Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"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?

They make pulling his chain worthwhile.

"Mike" wrote in newspWsk.848$lf2.535@trnddc07:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"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?

They make pulling his chain worthwhile.



ah, you had me worried there.

Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
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"


Merely a statement of fact.


Bertie