Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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.

on 8/25/2008 5:07 PM Mike said the following:
"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.

Actually, he's a class-A douchebag. But who's counting?

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.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not normally
associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You didn't engage in
"name calling" when you accused me of "rampant stupidity" (to quote one of
your milder dings)? Somehow your definition of name calling seems to
differ from mine -- as if that's a surprise, coming from someone who can't
understand that lying under oath is wrong.

It's always sad to see someone who held such fleeting promise resort to
personal attacks when their logical house of cards collapses. Fleeing the
field when you can no longer play is so...Bertie-ish. Hmmm... Could you
be....? Nah.

Sorry -- "singularly unpleasant" is about as good as it's going to get for
you, I'm afraid. And "twit" is just too polite.

Back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
[In response to Mike...]
Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant
stupidity" (to quote one of your milder dings)?

I looked up-thread and that insult came only after you wrote "... 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...."

I may be arguing with Mike also, but he's made some reasonably sound legal
points (in the opinion of this legal lay person). You appear to have been
the party that fully opened the gates to irrelevant character attacks.

Somehow your
definition of name calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's a
surprise, coming from someone who can't understand that lying under
oath is wrong.

Your definition of name calling differs from mine too - the "game the
system" quote constituted name calling in my book. Plus, Clinton was not
found guilty of lying under oath. If you want to believe he lied under oath
- fine - your _opinion_ was made clear a while back. But you went beyond
that to impugn the character of someone who doesn't accept your opinion as
established fact.

Have fun flying!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lVKsk.314241$yE1.254747@attbi_s21...
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.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not
normally associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant stupidity"
(to quote one of your milder dings)? Somehow your definition of name
calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's a surprise, coming from
someone who can't understand that lying under oath is wrong.

I simply suggested a reason why you keep repeating the same nonsense over
and over despite being told otherwise. A google search on
Lewinsky+infatuation yields over 19,000 results and I can only assume you're
smart enough to do that. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll provide more
assistance, or if you have another explanation I'd be glad to hear it.
Furthermore, I clearly explained I was leaning towards another explanation
and I was only referencing only one aspect of your replies, not you as a
whole. Any slight you may have felt was richly deserved.

English is a wonderful language. You should learn how to use it.

Next, I never claimed lying under oath wasn't wrong, so why do you feel the
need to lie? Are you really that desperate to try and convince yourself
you're right?

It's always sad to see someone who held such fleeting promise resort to
personal attacks when their logical house of cards collapses. Fleeing the
field when you can no longer play is so...Bertie-ish. Hmmm... Could you
be....? Nah.

Please, you were making personal attacks several steps up the thread before
I ever described your behavior. If you truly believe this your argument
fell apart quite some time ago and that's giving you the benefit of the
doubt that you had one to begin with. Again I'll suggest you go find a
mirror.


Sorry -- "singularly unpleasant" is about as good as it's going to get for
you, I'm afraid. And "twit" is just too polite.

You have me confused with someone who really cares what you think of me.
From the pictures on your web site you run a 3rd rate hotel(at best) that's
obviously seen better days, and since you'd rather fiddle with a GPS than
spend time flying an airplane I can only guess your flying skills rate about
the same. So why should I or anyone else care about your grade school
insults?

"Mike" wrote in news:GOVsk.866$w51.653@trnddc01:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lVKsk.314241$yE1.254747@attbi_s21...
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.

I've seen reading comprehension problems here before, but it's not
normally associated with what you, yourself, wrote. Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant
stupidity" (to quote one of your milder dings)? Somehow your
definition of name calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's
a surprise, coming from someone who can't understand that lying under
oath is wrong.

I simply suggested a reason why you keep repeating the same nonsense
over and over despite being told otherwise. A google search on
Lewinsky+infatuation yields over 19,000 results and I can only assume
you're smart enough to do that. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll
provide more assistance, or if you have another explanation I'd be
glad to hear it. Furthermore, I clearly explained I was leaning
towards another explanation and I was only referencing only one aspect
of your replies, not you as a whole. Any slight you may have felt was
richly deserved.

English is a wonderful language. You should learn how to use it.

Next, I never claimed lying under oath wasn't wrong, so why do you
feel the need to lie? Are you really that desperate to try and
convince yourself you're right?

It's always sad to see someone who held such fleeting promise resort
to personal attacks when their logical house of cards collapses.
Fleeing the field when you can no longer play is so...Bertie-ish.
Hmmm... Could you be....? Nah.

Please, you were making personal attacks several steps up the thread
before I ever described your behavior. If you truly believe this your
argument fell apart quite some time ago and that's giving you the
benefit of the doubt that you had one to begin with. Again I'll
suggest you go find a mirror.


Sorry -- "singularly unpleasant" is about as good as it's going to
get for you, I'm afraid. And "twit" is just too polite.

You have me confused with someone who really cares what you think of
me. From the pictures on your web site you run a 3rd rate hotel(at
best) that's obviously seen better days, and since you'd rather fiddle
with a GPS than spend time flying an airplane I can only guess your
flying skills rate about the same. So why should I or anyone else
care about your grade school insults?



??You don;'t think they're a hoot?

bertie