wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 8:49 am, "Mike" wrote:

First, his supposed home was the White House, not the Oval Office,
which is not in the residence portion, and which is where the blue
dress incident occurred.

That's kind of like saying my garage is not part of my house.

It might not be. Depends on the circumstances, I suppose.
If a kid boinks his girl in the back yard, his parents will
disapprove. If he boinks her in the parents bed, they'll be even more
incensed. There's a YUK factor involved.

Sounds like more of an obsession, but call it whatever you want.

Despite your Clintonesque hairsplitting, it doesn't make much
difference.
His actions were wrong, and he knew it, which is why he tried to hide
it, then denied it, and only fessed up when he had no recourse. He
was ashamed and embarrassed by his actions, as well he should be.

So what's your point? Are you saying that since he cheated on his wife he
should have paid the full settlement on a frivolous lawsuit, been found
guilty of a crime he never committed, and removed from office for
infidelity? I find what you call hairsplitting rather funny.

Second, though less concrete, is that it isn't "his" home. It is on
loan to him while he occupies the office. Living there is an honor,
not a license. I expect his behavior to be better. 'Course, I expect
a LOT of behavior to be better in D.C., and am frequently disappointed
by members of all parties.

It's his home so long as he takes up residence there. Furthermore it's
not
an "honor" as you claim. Clinton was duly elected to the position, and
therefore is was his right to occupy the residence, regardless of those
who
would seek to deny the will of the people by subverting our political
system
for partisan purposes.

The Presidency is not an honor??????????? Holy crap! Where are you
from, dude?

The subject was the White House, not the presidency, "dude". And if you're
so concerned about "honor" explain how Clinton was honored when he was the
subject of a politically funded and motivated frivolous lawsuit and a
special counsel investigation that lasted almost his entire term, cost $100
million, and produced exactly squat other than to detract from the office.
Apparently you feel "honor" only applies when your ideology supports it.

snipnonsense

Had Clinton been removed from office, that would have been the will of
the people as expressed through their legislative branch. "Ill
advised" might have been a better choice of words than "subverted".
However, as time goes by and Clinton rewrites history more and more,
I'm beginning to believe that removal might have been a better
outcome.

Ah yes, the will of the people, eh? Why then did Clinton have a 70%
approval rating WHILE the impeachment proceedings were going on. Keep in
mind this was a higher approval rating than Reagan ever achieved throughout
his 8 years in office. The impeachment proceedings had nothing to do with
the "will of the people". It was simply a partisan tactic to remove or
discredit Clinton when all their other efforts had failed. It was and will
forever remain a blight on the American political process.

As far as "Clinton rewrites history", all I can say is you are really out
there with your looneytarian ideas. You should try getting better
information sometime as wherever you're getting yours has warped your sense
of reality.