Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102@trnddc04:

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

"Mike" wrote in message
news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05...

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7
year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for
you?


You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report.

More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie?

I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last
long.




It never does.



Bless him.

His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming.

"Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234@trnddc04:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102
@trnddc04:

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

"Mike" wrote in message
news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05...

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7
year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for
you?


You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report.

More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie?

I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last
long.




It never does.



Bless him.

His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be
overwhelming.



Well, he is an Okie...



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234@trnddc04:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102
@trnddc04:

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

"Mike" wrote in message
news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05...

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7
year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for
you?


You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report.

More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie?

I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last
long.




It never does.



Bless him.

His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be
overwhelming.



Well, he is an Okie...

That explains a lot.

"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.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in message
...

"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.

....sez the 12 yr old village idiot.

"Mike" wrote in news:s0dvk.242$Af3.32@trnddc06:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234
@trnddc04:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102
@trnddc04:

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

"Mike" wrote in message
news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05...

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A
7
year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for
you?


You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report.

More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie?

I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last
long.




It never does.



Bless him.

His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be
overwhelming.



Well, he is an Okie...

That explains a lot.



Mmmm hhmmmm.



Bertie

On Sep 2, 6:41*am, "Mike" wrote:

Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can come
up
with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your
opinion.
Yep. I'm your pretty basic person. Lie, and you are a liar. Lie
under oath, and it's perjury.
Lawyers get paid to twist pretty simple stuff into something
complicated, utterly perverting the truth.

And still not one of you who believes Clinton committed perjury can come
up
with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so much
as
indicted for that crime.

Sometimes the law about who lies the most. Sometimes it's not about
the truth. We have lots of examples of that.

Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur.
And not all things that should be get indicted. *Politics on the
defense is also at play here.

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? *A 7 year
investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you?

An investigation that lasted a long time because there were so many
twists and turns, and new episodes, and more bimbo eruptions, and of
course nothing like the truth coming from either of the Clintons.
Bill dragged it out as much as he could. He only fessed when caught
by the blue dress. Lots of his friends got guilty verdicts; my
opinion is that the big fish mostly got away.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones. *
The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your
definition of "is".
Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is,
and...."


It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the
perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it. *He paid a settlement
to Jones; he was disbarred for 5 years (should have been for life for
such a bad example), etc.

Try defending yourself against a politically motivated lawsuit AND a
politically motivated $100 million prosecution and see what price you pay..

He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth. Ever.
If he'd kept his pants on in the Oval Office and other places, he
wouldn't have to defend himself either.

*Clinton traded his law license (which he had no intention of
ever using) to make the entire $100 million special counsel investigation go
away forever (again he would have paid millions to continue to defend
himself). *
An honest man, or honest lawyer, wouldn't give up a law license
without a fight. Clinton was going to lose that one, because he lied.

If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind
to everything except your own ideology.
My primary ideology is to dislike liars. Either party, or no party.

I suppose legally OJ isn't a murderer either. *Still, I'm not going to
a cutlery show with him any time soon, as I have no doubt he shoved a
knife into a couple of people.

He was also indicted for that crime.
Adn got away with it. Which shows what a big team of defense lawyers,
who want to cover up the truth, can accomplish.
Clinton's lawyers were even better.

The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not.

on 9/1/2008 2:12 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
"Mike" wrote in news:gRYuk.180$Dj1.130@trnddc02:

"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.


Can't argue with that. But turds can mak your roses grow. can't imagine
spreading Maxie on anything would do it any good.

He's the Vegemite of Usenet in that way... Come to think of it, probably
in other ways. I can imagine he was scraped off the bottom of a brewing
vat, for instance.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 6:41 am, "Mike" wrote:

Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can
come
up
with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your
opinion.
Yep. I'm your pretty basic person. Lie, and you are a liar. Lie
under oath, and it's perjury.
Lawyers get paid to twist pretty simple stuff into something
complicated, utterly perverting the truth.

Lawyers get paid to defend their clients within the letter of the law. Just
because you are unwilling or unable to understand the law, doesn't mean it
was broken.

And still not one of you who believes Clinton committed perjury can
come
up
with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so
much
as
indicted for that crime.

Sometimes the law about who lies the most. Sometimes it's not about
the truth. We have lots of examples of that.

Do you have an example of a person who endured a 7 year, $100 million
partisan investigation with out so much as an indictment? You still can't
come up with anything that approaches a reasonable explanation.


Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur.
And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the
defense is also at play here.

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year
investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you?

An investigation that lasted a long time because there were so many
twists and turns, and new episodes, and more bimbo eruptions, and of
course nothing like the truth coming from either of the Clintons.
Bill dragged it out as much as he could. He only fessed when caught
by the blue dress. Lots of his friends got guilty verdicts; my
opinion is that the big fish mostly got away.

Bill dragged it out? You're kidding, right? "Lots of his friends" included
no one in his administration and none of the charges involved any Clinton
business dealings. Furthermore, those indicted would have been indicted by
other prosecutors anyway, and they received lesser sentences for their
testimony which never amounted to anything. Everyone is entitled to their
opinion. Some are just more relevant than others.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was
accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones.
The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your
definition of "is".
Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is,
and...."

Or maybe if you were more familiar with the facts of the case you could
speak from a position of intelligence rather than from a position of
ignorance. The Jones lawyers provided the definition which was accepted by
the court. That is a fact regardless of any semantic nonsense you want to
allege.

It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the
perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it. He paid a settlement
to Jones; he was disbarred for 5 years (should have been for life for
such a bad example), etc.

Try defending yourself against a politically motivated lawsuit AND a
politically motivated $100 million prosecution and see what price you
pay.

He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth. Ever.
If he'd kept his pants on in the Oval Office and other places, he
wouldn't have to defend himself either.

Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.

Clinton traded his law license (which he had no intention of
ever using) to make the entire $100 million special counsel
investigation go
away forever (again he would have paid millions to continue to defend
himself).
An honest man, or honest lawyer, wouldn't give up a law license
without a fight. Clinton was going to lose that one, because he lied.

But you're going to allege that an honest lawyer and prosecutor would let a
guilty case go for nothing? How do you reconcile those facts?

If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind
to everything except your own ideology.
My primary ideology is to dislike liars. Either party, or no party.

I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. If making misleading
statements about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business
and never involved his official functions is the worst of his
transgressions, that's not too bad historically speaking. The Reagan and
H.W. Bush administrations lied about Iran-Contra. The W. Bush
administration lied about Iraq, revealing classified information, and
subverting the DOJ for political purposes. My favorite quote is from Kay
Hutchinson (who voted to impeach Clinton) about Scooter Libby:

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment
that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not
some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so
they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was
not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

I suppose legally OJ isn't a murderer either. Still, I'm not going to
a cutlery show with him any time soon, as I have no doubt he shoved a
knife into a couple of people.

He was also indicted for that crime.
Adn got away with it. Which shows what a big team of defense lawyers,
who want to cover up the truth, can accomplish.
Clinton's lawyers were even better.

And I can show you countless other high profile cases with a big team of
defense lawyers that DID get convicted. However the point that completely
went over your head was the fact that Clinton never so much as got indicted.
So his "big team of defense lawyers" never came into play. The fact that he
never so much as got indicted means even the prosecutor wasn't convinced of
his case.

The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or
not.
The
USSC says factually correct but misleading answers do not amount to
perjury.

"deliberately" misleading, or just "mistakely but honestly to the best
of my memory" misleading. There's a difference.

Not to the USSC. Try reading the decision sometime.

They must be lawyers. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?

Are you saying people are not entitled to mount a vigorous defense of
themselves even though they are complying with the letter of the law?

As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are
what
matters, not yours.

Something many democrats never accepted after the 2000 elections.
And clearly, they are not always right. They just win.

Nothing like completely changing the subject when you can't deal with
not
being "right", eh?

I didn't change the subject. You brought up the USSC as the supreme
arbiter of the land. There's many a die-hard democrat who can't
accept that since 2k.

So if I mentioned the words "private parts", that would mean you could bring
up Long Dong Silver and not be changing the subject? Sorry, that doesn't
pass the BS test.

And to wrap this up, since I have other lives to attend to: Clinton's
troubles were all his own. He is a compulsive liar; to the nation on
TV, to his wife, to the court taking the deposition, and anyone else
he wanted to.
He is a gifted, charming person, and by all accounts when he walks
into a room even his detractors like him. It's just too bad he
doesn't have a moral compass or a level of decency to go along with
his social skills. As it is, he is simply a skilled liar who is a
successful politician.
And I don't defend many of the other people involved in that
particular part of American Theater either.

Making misleading statements about a highly personal matter does not make a
compulsive liar regardless of what you think. Clinton mislead whoever he
mislead about something that wasn't their business to begin with. In
America, most people are obsessed with sex, perhaps because they don't get
enough of it. In practically every other civilized country, such statements
would have resulted in a brief mention in the press and a few giggles. Only
in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.

I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the true essence of "Mike" -- on display
for all to see.

No, Mike -- everyone DOESN'T lie. Only people like you -- the ones who do
the lying, and defend the liars -- think that "everyone" lies.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"