Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:ZMlsk.312575
$yE1.98360@attbi_s21:

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:g8t12f$4r4$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:ZMlsk.312575
$yE1.98360@attbi_s21:

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

Corsi is a kook.
--
Pinku-Sensei
FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Alt.usenet.kooks
http://tinyurl.com/AUKFAQ

wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
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.

I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being
investigated in a sexual harassment charge?

You mean the one that was dismissed?

And, did Gingrich lie to
a grand jury?

Neither did Clinton.

And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

Clinton did what he did in his home at the time.

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.

Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. You might also
want to check the US Constitution sometime for the grounds required for such
an act and you might discover you have the cart before the horse.
Republicans couldn't win at the ballot box, so they went after Clinton with
politically motivated civil suits and politically motivated Special Counsel
investigations. When both of those failed they went after Clinton with a
partisan political process (and failed again).

There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically
motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such
prosecution wouldn't have had much traction.

So you justify one party subverting the civil legal process, the criminal
legal process, and the political process simply because Clinton got a hummer
and was less than forthcoming about it. Brilliant!

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Check the OT on the subject line.

On Aug 24, 4:11 pm, "Mike" wrote:

And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

Clinton did what he did in his home at the time.

Well, not quite.
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.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 4:11 pm, "Mike" wrote:

And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

Clinton did what he did in his home at the time.

Well, not quite.
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.

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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22...
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.

Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was
never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it
the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the chubby
intern?


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.

Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was
never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it
the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the chubby
intern?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she was
attracted to the old man.

Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee, during
business hours, on government property, is generally considered to be
illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of "public servants" who are
currently doing time right now for similar crimes. Therefore -- unless
you're suggesting that we hold the president to a lower standard than we do
our mayors or high school principals -- I think the entire framework of your
argument is as specious as Clinton's claims that he "did not have sex with
that woman."

Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

So you're saying that lying under oath isn't perjury in such an instance?
Cite, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was
never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it
the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the chubby
intern?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she was
attracted to the old man.

Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
ignorance of the details is really showing.


Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee, during
business hours, on government property, is generally considered to be
illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of "public servants" who
are currently doing time right now for similar crimes. Therefore --
unless you're suggesting that we hold the president to a lower standard
than we do our mayors or high school principals -- I think the entire
framework of your argument is as specious as Clinton's claims that he "did
not have sex with that woman."

First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never coerced.
If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as you are taking
ignorance to a fine art form.

Next, even if Lewinsky WAS coerced (she wasn't), Clinton would only be
guilty of breaking civil statues, not criminal ones, and Lewinsky's recourse
would be to file an EEO charge (which can never even result in punitive
awards, much less criminal convictions). No such thing ever happened.
Offering or accepting a sexual favor from a coworker, even a subordinate, is
not even remotely illegal.


Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

So you're saying that lying under oath isn't perjury in such an instance?
Cite, please?

First, lying under oath alone doesn't fit the definition of perjury. If
you're going to try to argue whether or not anyone committed perjury, a good
place to start might be with the actual definition. You think?

Next, you simply assume Clinton DID lie under oath. No such thing has ever
been proven despite a monumental effort to do so. So perhaps you think you
can succeed when much more qualified people have failed, but I don't share
your optimism. The legal case against Clinton failed. The political case
against Clinton failed. The popular opinion case against Clinton failed.
Perhaps in your own mind you succeeded, but I doubt you had a high opinion
of Clinton to lose in the first place. Furthermore the price for those
failures was equivalent of wiping your arse with the US Constitution.
Congratulations.

"Mike" wrote in news:eqmsk.717$lf2.208@trnddc07:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex
was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried
to make it the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the
chubby intern?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she
was attracted to the old man.

Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
ignorance of the details is really showing.


Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee,
during business hours, on government property, is generally
considered to be illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of
"public servants" who are currently doing time right now for similar
crimes. Therefore -- unless you're suggesting that we hold the
president to a lower standard than we do our mayors or high school
principals -- I think the entire framework of your argument is as
specious as Clinton's claims that he "did not have sex with that
woman."

First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never
coerced. If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as
you are taking ignorance to a fine art form.


Why should he break th ehabits of a lifetime?


Bertie