Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"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.

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


sense a soulmate?


Bertie

Why, you feel yourself falling in love?

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


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


sense a soulmate?


Bertie

Why, you feel yourself falling in love?




Wow, an IKYABWAI lame.




I wish I could say I expected more.


Bertie

"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

"Mike" wrote in news:emlsk.633$Ro1.455@trnddc04:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22...
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire
8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that
much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his
hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting
to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally.

Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his
position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex
was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to
make it the salient point of the discussion.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the
chubby intern?


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.

Lying under oath is perjury.

I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate
yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.


You might as well tell a goldfish he should read a book about flying
before he tries it next time.

Or tell Jay to read a book about flying next time he tries it for that
matter.


Bertie

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".

On Aug 24, 4:11 pm, "Mike" wrote:

And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

Clinton did what he did in his home at the time.

Well, not quite.
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.

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.

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.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 4:11 pm, "Mike" wrote:

And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

Clinton did what he did in his home at the time.

Well, not quite.
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.

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.