Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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.

"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?

"Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message
...

"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?

Sounds like you're still a 12 yr old who doesn't know his a$$ from a crack.

Come back when you grow up. You are unworthy to be my groupie, no matter
how much you keep trying.

"Mike" wrote in news:Q%Uuk.224$jE1.175@trnddc03:

"Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message
...

"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?

Sounds like you're still a 12 yr old who doesn't know his a$$ from a
crack.

Come back when you grow up. You are unworthy to be my groupie, no
matter how much you keep trying.


You don't call them groupies. You call them "fanbois"



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:Q%Uuk.224$jE1.175@trnddc03:

"Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message
...

"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?

Sounds like you're still a 12 yr old who doesn't know his a$$ from a
crack.

Come back when you grow up. You are unworthy to be my groupie, no
matter how much you keep trying.


You don't call them groupies. You call them "fanbois"

A turd by any other name still smells like $hit.

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.

wrote in message
...
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.

Sounds like more of an obsession, but call it whatever you want.

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.

So what's your point? Are you saying that since he cheated on his wife he
should have paid the full settlement on a frivolous lawsuit, been found
guilty of a crime he never committed, and removed from office for
infidelity? I find what you call hairsplitting rather funny.

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?

The subject was the White House, not the presidency, "dude". And if you're
so concerned about "honor" explain how Clinton was honored when he was the
subject of a politically funded and motivated frivolous lawsuit and a
special counsel investigation that lasted almost his entire term, cost $100
million, and produced exactly squat other than to detract from the office.
Apparently you feel "honor" only applies when your ideology supports it.

snipnonsense

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.

Ah yes, the will of the people, eh? Why then did Clinton have a 70%
approval rating WHILE the impeachment proceedings were going on. Keep in
mind this was a higher approval rating than Reagan ever achieved throughout
his 8 years in office. The impeachment proceedings had nothing to do with
the "will of the people". It was simply a partisan tactic to remove or
discredit Clinton when all their other efforts had failed. It was and will
forever remain a blight on the American political process.

As far as "Clinton rewrites history", all I can say is you are really out
there with your looneytarian ideas. You should try getting better
information sometime as wherever you're getting yours has warped your sense
of reality.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:NSbvk.321$1a2.238@trnddc04...

Practicing some of your Bill Clinton spins there Mikey Mouth?

You can talk more **** than a Jap radio.