity.
I couldn't care less about a link that someone requested that was in no way something I advocated. IN NO WAY did I say was authentic, true, verified, or condones by me.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

It is very interesting when people use the ''magic word defense'' in these threads.:facepalm: Implied should be considered on the ''magic word'' list also.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> B/c a DONOR gave him the reduced rate-NOT the charity!
> He's "...gotta pay the bills". right?


If you're suggesting that George & Laura Bush are looking through their refrigerator for leftover meatloaf, I think not. I promise you that they're eating steak, with or without an honorarium from wounded vets.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm soooo glad you posted ALL the facts. MY PROOF??? When did I say anything about having any proof of that?
> B/c in that thread, I found links I wished to post. In passing, I mentioned a link I SAW-the TITLE of the link. A couple, or 1, not sure, asked for that link. I posted it. Then I get slammed. B/c non-conserves cannot stand the truth, the TRUTH that was in the links I searched for & posted. The other link was an aside I'd mentioned-not posted-til asked.
> In retrospect, I shoulda said I was not interested in that link, hadn't even opened it.


You're not they only one confused and annoyed. I recently found out in another thread that if I post a link, it means I agree 100%, support it's validity and have made up my mind about the issue with absolute certainty!
I had no idea, that must be one of the new forum rules, lol.

I post links, some I read thoroughly, some I don't. Some I agree with, some I don't or maybe even partially. It's kind of like people you meet. Yes, no, maybe?

I saw that link and video before and listened to some of it, I had never heard of this guy's background before this thread, so it was news to me. I'm not crawling all over the web being everyone's PI, lol.
But the fact it was all by telephone and not an in person trip to a bakery made me a little leery. That's why I paid it little attention.

But I know what you mean if someone asks to see something and I can do it easily, why not? Let them see it and come to a conclusion, it doesn't mean I already have.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that George & Laura Bush are looking through their refrigerator for leftover meatloaf, I think not. I promise you that they're eating steak, with or without an honorarium from wounded vets.


I'm making fun of Billyboy when he was asked if he'd continue to charge 250K/500K IF- he's back in the WH-that was HIS response.
They came out of the WH "...Flat broke..." doncha know. Prolly why they had to take so much of the 'stuff' when they left.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You're not they only one confused and annoyed. I recently found out in another thread that if I post a link, it means I agree 100%, support it's validity and have made up my mind about the issue with absolute certainty!
> I had no idea, that must be one of the new forum rules, lol.
> 
> I post links, some I read thoroughly, some I don't. Some I agree with, some I don't or maybe even partially. It's kind of like people you meet. Yes, no, maybe?
> ...


Yup. Coulda said "I'm not your googlegrama", & for sure next time one of the lovely non-conserves asks, that's just what I'll say. 

I "feel" if ya wanna say something about what you read/heard/saw you're free to do so. 
I fell for the 'badgering' to go get the link. 
No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I did NO such thing...*I DID NOT post the link as proof of anything* & you are putting words onto my posts. You who so often whine the loudest about such an activity.
> I couldn't care less about a link that someone requested that was in no way something I advocated. IN NO WAY did I say was authentic, true, verified, or condones by me.


You were asked to show an example of "gays refusing to sell to Christians" and you posted the link.

What part of that is inaccurate?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You were asked to show an example of "gays refusing to sell to Christians" and you posted the link.
> 
> What part of that is inaccurate?


I found links I wanted to post. NO ONE asked for anything. 

In that aforementioned post, as an aside, I also mentioned that in my search for the links I wanted to post, I saw a link saying 10+ gay bakeries refused to bake a cake for a Christian. NEVER did I say it was a fact, true, or even that I had read the link. I had not.

In no way was my original post about gay bakeries, it was a 'btw'. Kinda like anyone would post an aside.

Then I was asked by a couple or so about that link. Of course, some said they could not find it. Not sure what's wrong w/non-conserves google abilities...But after a few requests, I went looking for it. Of course I got hit for it. So, no more. Find your own links, if you can.

Anyone can discuss anything...NO ONE has to provide a link, esp if they're not making some point as being factual. Is that clear enuf? DO you see now that I never said the link was correct, true, facts, or even how the guy had asked for a cake? Do you see that? Do you see I never said here's PROOF that gay bakery won't bake? NEVER.
Lets see how many more lies you can tell about folks. We'll want links tho.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I found links I wanted to post. NO ONE asked for anything.
> 
> In that aforementioned post, as an aside, I also mentioned that in my search for the links I wanted to post, I saw a link saying 10+ gay bakeries refused to bake a cake for a Christian. NEVER did I say it was a fact, true, or even that I had read the link. I had not.
> 
> ...


Bless your heart. Whatever let's you sleep at night.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> I found links I wanted to post. *NO ONE asked* for anything.





> Then *I was asked* by a couple or so about that link


Like I said..........


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

painterswife said:


> It is a non story. Just as the thread about Hilary was a non starter.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/politics/539877-hillary-charges-charity-$200k-speech.html



Apples to hand grenades

Last time I checked, W wasn't a front runner in a Presidential election while charging these fees.
And depositing into his "charitable" foundation to dodge taxes.......

Just think how much the Clintons could help the national debt by not dodging taxes. Even I would give them kudos for paying "their fair share" of taxes, like they want me to do.........:hijacked:


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

wiscto said:


> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...l-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/
> 
> http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/sorry-boys-and-girls-hillary-charged-kids-charity-200000-speech
> 
> They do though. All of them. Bushes, Clintons... Doesn't matter. The difference really is just which news outfits actually decide to blow it up. If it's Hillary; Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Breitbart...they'll all lose their minds over it. If it's Bush, well let's just say Bush stories bring in more $$. It's actually really hard to verify Hillary stories. I think maybe because they're counting on 8 years of Hillary to make billions and billions of dollars. Which is one of the reasons I think it's been so hard for us to get Bernie Sanders covered.



Incorrect. What I find disturbing is that people are giving Hillary a pass, *while* she is campagining for PotUS.
In Bill's case, since they were flat broke when they left the White House (by their own admission) but now have a "charitable'" foundation worth over a billion..... That makes me ponder....


----------

