Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article p_psk.621$482.231@trnddc06, "Mike"
wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which
a

And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a
lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury.

Obviously, and that's my point. Thank you for agreeing.

"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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
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 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.

You are one sick ****.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:WKxsk.258222$TT4.86817@attbi_s22:

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

OMG! Is that a Bertie post accusing someone of spamming this group by
discussing politics!? ROTFLMAO!


Nope, i amm accusing you of spamming because you contiually advertise your
flea pit hotel in every poast you make, you fjukkkwit.


Bertie

"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

Jay Honeck schrieb:
Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of) president
used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly plump) little intern
in the Oval Office? If your school board president was caught doing this,
he'd be in prison right now. Yet the president of the United States is
above all that because he "otherwise did a good job"?

What kind of standard is *that*?

well, in other countries he might be padded on his back and one might
have said "hey?! had a good f*..?" and one might walked on for the day
to day affairs.

:-))

#m

Martin Hotze wrote:
Jay Honeck schrieb:
Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of)
president used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly
plump) little intern in the Oval Office? If your school board
president was caught doing this, he'd be in prison right now. Yet the
president of the United States is above all that because he "otherwise
did a good job"?

What kind of standard is *that*?

well, in other countries he might be padded on his back and one might
have said "hey?! had a good f*..?" and one might walked on for the day
to day affairs.

:-))

#m


Clinton always got a pass in the media. He was good at
"Kissing the Black Ass".

That is all that really matters in politically correct
Marxist America.

Clinton started the phenomenon of Wiggers that has swept
America. Weak White Marxist sycophants who bow before
Blackdom like they are inferior and ashamed of their white
European ancestry.

Weak white sycophants and scum white men like Clinton
dominate American culture now along with homosexual men. It
is a recipe for eventual collapse of America just like the
old Roman empire.

It won't be long.

China and the Muslims will shout with glee when America does
collapse.

Get ready to trade your 172 for a Rickshaw

Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work.
As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting
a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.

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"

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work.
As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting
a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.


First Mike defends FAA Management goons while belittling the
FAA workers who keep those tubes of people from becoming a
pink mist and THEN he defends Bill Clinton!?!?!?!?

Fess up Mike are you a closet Weenie Puffer??
San FAGcisco Rump Ranger perhaps??
Fess up boy