Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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 message
...
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."

You still don't have it right after two tries. The false testimony has to
be material to the case. A person can lie under oath all day long on
questions immaterial to the case and never be convicted of perjury, yet this
fits both definitions you provided. Again, it's obvious you have no clue
about the subject you attempt to argue.



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

Isn't my defintion.

It's the incorrect one you provided. That makes it yours. Either you
didn't know it was incorrect, or you knew it was incorrect and provided it
anyway for reasons one can only guess. Take your pick.



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.

Exactly. And anything contrary is a poorly based opinion. The Independent
Counsel investigation spent $100 million and the better part of a decade
trying to convict Clinton of anything and came back with nothing. Mr.
Honeck's suggestion that Clinton got off because of his position is
ridiculous to the point of hysteretics. In fact he was federally
investigated more than any human being in the history of the United States.
So you might want to start asking yourself how someone who was subject to so
much scrutiny able to escape without so much as indictment for a charge
you're so certain he committed.



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...

You still haven't gotten so much as the definition of perjury correct after
two tries. You might want to look at yourself first, but that's just a
suggestion.

In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike" wrote:

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

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

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

"Mike" wrote:
So you might want to start asking yourself how
someone who was subject to so much scrutiny able to escape without so
much as indictment for a charge you're so certain he committed.

While I elided much that I don't disagree with, I believe you are incorrect
on the indictment aspect. Impeachment is roughly the legal equivalent of an
indictment. Clinton was impeached on the perjury charge.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04...

Major bull**** snip -

Find a legal reference and do a little research. Perjury is lying under
oath, regardless of it's relevance to a specific crime or hearing.

Furthermore, you don't have to be indicted or convicted to be guilt of a
crime. If you did it, you did it and you are guilty, Regardless how the
judicial process might later rule and punish you. Lots of guilty people are
found innocent every day, and vice versa.

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!