![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22... I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she was "cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just an object of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's rights in the same breath. You've been told numerous times that Lewinsky was no victim, yet you refuse to believe it despite the overwhelming evidence presented publically for months. So what's the reason for this? Ignorance can not explain it anymore. It's either rampant stupidity or perhaps you have one or two fantasies in which you just can't quite let go. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. You are more like Clinton than you realize, but you just don't have the charisma to act on your urges, and perhaps that's what bothers you the most. Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you? So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that lesson, especially since you have a tough time facing the truth. Furthermore I never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at what you find. For a few moments, this group actually showed signs of intelligent life in the form of a real, legitimate (if off-topic) debate. Alas, I should have known that it would quickly slip back into this sort of bitter blather. You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's intelligence? At least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to reconsider advertising your business at the end of all your posts. You aren't a very good pitch man. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
on 8/25/2008 5:07 PM Mike said the following:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:HvFsk.258755$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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obama/Marx | Orval Fairbairn[_2_] | Piloting | 115 | June 30th 08 06:08 PM |
LOVE POEMS, POETRY & QUOTES | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | May 7th 07 01:11 PM |
Quotes please... | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 38 | May 24th 06 02:51 AM |
Favourite quotes about flying | David Starer | Soaring | 26 | May 16th 06 05:58 AM |