Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:%9Uuk.212$jE1.152@trnddc03...

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

Yeah, but since you live in a moble home, it's still true.

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.

Sounds like you got your spin training from Clinton himself. Did he also
teach you stalls?

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.

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.

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?

I'm not sure where you're from, but in all places I've lived and
breathed, being elected to any position was an honor, and any
trappings that come with the position are honors, and the person
receiving them is expected to behave honorably. Getting elected to
some position does not ever give someone the right to dishonor the
office, or its location, or its history, or its responsibilities.
I've never heard of any reasonable place where election to an office
gives you carte blanc permission to do as you please, wherever you
please. And this has nothing to do with party--I'd feel the same
about the person regardless of party. This is especially true as I
get more libertarian, since neither major party does what I hope for.
At any rate, being elected to the Presidency is supposed to be the
highest trust and honor that Americans can bestow upon someone.

If you don't see it that way, please don't ever run for office in the
USA. If you do run, please enclose your paragraphs above in your
campaign literature. Your potential constituents would need to know
how you felt.

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.

"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

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.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our legal
system. When our president can lie on national television AND in the
courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the long run he
profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal system has failed
utterly.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many of us,
and that you are happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine for
lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young employees in the Oval
Office. The halls of power have always been filled with such men, enabled
by folks like you -- but I had hoped that we had moved beyond such things,
driven (not surprisingly) by the women's movement over the past 100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening silence
emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement in the face of
Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the workplace -- precisely what
that movement has spent many decades fighting against. Stranger still how
many of these same women would later become supporters of Clinton's
cuckolded wife in her run for the presidency -- this the same humiliated
wife who behaved in precisely the same meek, door-mat style that the women's
movement has advocated against.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JExsk.313361$yE1.286917@attbi_s21...
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.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our
legal system. When our president can lie on national television AND in
the courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the long run
he profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal system has
failed utterly.

It's already been explained to you how Clinton didn't commit perjury. Since
he didn't commit perjury, he should never have been pushished for it, so the
legal system worked just as it should. You would rather see an innocent man
convicted just because you dislike him. As such you have little regard for
our legal system, but hardly for the reasons you claim, and you reinforce
that with each post.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many of
us, and that you are happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine
for lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young employees in the
Oval Office. The halls of power have always been filled with such men,
enabled by folks like you -- but I had hoped that we had moved beyond such
things, driven (not surprisingly) by the women's movement over the past
100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening
silence emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement in
the face of Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the workplace --
precisely what that movement has spent many decades fighting against.
Stranger still how many of these same women would later become supporters
of Clinton's cuckolded wife in her run for the presidency -- this the same
humiliated wife who behaved in precisely the same meek, door-mat style
that the women's movement has advocated against.

I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she was
"cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just an object
of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's rights in the same
breath. You've been told numerous times that Lewinsky was no victim, yet
you refuse to believe it despite the overwhelming evidence presented
publically for months. So what's the reason for this? Ignorance can not
explain it anymore. It's either rampant stupidity or perhaps you have one
or two fantasies in which you just can't quite let go. I'm beginning to
suspect the latter. You are more like Clinton than you realize, but you
just don't have the charisma to act on your urges, and perhaps that's what
bothers you the most.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JExsk.313361$yE1.286917@attbi_s21:

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.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our
legal system. When our president can lie on national television AND
in the courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the
long run he profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal
system has failed utterly.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many
of us, and that you are happy to game the system so that it's
perfectly fine for lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young
employees in the Oval Office. The halls of power have always been
filled with such men, enabled by folks like you -- but I had hoped
that we had moved beyond such things, driven (not surprisingly) by the
women's movement over the past 100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening
silence emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement
in the face of Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the
workplace -- precisely what that movement has spent many decades
fighting against. Stranger still how many of these same women would
later become supporters of Clinton's cuckolded wife in her run for the
presidency -- this the same humiliated wife who behaved in precisely
the same meek, door-mat style that the women's movement has advocated
against.

You are one sick ****.



Bertie