Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Mike" wrote

Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect?

You know what I feel about him, How???

Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his
accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume.

Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt were
very good.

What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of the
other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible slant.
Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular deception? No
answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL about this one
thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all, where and how it
was given.

Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to
others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath,
unless you just want to see your words in writing.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote

Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect?

You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from those
who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically zip to do
with the job.

Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his
accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume.

My assumptions have a pretty good track record. I'm not going to pretend
they are correct all of the time, but in your case I'm still convinced and
your previous post only reinforces what I already suspected.

Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt
were very good.

So what? I could say the same about Nixon or any other president throughout
history. One would have to be a universe away from the mainstream to say
any president had no good accomplishments whatsoever throughout their term.

What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of
the other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible
slant. Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular
deception? No answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL
about this one thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all,
where and how it was given.

I will answer your question whether you feel it was needed or not. It gives
an excellent idea about how you feel about that particular deception and it
reinforces exactly what I've been saying. Everyone lies, and yes, that
includes presidents. To say Clinton has the all time worse deception would
be funny if it weren't so sad. It means you think deceiving the public
about a hummer is worse than deceiving the public into a baseless war.

Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to
others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath,
unless you just want to see your words in writing.

I could care less whether I change your mind or not. Everyone is entitled
to their opinions. Some are just more relevant than others.

You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from
those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically
zip to do with the job.

Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of) president
used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly plump) little intern
in the Oval Office? If your school board president was caught doing this,
he'd be in prison right now. Yet the president of the United States is
above all that because he "otherwise did a good job"?

What kind of standard is *that*?

It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by lying
under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be swift.

Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in
our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all
teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22...
You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from
those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically
zip to do with the job.

Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of) president
used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly plump) little
intern in the Oval Office?

Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year
presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard
Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than
the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those
standards equally.

If your school board president was caught doing this, he'd be in prison
right now. Yet the president of the United States is above all that
because he "otherwise did a good job"?

In prison for what? Is sex illegal in your world? I don't know if you
realize it or not, but scarlet letters went out of fashion quite some time
ago.

What kind of standard is *that*?

The kind that are applied equally to both sides.

It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by
lying under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be
swift.

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
yourself before you comment.

Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in
our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all
teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of
his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from
office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence
to get a Presidential nomination.

In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike" wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.


Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge
to argue such points.

Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

Glad you agree.

In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."


However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge
to argue such points.

Isn't my defintion.

Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

Presumed innocent by the legal system.


If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

Glad you agree.

If only others would educate themselves...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Call the next defendANT!

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Legal findings are not necessarily consistent with actual facts.
OJ was acquitted of two counts of murder, which does not mean that he didn't
kill those two people.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

snip

Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year
presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard
Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than
the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those
standards equally.

Don't you mean 'the only one we found out about' in eight years?

snip

So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of
his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from
office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence
to get a Presidential nomination.

Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
most recent D?