Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"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.


Bertie

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.

On Sep 1, 8:37*am, "Mike" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Aug 24, 8:50 pm, "Mike" wrote:
*Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. *Providing answers you
believe
are correct is not a crime.

There's something in the oath about telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. *(Well, at least as much as the
lawyers will let you get away with.)

Only the legal profession could get away from the whole truth, and
coming up with "misleading but factually correct". *Deliberately
misleading is lying, and every parent worth a toot knows to teach this
to the kids. *Clinton never grew up.

Now, just to emulate Clinton and the definition of "is":
Providing answers you believe are correct is not a crime, is true if
you believe you are telling the whole truth. *It might be crime if you
twist the words of the question or the answer, such that you knowingly
intend for the hearer of the answer to not get the answer to the
question.
For example:
Mom: *Did you throw your little brother into the lake?
Big brother: No.
* *But in his mind, he thinks: I threw him into the air over the
lake. *He fell into the lake of his own accord.

Only a lawyer, which, come to remember, Clinton is. Or was. *Or is
again. *Define "lawyer".

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.

On Aug 22, 1:21 pm, FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH wrote:
Mike wrote:
"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" wrote in message
...
Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
snip

NOT

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...hat_he_would_s...

When GW's not opining over Obama's black caucus, he likes to show his
stupidity by parroting out BS without checking basic facts.

I love It

Some BS Left wing Marxist site using lawyer hyperbole to
distort and twist what you read.

Just like Clinton. "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms.
Lewinsky" LOL

Most smart people know lawyer word manipulation crap when
they read it

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
Pennsylvania. (LEFT WING SOCIALIST BASTION)

Of course the egg heads and Marxists will tell you WHAT you
should READ

All BS


Just like the drivel you purport as truth here? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, pull the other one skippy.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 8:37 am, "Mike" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Aug 24, 8:50 pm, "Mike" wrote:
Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you
believe
are correct is not a crime.

There's something in the oath about telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. (Well, at least as much as the
lawyers will let you get away with.)

Only the legal profession could get away from the whole truth, and
coming up with "misleading but factually correct". Deliberately
misleading is lying, and every parent worth a toot knows to teach this
to the kids. Clinton never grew up.

Now, just to emulate Clinton and the definition of "is":
Providing answers you believe are correct is not a crime, is true if
you believe you are telling the whole truth. It might be crime if you
twist the words of the question or the answer, such that you knowingly
intend for the hearer of the answer to not get the answer to the
question.
For example:
Mom: Did you throw your little brother into the lake?
Big brother: No.
But in his mind, he thinks: I threw him into the air over the
lake. He fell into the lake of his own accord.

Only a lawyer, which, come to remember, Clinton is. Or was. Or is
again. Define "lawyer".

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.
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.

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?

Go to any good bookstore and browse the section on relationships. All
of the books on sexual relations will include oral sex; the common
definition of such activity clearly falls within the bounds of sex, as
any boy or girl or parent knows. Or did, until the Clinton era, when
kids started getting quoted as saying it wasn't sex, and Bill said
so. ONLY A LAWYER could come up with a definition in which a BJ
isn't sex. Only a lawyer could have a problem with the definition of
'is'.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones. You might want to do a bit of
research on the actual facts of the case before you spew such nonsense.

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.
The Jones lawsuit was dismissed, by the way, and the settlement paid was a
fraction of what it would have cost Clinton to defend an appeal. In the
end, Paula Jones got nothing other than the notoriety that allowed her to
pose nude for a men's magazine. Even Ann Coulter called her a fraud. A
lawsuit is also not a prosecution of a crime. The disbarment is even more
of a joke. 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). If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind
to everything except your own ideology.

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.


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.

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?

"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.

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.

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


"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.


Feel the need to shoot someone Maxie?

Bertie

"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.

"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.



Bertie