Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"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.

"Mike" wrote in news:eSysk.642$p72.223@trnddc05:

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.




True.

Have you seen his wife?


Bertie

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.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

For a few moments, this group actually showed signs of intelligent life in
the form of a real, legitimate (if off-topic) debate. Alas, I should have
known that it would quickly slip back into this sort of bitter blather.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22...
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.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't
dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that lesson,
especially since you have a tough time facing the truth. Furthermore I
never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard look in the mirror
sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.

For a few moments, this group actually showed signs of intelligent life in
the form of a real, legitimate (if off-topic) debate. Alas, I should have
known that it would quickly slip back into this sort of bitter blather.

You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated
nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's intelligence? At
least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to reconsider advertising
your business at the end of all your posts. You aren't a very good pitch
man.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22:

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.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?


sense a soulmate?


Bertie