CNN.com - Bill Clinton's talk isn't cheap - Jun 14, 2006
The CNN link is one of many that rather gushingly describes the millions that old Slick rakes in for speaking fees in front of all sorts of groups, business and foreign audiences. They don't mention if any women with kneepads are part of the perks. Free with the Willy Willie really can do no wrong, and there is zero problem with any amount of money that he he is paid from the MSM POV. Reagan getting some fee from some Japanese group for a speech was of course a horrid thing that had the press all up in arms with the "impropriety of it". Newt Gingrich was castigated for "cashing in" on anything that he did in the fee department. As we know, those guys have "Rs" after their name. Liberals will support your right to agree with them with their dying breath--but if your form or freedom doesn't line up with theirs, then you shouldn't make any money or even have a forum. A corporate CEO is of course "taking money away from the little people"--but the money for Hillbilly Bill is printed out from thin air. No problems with THAT cash! Clean as a whistle and very well deserved from the view of any old lefty that would scream bloody murder were it going to a businessman. "Being rank has it's privileges"?
I personally don't mind Billy making money--I don't even mind Brittany making money. I happen to be happily married and even if I wasn't, I hope I wouldn't stoop to his work habits. However, it is easy to understand why a lot of guys are willing to pay him for tips on how to get regular sex at the office and not even have to make regular divorce payments or even lose your job as a result. I like a coffee break at work on a regular basis--I guess I just don't now how to think of potential "work benefits" in a Clintonian way. I'm not sure that his performance can be duplicated by most guys though--they don't have the power to help insure that millions of babies keep giving up their little lives so that the millions of folks can keep the all the physical pleasures of sex without "inconvenient consequences". From the perspective of the unborn, the payment for the Presidential right to stain blue dresses is high.
Ah yes, the gay 90's-- competent Attorney Generals were burning religious nuts in their compounds, and the FBI was busy protecting citizen's rights by shooting tax resistors wives at Ruby Ridge. Life was so much simple, when federal agencies could just incinerate and shoot actual US citizens with next to nothing in the way of outcry. Today we have all the complexities of "enemy combatants" that have a lot more rights than some religious wing-nut US citizens or anti-tax zealots. One has to work hard to protect "diverse terrorists", but when it comes to "the wrong elements" that are US citizens, a little preemptive killing by a President can be a really OK thing--assuming he has time to pull up his pants and give some orders.
The consistency of the left is a shining example to us all.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment