Actual Quotes from OBAMA book [Archive]

Mike[_22_]

August 23rd 08, 01:20 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "VZ/res0zhra" > wrote
>>
>> People have totally misinterpreted what he was saying here. He was
>> actually speaking about HRC as he was addressing that comment to Ms. L.
>> A little cryptic, but hey, I would have been, too! When you're in deep
>> doodoo it don't matter whose doodoo you're standing in.
>
> Notice the OT added in the subject line. It should have been included in
> this tread from the beginning. Now back to the thread.
>
> And that is exactly the kind of attitude that is the root of many of our
> problems, today.
>
> Avoid unpleasant consequences, at all costs. Cover your ass. Look out
> for number one.
>
> The _honorable_ thing to do would have been tell the truth. The whole
> truth. Nothing but the truth.
>
> That _is_ part of the instructions, part of what we swear to, before
> giving testimony or evidence in a court of law, isn't it?
>
> That one famous (infamous?) quote does not hold to the spirit of the law.
> Far from it.
>
> That one line is why I condemn Clinton. I dislike his behavior. I
> dislike many things he did, and approved of, but this one line clearly
> shows what kind of man he is. A man without honor. A man that is willing
> to evade the truth, rather than face the consequences. A man that did not
> deserve to be in the high office he was in, representing the people of
> this land, representing the ideals that many have fought and died for.
>
> He may have had the law on his side, but he sure did not have honor on his
> side.
>
> He lost any respect I had ever had for him, instantly. He deserved far
> worse than what ever happened to him.

Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect? Do
you call that being "honorable"? Clinton mislead a court about a meritless
civil case that was funded by his political enemies to begin with. So your
definition of "honor" is to voluntarily give legal foder in a case that
never should have seen the light of a courtroom to begin with? His biggest
mistake was trying to mislead the public in the same manner, but in the end
it was a private matter if he wanted to get an extra-marital hummer in the
first place. Most Americans didn't really give a crap about it anyway as he
had higher approval ratings than President Reagan ever did as the
impeachment proceedings were going on in congress. Those that pretended to
be offended by it never liked him in the first place, just like you.
Several members of congress who led the charge against Clinton were cheating
on their own wives at the time or later called Libby's actual perjury
(during a federal criminal investigation no less) a "technicality". In the
end the entire matter was a blight on American politics, and neither side
ever took the high road.

Furthermore, since when have we had an "honorable" President? Nixon? He
was a tax cheat, dishonest to the core, and completely corrupt. Reagan? He
never came clean once on Iran-Contra and even Goldwater never believed him
on the matter. He also presided over one of the most corrupt
administrations in history and when asked about it by the press pretended to
be oblivious to it all. H.W. Bush? He was just as dirty on Iran-Contra and
he pardoned all those who sandbagged the investigation to protect himself.
He also pardoned a known terrorist for no other reason than to further the
political career of his son. Bush the 2nd? No explanation needed there.
So in more than 30 years the most "honorable" Presidents we've had are Ford
and Carter, and both were mediocre Presidents at best.

Morgans[_2_]

August 23rd 08, 02:01 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
> The OP is a worn tread indeed. ;-)

I guess I wanted to get the "H" out-a-there! <g>
>
> You mean like Grover Cleveland did in response to the Halpin scandal? Well
> look what happened to him!

He is not alone in his "almost the whole truth" attitude.

It seems to be far to prevalent among politicians.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_2_]

August 23rd 08, 02:16 AM

"Mike" > wrote

> Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
> place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect?

You know what I feel about him, How???

Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his
accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume.

Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt were
very good.

What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of the
other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible slant.
Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular deception? No
answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL about this one
thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all, where and how it
was given.

Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to
others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath,
unless you just want to see your words in writing.
--
Jim in NC

Steve Foley

August 23rd 08, 11:57 AM

"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" > wrote in message
...
> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

What book and page number?

Mike[_22_]

August 23rd 08, 07:27 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote
>
>> Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
>> place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect?
>
> You know what I feel about him, How???

Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from those
who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically zip to do
with the job.

> Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his
> accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume.

My assumptions have a pretty good track record. I'm not going to pretend
they are correct all of the time, but in your case I'm still convinced and
your previous post only reinforces what I already suspected.

> Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt
> were very good.

So what? I could say the same about Nixon or any other president throughout
history. One would have to be a universe away from the mainstream to say
any president had no good accomplishments whatsoever throughout their term.

> What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of
> the other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible
> slant. Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular
> deception? No answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL
> about this one thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all,
> where and how it was given.

I will answer your question whether you feel it was needed or not. It gives
an excellent idea about how you feel about that particular deception and it
reinforces exactly what I've been saying. Everyone lies, and yes, that
includes presidents. To say Clinton has the all time worse deception would
be funny if it weren't so sad. It means you think deceiving the public
about a hummer is worse than deceiving the public into a baseless war.

> Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to
> others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath,
> unless you just want to see your words in writing.

I could care less whether I change your mind or not. Everyone is entitled
to their opinions. Some are just more relevant than others.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 23rd 08, 11:04 PM

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote in news:LFzrk.1703$Jk1.690
@newsfe01.iad:

> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
>
> If the majority of America could get past our Marxist
> homosexual controlled media most Americans would never vote
> for the man
>
> This man wants to be our President and control our
> government. Pay close attention to the last comment, I was
> stunned. Below are a few lines from Obama's books in his
> own words:
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my
> mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to
> suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a
> pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my
> mothers race.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him
> that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And
> white.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father:'It remained necessary to prove
> which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black
> masses, to strike out and name names.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and
> brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my
> father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd
> packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes
> of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
>
> From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims
> should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Snort!

You're a hoot and a half!

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 24th 08, 02:01 PM

>> You know what I feel about him, How???
>
> Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from
> those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically
> zip to do with the job.

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*?

It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by lying
under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be swift.

Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in
our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all
teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike[_22_]

August 24th 08, 04:11 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22...
>>> You know what I feel about him, How???
>>
>> Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from
>> those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically
>> zip to do with the job.
>
> 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?

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.

> 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"?

In prison for what? Is sex illegal in your world? I don't know if you
realize it or not, but scarlet letters went out of fashion quite some time
ago.

> What kind of standard is *that*?

The kind that are applied equally to both sides.

> It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by
> lying under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be
> swift.

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.

> Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in
> our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all
> teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of
his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from
office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence
to get a Presidential nomination.

Bob Noel

August 24th 08, 04:45 PM

In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" > wrote:

> There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

>Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
> indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

> If you're
> not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
> yourself before you comment.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mike[_22_]

August 24th 08, 05:14 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> There was no perjury.
>
> He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge
to argue such points.

>>Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
>> indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.
>
> which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

>> If you're
>> not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
>> yourself before you comment.
>
> indeed.

Glad you agree.

Bob Noel

August 24th 08, 07:12 PM

In article <YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01>, "Mike" > wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> There was no perjury.
> >
> > He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.
>
> No it's not.

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

>
> However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge
> to argue such points.

Isn't my defintion.
>
> >>Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
> >> indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.
> >
> > which does not mean he didn't lie.
>
> It means he's innocent of perjury.

Presumed innocent by the legal system.

>
> >> If you're
> >> not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate
> >> yourself before you comment.
> >
> > indeed.
>
> Glad you agree.

If only others would educate themselves...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

john smith

August 24th 08, 07:27 PM

In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
wrote:

snip

> 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.

Don't you mean 'the only one we found out about' in eight years?

snip

> So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of
> his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from
> office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence
> to get a Presidential nomination.

Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
most recent D?

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 24th 08, 07:40 PM

> 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.

> 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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 24th 08, 07:53 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22:

>>> You know what I feel about him, How???
>>
>> Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times
>> from those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had
>> practically zip to do with the job.
>
> 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*?

One better than the standard that allows you to support a mass murderer.

Bertie

Jim Logajan

August 24th 08, 08:12 PM

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> There was no perjury.
>
> He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Call the next defendANT!

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 24th 08, 08:21 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
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*.

Yeah? How did he do that, fjukktard?

Bertie

[email protected]

August 24th 08, 09:53 PM

On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > 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.

I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being
investigated in a sexual harassment charge? And, did Gingrich lie to
a grand jury?
And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate,
which some consider something akin to hallowed ground?

> > 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.

Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment.

> Lying under oath is perjury.

Yes, it is. Even if you get away with it. He did, and he did,
mostly.

He would have gotten away cleanly, if the blue dress had been
laundered.

From Wikipedia (not always accurate, but generally a good starting
point):
"Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December
19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a
grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a
221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second
count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one
accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Four
Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for
at least one of them. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the
first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be
impeached..."

As I recall, after the impeachment, the Senate didn't feel strongly
enough to remove him from office. Hence the 45-55 outcome.

He didn't get impeached for his dalliances. He got impeached because
the investigations that started from a (presumably valid) sexual
harassment lawsuit wouldn't end, because more and more witnesses came
forward against him, and he lied (and otherwise evaded the truth) to a
grand jury after taking an oath. He was later found in contempt of
court, paid a fine, was removed from the Arkansas bar and chose to
resign from that bar.

The aftermath? Preteens and early teens don't think oral sex is sex,
and more people than ever think it's okay to lie if you really want
to.

If a society is to remain free (and it's always a struggle), the truth
has to be respected. If you, or I, or the president lies under oath,
there should be a swift and sure punishment. We've gotten away from
this--we're not after truth, but we are running a stage play. This
was brought home to me when I pursued a civil case. The defendants
had absolutely no leg to stand on, but I settled out of court because
their lies, wholly fabricated, would have been somewhat difficult to
prove as lies. At that point, going to the judge, who knows nothing
but what he hears, becomes a crapshoot. I got a small part of what
was owed me.

There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically
motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such
prosecution wouldn't have had much traction.

Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Bob Noel

August 24th 08, 10:11 PM

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> > He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.
>
> I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
> party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
> vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
> definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
> horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
> worry about the perjury charge.

Legal findings are not necessarily consistent with actual facts.
OJ was acquitted of two counts of murder, which does not mean that he didn't
kill those two people.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mike[_22_]

August 24th 08, 11:26 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> There was no perjury.
>> >
>> > He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> '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. The false testimony has to
be material to the case. A person can lie under oath all day long on
questions immaterial to the case and never be convicted of perjury, yet this
fits both definitions you provided. Again, it's obvious you have no clue
about the subject you attempt to argue.

>
>>
>> However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the
>> knowledge
>> to argue such points.
>
> Isn't my defintion.

It's the incorrect one you provided. That makes it yours. Either you
didn't know it was incorrect, or you knew it was incorrect and provided it
anyway for reasons one can only guess. Take your pick.

>>
>> >>Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
>> >> indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.
>> >
>> > which does not mean he didn't lie.
>>
>> It means he's innocent of perjury.
>
> Presumed innocent by the legal system.

Exactly. And anything contrary is a poorly based opinion. The Independent
Counsel investigation spent $100 million and the better part of a decade
trying to convict Clinton of anything and came back with nothing. Mr.
Honeck's suggestion that Clinton got off because of his position is
ridiculous to the point of hysteretics. In fact he was federally
investigated more than any human being in the history of the United States.
So you might want to start asking yourself how someone who was subject to so
much scrutiny able to escape without so much as indictment for a charge
you're so certain he committed.

>
>>
>> >> If you're
>> >> not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
>> >> educate
>> >> yourself before you comment.
>> >
>> > indeed.
>>
>> Glad you agree.
>
> If only others would educate themselves...

You still haven't gotten so much as the definition of perjury correct after
two tries. You might want to look at yourself first, but that's just a
suggestion.

Mike[_22_]

August 24th 08, 11:34 PM

"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.

Mike[_22_]

August 24th 08, 11:39 PM

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> 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.
>
> Don't you mean 'the only one we found out about' in eight years?

You might want to read the entire thread and understand the context before
you jump in the middle.

>
> snip
>
>> So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother
>> of
>> his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton
>> from
>> office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough
>> influence
>> to get a Presidential nomination.
>
> Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
> most recent D?

Again, see above.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 25th 08, 12:03 AM

>Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 12:11 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being
> investigated in a sexual harassment charge?

You mean the one that was dismissed?

> And, did Gingrich lie to
> a grand jury?

Neither did Clinton.

> 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.

> > > 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.
>
> Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. You might also
want to check the US Constitution sometime for the grounds required for such
an act and you might discover you have the cart before the horse.
Republicans couldn't win at the ballot box, so they went after Clinton with
politically motivated civil suits and politically motivated Special Counsel
investigations. When both of those failed they went after Clinton with a
partisan political process (and failed again).

> There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically
> motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such
> prosecution wouldn't have had much traction.

So you justify one party subverting the civil legal process, the criminal
legal process, and the political process simply because Clinton got a hummer
and was less than forthcoming about it. Brilliant!

> Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???

Check the OT on the subject line.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 25th 08, 12:18 AM

>> 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?

Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she was
attracted to the old man.

Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee, during
business hours, on government property, is generally considered to be
illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of "public servants" who are
currently doing time right now for similar crimes. Therefore -- unless
you're suggesting that we hold the president to a lower standard than we do
our mayors or high school principals -- I think the entire framework of your
argument is as specious as Clinton's claims that he "did not have sex with
that woman."

>> 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.

So you're saying that lying under oath isn't perjury in such an instance?
Cite, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 12:47 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:p%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
>>> 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?
>
> Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she was
> attracted to the old man.

Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
ignorance of the details is really showing.

>
> Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee, during
> business hours, on government property, is generally considered to be
> illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of "public servants" who
> are currently doing time right now for similar crimes. Therefore --
> unless you're suggesting that we hold the president to a lower standard
> than we do our mayors or high school principals -- I think the entire
> framework of your argument is as specious as Clinton's claims that he "did
> not have sex with that woman."

First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never coerced.
If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as you are taking
ignorance to a fine art form.

Next, even if Lewinsky WAS coerced (she wasn't), Clinton would only be
guilty of breaking civil statues, not criminal ones, and Lewinsky's recourse
would be to file an EEO charge (which can never even result in punitive
awards, much less criminal convictions). No such thing ever happened.
Offering or accepting a sexual favor from a coworker, even a subordinate, is
not even remotely illegal.

>
>>> 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.
>
> So you're saying that lying under oath isn't perjury in such an instance?
> Cite, please?

First, lying under oath alone doesn't fit the definition of perjury. If
you're going to try to argue whether or not anyone committed perjury, a good
place to start might be with the actual definition. You think?

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.

Bob Noel

August 25th 08, 01:12 AM

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.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

john smith

August 25th 08, 01:46 AM

In article <gqlsk.634$Ro1.600@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
wrote:

> > Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
> > most recent D?
>
> Again, see above.

I did. I also noticed that you didn't mention Teddy Kennedy, probably
one of the better know "offenders".

Jim Logajan

August 25th 08, 01:57 AM

"Mike" > wrote:
> So you might want to start asking yourself how
> someone who was subject to so much scrutiny able to escape without so
> much as indictment for a charge you're so certain he committed.

While I elided much that I don't disagree with, I believe you are incorrect
on the indictment aspect. Impeachment is roughly the legal equivalent of an
indictment. Clinton was impeached on the perjury charge.

August 25th 08, 02:05 AM

All taken out of context.. some words changed and some quotes are attributed
to a man that never spoke them.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp

"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" > wrote in message
...
> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
>
> If the majority of America could get past our Marxist homosexual
> controlled media most Americans would never vote for the man
>
> This man wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close
> attention to the last comment, I was stunned. Below are a few lines from
> Obama's books in his own words:
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the
> age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was
> ingratiating myself to whites.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense
> of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me
> wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father:'It remained necessary to prove which side you
> were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name
> names.'
>
> From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose
> fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black
> man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in
> myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
>
> From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the
> political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 02:14 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:ZMlsk.312575
$yE1.98360@attbi_s21:

>>Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???
>
> Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 02:19 AM

"Mike" > wrote in news:eqmsk.717$lf2.208@trnddc07:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:p%lsk.257419$TT4.108517@attbi_s22...
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Sure do -- especially since the only other alternative is that she
>> was attracted to the old man.
>
> Not only was she attracted to him, she was infatuated with him. Your
> ignorance of the details is really showing.
>
>>
>> Bottom line: Abusing power by coercing sex from/with an employee,
>> during business hours, on government property, is generally
>> considered to be illegal, as can be readily proven by the number of
>> "public servants" who are currently doing time right now for similar
>> crimes. Therefore -- unless you're suggesting that we hold the
>> president to a lower standard than we do our mayors or high school
>> principals -- I think the entire framework of your argument is as
>> specious as Clinton's claims that he "did not have sex with that
>> woman."
>
> First of all, what you describe never happened. Lewinsky was never
> coerced. If you believe she was, you should better educate yourself as
> you are taking ignorance to a fine art form.

Why should he break th ehabits of a lifetime?

Bertie
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 02:20 AM

John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-9F48A0.20462224082008
@nntp.aioe.org:

> In article <gqlsk.634$Ro1.600@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> > Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
>> > most recent D?
>>
>> Again, see above.
>
> I did. I also noticed that you didn't mention Teddy Kennedy, probably
> one of the better know "offenders".
>

I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick their
jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.

Bertie

Wilhelm

August 25th 08, 02:27 AM

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04...

Major bull**** snip ->

Find a legal reference and do a little research. Perjury is lying under
oath, regardless of it's relevance to a specific crime or hearing.

Furthermore, you don't have to be indicted or convicted to be guilt of a
crime. If you did it, you did it and you are guilty, Regardless how the
judicial process might later rule and punish you. Lots of guilty people are
found innocent every day, and vice versa.

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 04:19 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" > wrote:
>> So you might want to start asking yourself how
>> someone who was subject to so much scrutiny able to escape without so
>> much as indictment for a charge you're so certain he committed.
>
> While I elided much that I don't disagree with, I believe you are
> incorrect
> on the indictment aspect. Impeachment is roughly the legal equivalent of
> an
> indictment. Clinton was impeached on the perjury charge.

Hardly. An indictment charges a person with a crime. Impeachment is a
political process. The differences are spelled out in the US Constitution.

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 04:25 AM

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <gqlsk.634$Ro1.600@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> > Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the
>> > most recent D?
>>
>> Again, see above.
>
> I did.

And you failed again.

Try it again. Slower. Work on your comprehension skills. Try to resist
the urge to snip out relevant parts in order to make your cherry picked
comments seem to match the context.

I don't play those silly games. Go try them on someone else.

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 04:50 AM

"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 are:

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a
judicial proceeding;
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and
(3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.

That's the definition given by the USSC, which is the one that counts. Ken
Starr never came close to meeting that burden which is why he never so much
as attempted to indict Clinton for the crime of perjury. Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe
are correct is not a crime.

So no matter how much you wish Clinton would have been convicted, he wasn't
even so much as indicted and for very good reason. Those are the facts.
Accept them and get over it.

Pinku-Sensei

August 25th 08, 08:42 AM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g8t12f$4r4$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:ZMlsk.312575
> $yE1.98360@attbi_s21:
>
>>>Now, what does all this have to do with piloting???
>>
>> Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.
>
> IOW just another way for you to spam.

Corsi is a kook.
--
Pinku-Sensei
FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Alt.usenet.kooks
http://tinyurl.com/AUKFAQ

Bob Noel

August 25th 08, 11:32 AM

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 are:

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. American-English
defines perjury as telling a lie under oath. Clinton did lie under oath.
That is a fact. Move on.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 25th 08, 01:33 PM

> 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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 25th 08, 01:40 PM

>>> 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!

That's the best laugh I've had in a long time. Although sadly it's not
about piloting, this is the best, least troll-polluted thread this group has
produced in a long, long time. It's actually made visiting this group
worthwhile, these last few days.

Dang, I may have to un-kill-file Bertie, if he's gonna be so funny...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 02:36 PM

"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
>> are:
>
> 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.

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 02:56 PM

"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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 03:19 PM

"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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 03:22 PM

"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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 25th 08, 03:24 PM

"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

Martin Hotze[_2_]

August 25th 08, 07:30 PM

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

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH

August 25th 08, 09:33 PM

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

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 25th 08, 09:59 PM

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.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 25th 08, 10:30 PM

> 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"

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH

August 25th 08, 10:37 PM

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

Mike[_22_]

August 25th 08, 11:07 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
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?

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.

> 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.

You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated
nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's intelligence? At
least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to reconsider advertising
your business at the end of all your posts. You aren't a very good pitch
man.

john smith

August 25th 08, 11:29 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick their
> jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.

Why, thank you... I think? :-))

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

August 26th 08, 12:18 AM

on 8/25/2008 5:07 PM Mike said the following:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated
> nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's
> intelligence? At least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to
> reconsider advertising your business at the end of all your posts. You
> aren't a very good pitch man.

Actually, he's a class-A douchebag. But who's counting?

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 12:39 AM

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

False.

> The vote by the house to impeach was the indictment.

False. Impeachment and subsequent trial in the Senate can never result in
criminal penalties.

> 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.

You think a sitting president can't be indicted and you pretend to be an
expert on grand juries?

> As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

And you think that's what makes a "good" prosecutor?

They can also get disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct, sued, and in some
cases even held criminally responsible for their actions as I'm sure Ken
Starr well understood. Try looking up the name Michael Nifong sometime.

> 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.

False.

If you really think there was a criminal case against Clinton, consider how
the entire matter was closed on Clinton's last day of office. Independent
Counsel Robert Ray dismissed all charges in exchange for Clinton's admission
that he had made misleading statements during the Paula Jones deposition
(Which Clinton had already done during the GJ proceedings) and a 5 year
suspension of his law license (that he had no intention of using anyway and
still hasn't renewed to this day). So the sum total of the entire
Independent Counsel investigation which lasted the better part of a decade
and cost $100 million amounted to exactly squat, and that doesn't even count
the numerous congressional investigations. No major administration officials
were ever so much as indicted as a result. Think about that for a moment
and consider everything alleged in those investigations. Whitewater,
Travelgate, FBI files, Vince Foster, and destroying evidence. Then ask
yourself if you can honestly and rationally say Clinton wasn't the victim of
a term long witch hunt. Anything Clinton did wrong pales in comparison to
what was done to him by the other side. That was the travesty of the whole
affair and that was the blight on American politics.

There are those who believe the Clintons were guilty of all the allegations
against them. There are other looneys who believe the Clintons murdered
Vince Foster(and at least 33 other people), murdered the children at Waco,
was responsible for the OKC bombing, the TWA 800 bombing, and thousands of
other equally whacky bits of nonsense. Believe what you want to believe,
just don't start thinking you can convince others who are more rational when
the facts tell a different story.

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 12:48 AM

"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" > wrote in message
...
> 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!?!?!?!?

You're an idiot.

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

Are you looking for a date?

Freud said hostility towards homosexuality is simply a defense mechanism
against the subject's own homosexual desires.

It's amazing how much you reveal about yourself, isn't it, GW?

Snarky

August 26th 08, 12:49 AM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:29:04 -0400, John Smith wrote these lies, denials,
arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick
>> their jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.
>
> Why, thank you... I think? :-))

So, are you a top, or a bottom?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
TEH USENETS BULLIE
http://www.runescape.com/
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
>

"You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:
>

"Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

Jim Logajan

August 26th 08, 01:45 AM

"Mike" > wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote:
>> He was never
>> indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
>> President.
>
> False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D6173BF935A35751C0A96F9582 60

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 02:35 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote:
>>> He was never
>>> indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
>>> President.
>>
>> False.
>
> I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
> any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
> Agnew was indicted while he was VP:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D6173BF935A35751C0A96F9582 60

In effect, Agnew was indicted. The web page you referenced states Agnew
wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the only way a
person can be charged by an information is if they waive their right to a
Grand Jury. What the story doesn't say is that Agnew tried to use the
argument that he couldn't be indicted per the Constitution, and he KNEW that
argument was going to fail. He also knew the Grand Jury was going to indict
him as the case against him was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted
is very misleading.

Englebert

August 26th 08, 02:45 AM

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

Ok, so I'm accusing you of spamming cuz you won't shut the **** up. Spamwit.

Jim Logajan

August 26th 08, 04:10 AM

"Mike" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Mike" > wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote:
>>>> He was never
>>>> indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
>>>> President.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
>> Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
>> even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:
>>
>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D6173BF935A35751C
>> 0A96F958260
>
> In effect, Agnew was indicted.

Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except by
one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He does not
appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.

> The web page you referenced states
> Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the
> only way a person can be charged by an information is if they waive
> their right to a Grand Jury.

An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same reasoning
you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs, between
indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation between an
information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an exercise in
special pleading.

> What the story doesn't say is that Agnew
> tried to use the argument that he couldn't be indicted per the
> Constitution, and he KNEW that argument was going to fail. He also
> knew the Grand Jury was going to indict him as the case against him
> was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted is very misleading.

Prognostication is no substitute for facts and actual events. I'm mildly
surprised you used the "misleading" line as that is an appeal you've
shown no quarter when made by others.

All that said, since Aaron Burr was indicted while still VP for the
murder of Alexander Hamilton (in two states, no less), that argument
appears to have been settled for some time. ;-) Not sure why you didn't
bring Burr up sooner as a counterpoint to my mention of Agnew. The Agnew
case was ambiguous - Burr wasn't. :-)

Ah - but can a sitting president be indicted? Even if he could be, the
constitution grants him the power of pardon - so he could pardon himself!
You should note that the constitution explicitly excludes pardons for
impeachments, so that appears to make it clear that indictment of a
sitting president is a concept void of utility. He first has to be
removed by impeachment. The DoJ argued similarly in 2000 in this long
analysis:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

"Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune
from indictment and criminal prosecution."

Jay Honeck[_2_]

August 26th 08, 04:38 AM

>> 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"

Jim Logajan

August 26th 08, 05:15 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
[i]
> 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!

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 09:36 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Mike" > wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote:
>>>>> He was never
>>>>> indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
>>>>> President.
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
>>> Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
>>> even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:
>>>
>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D6173BF935A35751C
>>> 0A96F958260
>>
>> In effect, Agnew was indicted.
>
> Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except by
> one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He does not
> appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.

I didn't claim as much. The Agnew case was an example you gave. I merely
filled in the blanks missing from the article. As far as I'm concerned the
Agnew case was an excellent example of how the implied immunity argument
failed. Agnew tried it and abandoned it. If the argument had any merit, he
most certainly would not have.

>> The web page you referenced states
>> Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the
>> only way a person can be charged by an information is if they waive
>> their right to a Grand Jury.
>
> An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same reasoning
> you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs, between
> indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation between an
> information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an exercise in
> special pleading.

Hardly. A McIntosh and a Granny Smith may have two different flavors, but
they are both apples. An indictment and an information are both formal
charges of a crime and are merely two different flavors of the same thing.
An impeachment is a formal charge of official misconduct and can only lead
to removal from office. It has nothing to do with criminal law and can only
be described as an orange compared to the other two. Just because the two
have parallel processes doesn't mean they are the same or even close to
being the same. The rules of evidence mean nothing in an impeachment. Case
law means nothing in an impeachment. The potential punishments stemming
from the two aren't even close. There's no right of appeal in an
impeachment. I could go on and on. It's apples and oranges.

>> What the story doesn't say is that Agnew
>> tried to use the argument that he couldn't be indicted per the
>> Constitution, and he KNEW that argument was going to fail. He also
>> knew the Grand Jury was going to indict him as the case against him
>> was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted is very misleading.
>
> Prognostication is no substitute for facts and actual events. I'm mildly
> surprised you used the "misleading" line as that is an appeal you've
> shown no quarter when made by others.

Example?

So it's OK for you to speculate that a sitting president can't be indicted
by using the Agnew case, but I can't speculate based on the same case that
he most certainly would have had he not cut a deal? You might want to be
more careful before you cry goose and gander.

> All that said, since Aaron Burr was indicted while still VP for the
> murder of Alexander Hamilton (in two states, no less), that argument
> appears to have been settled for some time. ;-) Not sure why you didn't
> bring Burr up sooner as a counterpoint to my mention of Agnew. The Agnew
> case was ambiguous - Burr wasn't. :-)

Because this is not my assertion to prove or disprove in the first place and
I feel no obligation to do so.

The Burr case is probably less relevant. Burr was indicted by a state Grand
Jury many years before the 14th amendment was ever written.

> Ah - but can a sitting president be indicted? Even if he could be, the
> constitution grants him the power of pardon - so he could pardon himself!
> You should note that the constitution explicitly excludes pardons for
> impeachments, so that appears to make it clear that indictment of a
> sitting president is a concept void of utility. He first has to be
> removed by impeachment. The DoJ argued similarly in 2000 in this long
> analysis:
>
> http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
>
> "Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune
> from indictment and criminal prosecution."

And who does the DOJ work for? Do you honestly expect them to write an
opinion that says their boss can be indicted expecially during a time when
they may be indicted? That would be kind of like your own lawyer selling
you out.

There's lots of problems with the Bork opinion. It wouldn't hold much water
if ever tested. Bork also presided over the Saturday Night Massacre around
the same time. I regard his opinions as highly as I would the village
idiot's. Furthermore Ken Starr concluded he COULD indict Clinton while
still in office, although he never tested that. Numerous law professors
agreed. There may have been a few that went the other way, but I never saw
any.

A sitting president could pardon himself even before an indictment. So the
utility of an indictment before or after impeachment is the same.

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 05:02 PM

"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?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:03 PM

"Englebert" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "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
>
> Ok, so I'm accusing you of spamming cuz you won't shut the **** up.
> Spamwit.
>

Which makes you an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:04 PM

John Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick
>> their jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.
>
> Why, thank you... I think? :-))
>

You're welcome.

No prob.

I alos think that people who live in cardboard boxes are of note.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:05 PM

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04...
>
> Major bull**** snip ->
>
> Find a legal reference and do a little research. Perjury is lying
> under oath, regardless of it's relevance to a specific crime or
> hearing.
>
> Furthermore, you don't have to be indicted or convicted to be guilt of
> a crime. If you did it, you did it and you are guilty, Regardless how
> the judicial process might later rule and punish you. Lots of guilty
> people are found innocent every day, and vice versa.

Yeh, right fjukkktard.

Now apply that criterion to the gang of socipaths you helped elect.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:06 PM

"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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:07 PM

"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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 26th 08, 05:23 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:XfPsk.830$lf2.338@trnddc07:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Mike" > wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Mike" > wrote:
>>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote:
>>>>>> He was never
>>>>>> indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
>>>>>> President.
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
>>>> Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
>>>> even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:
>>>>
>>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9D03E7D6173BF935A3575
>>>> 1C 0A96F958260
>>>
>>> In effect, Agnew was indicted.
>>
>> Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except
>> by one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He
>> does not appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.
>
> I didn't claim as much. The Agnew case was an example you gave. I
> merely filled in the blanks missing from the article. As far as I'm
> concerned the Agnew case was an excellent example of how the implied
> immunity argument failed. Agnew tried it and abandoned it. If the
> argument had any merit, he most certainly would not have.
>
>>> The web page you referenced states
>>> Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however
>>> the only way a person can be charged by an information is if they
>>> waive their right to a Grand Jury.
>>
>> An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same
>> reasoning you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs,
>> between indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation
>> between an information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an
>> exercise in special pleading.
>
> Hardly. A McIntosh and a Granny Smith may have two different flavors,
> but they are both apples. An indictment and an information are both
> formal charges of a crime and are merely two different flavors of the
> same thing. An impeachment is a formal charge of official misconduct
> and can only lead to removal from office. It has nothing to do with
> criminal law and can only be described as an orange compared to the
> other two.

Not so, it could also, and more accurately, be described as an apricot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:36 PM

"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

Mike[_22_]

August 26th 08, 05:44 PM

"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.

Ramsey

August 26th 08, 05:49 PM

"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?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 05:55 PM

"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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 26th 08, 05:56 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:ppWsk.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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 26th 08, 06:46 PM

"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
>

[email protected]

August 31st 08, 06:44 PM

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".

[email protected]

August 31st 08, 09:51 PM

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.

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 04:37 PM

> 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.

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 04:49 PM

> 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.

Zebulon

September 1st 08, 05:03 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>
> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.

Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.

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.

Politics dumb ass. It's be like asking you to roll over on Bertie.

>
> 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.

No dumb ass, the opinion that ultimately counts is the voters.

Zebulon

September 1st 08, 05:06 PM

"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?

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 05:44 PM

"Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>>
>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.
>
> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.

It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one dumb
$hit.

Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular NG.

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 05:46 PM

"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.

Zebulon

September 1st 08, 05:52 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:4_Uuk.223$jE1.174@trnddc03...
> "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>>>
>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.
>>
>> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.
>
> It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one dumb
> $hit.
>
> Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular NG.

Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post?

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 06:53 PM

"Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:4_Uuk.223$jE1.174@trnddc03...
>> "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>>>>
>>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.
>>>
>>> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one dumb
>> $hit.
>>
>> Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular
>> NG.
>
> Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post?

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 1st 08, 09:56 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:4_Uuk.223$jE1.174@trnddc03:

> "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>>>
>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.
>>
>> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.
>
> It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one
> dumb $hit.

He's the best!

Bertie

Captain Crosspoast

September 1st 08, 09:57 PM

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

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:4_Uuk.223$jE1.174@trnddc03...
>> "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...
>>>>
>>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.
>>>
>>> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one
>> dumb $hit.
>>
>> Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this
>> particular NG.
>
> Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post?

I gave him a field promotion to Master Sgt Crosspoast last week, actually.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 1st 08, 09:58 PM

"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"

Bertie

Mike[_22_]

September 1st 08, 10:08 PM

"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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 1st 08, 10:12 PM

"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
>
>

[email protected]

September 2nd 08, 05:21 AM

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.

[email protected]

September 2nd 08, 05:38 AM

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.

[email protected]

September 2nd 08, 12:55 PM

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/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_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.

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 02:41 PM

> 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?

Zebulon

September 2nd 08, 03:10 PM

"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.

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 03:14 PM

> 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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 2nd 08, 03:17 PM

"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

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 03:17 PM

"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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 2nd 08, 03:20 PM

"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

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 03:31 PM

"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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 2nd 08, 03:35 PM

"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

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 04:32 PM

"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.

Lonnie[_3_]

September 2nd 08, 04:54 PM

"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.

Mike[_22_]

September 2nd 08, 04:59 PM

"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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

September 3rd 08, 10:43 AM

"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

[email protected]

September 4th 08, 04:59 AM

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.

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

September 4th 08, 06:20 AM

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.

Mike[_22_]

September 4th 08, 06:22 PM

> 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.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

September 4th 08, 08:16 PM

> 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"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 4th 08, 08:20 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21:

>> 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.

Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..

Bertie

The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton

September 5th 08, 02:57 AM

Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, "If
I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..

Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
you that I've had sex ten thousand times?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
TEH USENETS BULLIE
http://www.runescape.com/
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
>

"You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:
>

"Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

f-newguy

September 5th 08, 03:11 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...

> the ones who do the lying, and defend the liars --

That would include Sarah Palin and the Republicans.

After she got up and re-told her big, fat, stinking heater of a lie in her
speech last night, I didn't hear any Repugnicans standing up for truth and
light.

http://dailyhowler.com/dh090108.shtml

Kadaitcha Man[_3_]

September 5th 08, 03:14 AM

The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton, ye hasty-witted
fool, dissembling harlot, thou are false in all, ye expanded:

> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
> "If
> I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
> bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>
> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?

I take it that, unlike Bill Clinton, you define giving felatio as having
sex.

<stands ground>

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 03:22 AM

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 03:30 AM

"The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton"
> wrote in message >
> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>

You should try it with another person sometime.

Lola Stonewall Riot

September 5th 08, 04:53 AM

Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:17 -0500, "Lonnie", AKA Maxwell,
frothed and foamed:
> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote
>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>
> You should try it with another person sometime.

Awwww, wook at the widdle laming sockpuppet! Innit he kyooooot?!?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: om>

Lola Stonewall Riot

September 5th 08, 04:54 AM

Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:14:51 -1200, Kadaitcha Man frothed and
foamed:
> The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton, ye hasty-witted
> fool, dissembling harlot, thou are false in all, ye expanded:
>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
>> "If
>> I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
>> bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>>
>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>
> I take it that, unlike Bill Clinton, you define giving felatio as having
> sex.
>
> <stands ground>

I'll even go so far as to define receiving it thusly.

;-{P}

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: om>

Kadaitcha Man[_3_]

September 5th 08, 05:20 AM

Lola Stonewall Riot, ye slovenly one that serves a bad woman, an
admirable evasion of whore master man, to lay thy goatish disposition to
the charge of a star, ye chirruped:

> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:14:51 -1200, Kadaitcha Man frothed
> and
> foamed:
>> The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton, ye hasty-witted
>> fool, dissembling harlot, thou are false in all, ye expanded:
>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> sang,
>>> "If
>>> I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
>>> bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>>>
>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever
>>> tell
>>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>
>> I take it that, unlike Bill Clinton, you define giving felatio as
>> having
>> sex.
>>
>> <stands ground>
>
> I'll even go so far as to define receiving it thusly.
>
> ;-{P}

**** me dead. Lay me down, roll me over and do it again. At an average
of 2-5ml per ejaculation, you've swallowed between 20 and 50 litres of
the stuff. No wonder you have a pallid complexion.

<hobbles off, laughing>

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 06:34 AM

"Lola Stonewall Riot" > wrote in message
onk.discord.kookology.alexa.cameron.the.k00k.georg ewbush.the.bobo...
> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:17 -0500, "Lonnie", AKA Maxwell,
> frothed and foamed:
>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote
>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>
>> You should try it with another person sometime.
>
> Awwww, wook at the widdle laming sockpuppet! Innit he kyooooot?!?
>

Not you bitch, something human.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 07:08 AM

"The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton"
> wrote in
onk.discord.kookology:

> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
> blub, bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>
> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>

And I believe you!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 07:10 AM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>>> 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.
>> --
>
> Amazing when Gertie or one of his socks come up with stuff like this,
> and no one seems to notice.

Really?
when did I come up with stuff like this, wannabe boi?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 07:11 AM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Lola Stonewall Riot" > wrote in message
> onk.discord.kookology
> .alexa.cameron.the.k00k.georgewbush.the.bobo...
>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:17 -0500, "Lonnie", AKA Maxwell,
>> frothed and foamed:
>>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote
>>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever
>>>> tell you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>>
>>> You should try it with another person sometime.
>>
>> Awwww, wook at the widdle laming sockpuppet! Innit he kyooooot?!?
>>
>
> Not you bitch, something human.
>

Oooowww!

Good one Maxie.

Oh wait, it wasn't

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 07:20 AM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>>> 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.
>> --
>
> Amazing when Gertie or one of his socks come up with stuff like this,
> and no one seems to notice.
>
>

Really?

Do quote a bit of material that's "stuff like this", Maxie.

go on.

Bertie
>

The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt

September 5th 08, 09:39 AM

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:11:47 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> "Lonnie" wrote:
>> "Lola Stonewall Riot" wrote...
>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:17 -0500, "Lonnie", AKA Maxwell,
>>> frothed and foamed:
>>>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote
>>>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever
>>>>> tell you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>>>
>>>> You should try it with another person sometime.
>>>
>>> Awwww, wook at the widdle laming sockpuppet! Innit he kyooooot?!?
>>
>> Not you bitch, something human.
>
> Oooowww!
>
> Good one Maxie.
>
> Oh wait, it wasn't

I'll bet he's mere days away from finally figuring out what a "sockpuppet"
is.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt

September 5th 08, 09:42 AM

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:08:22 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote:
>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
>> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
>> bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>>
>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>
> And I believe you!

Too bad. I lied.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 09:52 AM

"The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"
ta.org> wrote in
. me.with.their.every.post:

> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:08:22 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
> state:
>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote:
>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
>>> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
>>> bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>>>
>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>
>> And I believe you!
>
> Too bad. I lied.
>
I feel so foolish.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 09:55 AM

"The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"
ta.org> wrote in
. me.with.their.every.pos
t:

> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:11:47 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
> state:
>> "Lonnie" wrote:
>>> "Lola Stonewall Riot" wrote...
>>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:17 -0500, "Lonnie", AKA
>>>> Maxwell, frothed and foamed:
>>>>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote
>>>>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever
>>>>>> tell you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should try it with another person sometime.
>>>>
>>>> Awwww, wook at the widdle laming sockpuppet! Innit he kyooooot?!?
>>>
>>> Not you bitch, something human.
>>
>> Oooowww!
>>
>> Good one Maxie.
>>
>> Oh wait, it wasn't
>
> I'll bet he's mere days away from finally figuring out what a
> "sockpuppet" is.
>

I think he'll learn to walk on water first.

Bertie

The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt

September 5th 08, 09:57 AM

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:52:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> "The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt" wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:08:22 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
>> state:
>>> "The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton" wrote:
>>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang,
>>>> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub,
>>>> blub, bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's just narrow it down to you then..
>>>>
>>>> Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell
>>>> you that I've had sex ten thousand times?
>>>
>>> And I believe you!
>>
>> Too bad. I lied.
>
> I feel so foolish.

Well, you should. It's actually 12,000.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

Mike[_22_]

September 5th 08, 08:33 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>> 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.

The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie right
here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the nonsense about
your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain sympathy and then when
it had the opposite effect you claimed you were just pulling everyone's
chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly
apparent to even the most casual observer, regardless of whether you admit
it.

The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society than
lying.

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 08:48 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>
> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you were
> just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous person,
> Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most casual observer, regardless
> of whether you admit it.
>
> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society
> than lying.

A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.

A+, Mikey Mouth.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

September 5th 08, 08:51 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>>> 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.
>
> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you were
> just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous
> person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most casual observer,
> regardless of whether you admit it.
>
> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society
> than lying.
>

Unless you're one of the party faithful, of course.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 09:13 PM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>>
>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you
>> were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very
>> duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most
>> casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it.
>>
>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by
>> society than lying.
>
> A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.

Really?

Got a cite for thst fjukkktard?

Bertie

Mike[_22_]

September 5th 08, 09:14 PM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>>
>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you were
>> just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous
>> person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most casual observer,
>> regardless of whether you admit it.
>>
>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society
>> than lying.
>
> A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.

....sez the village idiot BS monger.

The only time you didn't lie was when you admitted to being a pinhead, and
your truthfulness was purely by accident.

Mike[_22_]

September 5th 08, 09:26 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike" > wrote in news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you were
>> just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous
>> person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most casual observer,
>> regardless of whether you admit it.
>>
>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society
>> than lying.
>>
>
> Unless you're one of the party faithful, of course.

That's simply party hypocrisy, which is quite common, but Jay's particular
version runs a bit deeper.

Speaking of party hypocrisy, this one will drive you to tears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5XVTzvT-TA

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 10:10 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>>>
>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
>>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you
>>> were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very
>>> duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most
>>> casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it.
>>>
>>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by
>>> society than lying.
>>
>> A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.
>
> Really?
>
>
> Got a cite for thst fjukkktard?
>
>
> Bertie

Sure dumb ass, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 10:12 PM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in news:U2gwk.20160$3A4.3835
@newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>>>>
>>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you
lie
>>>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>>>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>>>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you
>>>> were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very
>>>> duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most
>>>> casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it.
>>>>
>>>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by
>>>> society than lying.
>>>
>>> A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>> Got a cite for thst fjukkktard?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure dumb ass, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth.
>

That's not a cite, fjukkkkkkkkktard....

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

September 5th 08, 10:23 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:7Cgwk.633$jE1.592@trnddc03:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mike" > wrote in
>> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05:
>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> news:ruWvk.327894$yE1.155549@attbi_s21...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you
>>> lie right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted
>>> the nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to
>>> gain sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed
>>> you were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very
>>> duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most
>>> casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it.
>>>
>>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by
>>> society than lying.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you're one of the party faithful, of course.
>
> That's simply party hypocrisy, which is quite common, but Jay's
> particular version runs a bit deeper.

Well, he#s had a lot of practice. Mostly on his-self..
>
> Speaking of party hypocrisy, this one will drive you to tears:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5XVTzvT-TA
>

Ooow! Cynicism!

Hadn't had my MDA, thanks.

Bertie

Lonnie[_3_]

September 5th 08, 10:28 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Sure dumb ass, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth.
>>
>
> That's not a cite, fjukkkkkkkkktard....
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Sure it is dumb ass. What do want, an individual link to each of his bull
**** post in google?

Or have you already forgotten what we were talking about?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

September 5th 08, 10:37 PM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Sure dumb ass, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a cite, fjukkkkkkkkktard....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure it is dumb ass. What do want, an individual link to each of his
> bull **** post in google?
>

Just one would be a start, liar boi.

> Or have you already forgotten what we were talking about?
>

Nope.

Bertie

[email protected]

September 6th 08, 05:10 AM

On Sep 4, 10:22*am, "Mike" > wrote:

> 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.

That's the best joke of the day! You should be a guest on Leno. Or a
witness for Clinton.
Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means
possible. They no longer have any obligation to present the truth,
the whole truth, or anything like the truth. Prior to going to
court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition
to back down. Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the
truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the
truth. Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they
are mainly about presentation and obfuscation.

As evidence, I present both the OJ trials, and the Clinton
proceedings.

> 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.

Do you have any evidence of anyone who got BJs in the oval office,
other than WJC?

> > > > 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?
>

> 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. *

Quite a number of "friends of Bill" were convicted.

> > > 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.

A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers
and the courts who haggled over definitions. We the ordinary people
pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex".

> Really? *The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
> going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.
BINGO! See how he dragged all this stuff out? Had he behaved, or not
dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have
proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral
office.

> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
No excuse. And most get caught and pay the price and learn their
lesson.

>*If making misleading
> statements
Lying.

>about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business
It became the court's business when the information was related to the
sexual harrrassment lawsuit against him.
Regardless of the legal twisting, it is evident to most that he did
what the women claimed he did.

> and never involved his official functions is the worst of his
> transgressions,
Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, and
should be treated that way. Anyone who has an employer recognizes
that whatever is done at work is related to work, and you can be held
accountable.

>that's not too bad historically speaking.
You set a very low bar for performance and behavior.

> > "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.
Got a link? I'm in the mood for comic relief!

> > 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?

I support any vigorous defense that does not include lying. Any
vigorous defense that involves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, and these conditions do not include lying or
deliberately and knowingly misleading. Most people learn that before
the first grade; Clinton hasn't learned it yet.
Are you saying that it is OK to lie in legal proceedings???????
May you be sued by a bunch of people who have your standards.

> *Only
> in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.
In the US, it wouldn't have been a court matter except it became
evidentiary in the legal proceedings that were going on for years.

Mike[_22_]

September 6th 08, 07:54 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Sep 4, 10:22 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> That's the best joke of the day! You should be a guest on Leno. Or a
> witness for Clinton.

Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you. As our country
is a nation of laws, you think the US is a joke also.

I'm just using your own silly associative logic here, btw.

> Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means
> possible. They no longer have any obligation to present the truth,
> the whole truth, or anything like the truth. Prior to going to
> court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition
> to back down. Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the
> truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the
> truth. Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they
> are mainly about presentation and obfuscation.

This is the biggest joke yet. First you say Clinton lost his law license
because he didn't tell, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth" and then on the other side of your mouth you say lawyers have no
obligation to the truth. You should apply for a position in the Bush
administration.

> > As evidence, I present both the OJ trials, and the Clinton
> > proceedings.

You have yet to present any evidence of anything, other than your own
ignorance of our legal system.

> > 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.
>
> Do you have any evidence of anyone who got BJs in the oval office,
> other than WJC?

Yes, but what does that have to do with the fact that you have no reasonable
explanation as to why Clinton wasn't indicted?

> > > > > 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?
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> Quite a number of "friends of Bill" were convicted.

You have already mentioned that. Now try explaining its relevance, or is
guilt by association the game you want to play? I kinda like that game, btw
and could have big fun with it, but I doubt you would.

> > > > 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.
>
> A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers
> and the courts who haggled over definitions. We the ordinary people
> pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex".

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Definitions vary quite widely in the
public, which is exactly why the Jones lawyers insisted on providing a
definition.

> > Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
> > going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.
> BINGO! See how he dragged all this stuff out? Had he behaved, or not
> dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have
> proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral
> office.

You really are on some serious drugs. First you claim Clinton "wouldn't
have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth", then when I point out
the facts of the timeline of the civil trial and the independent counsel
investigation, you claim this is evidence that he "dragged it out". Not
only can you not think in a linear fashion, you truly are ignorant of the
facts of what really happened. The investigation started in the first place
to investigate Clinton, not his "friends" his political rivals, or anyone
else. First it started with Whitewater and couldn't find anything, then it
went on to travel office firings, FBI files, Vince Foster's suicide, and
finally the Lewinsky scandal. Then you want to claim the biggest witch hunt
in the history of the US was all the fault of Clinton's "antics"? The world
you live in is quite far from the place most call reality.

> > I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
> No excuse. And most get caught and pay the price and learn their
> lesson.

Actually most don't, but Clinton certainly did and most certainly paid a
high price for it, but what does that have to do with whether he was guilty
of perjury or not? You keep reaching farther and farther, but you're no
closer than you were when you started.

> > If making misleading
> > statements
> Lying.

"Misleading" does not equal lying, and lying (even under oath) does not
equal perjury. But you keep stretching, I'm enjoying watching your
contortions.

> >about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business
> It became the court's business when the information was related to the
> sexual harrrassment lawsuit against him.
> Regardless of the legal twisting, it is evident to most that he did
> what the women claimed he did.

Really? You might want to check on what Ann Coulter had to say about that.
She was one of Paula Jones' lawyers and now says Jones was a fraud.
Furthermore the case was thrown out of court. Do you even realize how weak
a civil case must be to get thrown out of court?

> > and never involved his official functions is the worst of his
> > transgressions,
> Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, and
> should be treated that way.

False to the point of ridicule, and it didn't happen in the Oval Office to
begin with.

> Anyone who has an employer recognizes
> that whatever is done at work is related to work, and you can be held
> accountable.

You do know there is no time clock that the president punches in when he
comes to work, right? Furthermore the president conducts the people's
business wherever he is, no matter if he's in his home, his car, outside in
his back yard, on vacation, or probably on the toilet on occassion. There's
no association between where he is and what is or isn't the people's
business. Trying to associate the president with a factory worker is
childish at best, and misleading at worst, or should that be lying at worst?

> >that's not too bad historically speaking.
> You set a very low bar for performance and behavior.

I've never condoned the behavior. My point was that none of it amounted to
the level of criminality and certainly not to the Constitutional standard of
impeachment. Your continual attempt at trying to turn this into a moral
issue only proves how weak your argument really is.

> > > "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.
> Got a link? I'm in the mood for comic relief!

Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you.

Bronston v. United States

> > > 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?
>
> I support any vigorous defense that does not include lying. Any
> vigorous defense that involves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
> but the truth, and these conditions do not include lying or
> deliberately and knowingly misleading. Most people learn that before
> the first grade; Clinton hasn't learned it yet.
> Are you saying that it is OK to lie in legal proceedings???????
> May you be sued by a bunch of people who have your standards.

Obviously you don't support a vigorous defense. You support some system
where the defendant is required to make the plaintant's case, even though
the plaintant didn't have a valid case to begin with. You support a system
where a defendent is required to provide 'your' particular definition of
something, even though a completely different definition was supplied,
agreed to by both sides and the court. You support a system where it's
perfectly OK to subvert the political, civil, and criminal systems of our
country so long as such subversion is aimed at someone you don't
particularly like.

May you be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, a victim of malicious
prosecution, hounded relentlessly, forced to spend a fortune to defend
yourself, forced to provide public testimony on private matters, unjustly
terminated from your job, sold out by your lawyer, and thrown in jail for a
crime you didn't commit, all by a bunch of people who have your standards.

I'm really starting to enjoy your silly games. By all means continue.

> > Only
> > in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.
> In the US, it wouldn't have been a court matter except it became
> evidentiary in the legal proceedings that were going on for years.

Which doesn't justify subverting the political system, the civil system, and
the criminal system over a hummer.

Mike[_22_]

September 6th 08, 08:24 PM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:2Qfwk.699$393.107@trnddc05...
>>>>
>>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie
>>>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the
>>>> nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain
>>>> sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you
>>>> were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very
>>>> duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most
>>>> casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it.
>>>>
>>>> The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by
>>>> society than lying.
>>>
>>> A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>> Got a cite for thst fjukkktard?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure dumb ass, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth.

So you can't provide the cite. Thought so.

[email protected]

September 8th 08, 04:17 AM

On Sep 6, 11:54*am, "Mike" > wrote:

> Of course you'd think that. *The law is just a joke to you. *As our country
> is a nation of laws, you think the US is a joke also.

The law is no joke. It's application in the courts is rapidly
becoming a travesty, however.

> > Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means
> > possible. *They no longer have any obligation to present the truth,
> > the whole truth, or anything like the truth. * Prior to going to
> > court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition
> > to back down. *Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the
> > truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the
> > truth. *Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they
> > are mainly about presentation and obfuscation.
>
> This is the biggest joke yet. *First you say Clinton lost his law license
> because he didn't tell, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth" and then on the other side of your mouth you say lawyers have no
> obligation to the truth. *You should apply for a position in the Bush
> administration.

Talk about twisting words! You are absolutely Clintonian!
I said that lawyers will stretch, twist, pervert the truth, etc. I
did no say this was OK. It's just a sad recognition that this is what
happens. I don't approve of it at all, but as you say, my opinion
doesn't matter.
When I say that the courts are not about truth, I mean that the truth
is no longer the goal of some or all of the lawyers.
The case of Bronston that you cite makes it quite clear that the court
rules now make it OK to not tell the whole truth, but instead to
knowingly mislead the court.

While I am no supporter of many things in the Bush administration, the
facts of this topic being discussed proves quite cleanly that it is
Clinton who talks out all sides of the mouth, etc.

> > A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers
> > and the courts who haggled over definitions. *We the ordinary people
> > pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex".
>
> Actually you couldn't be more wrong. *Definitions vary quite widely in the
> public, which is exactly why the Jones lawyers insisted on providing a
> definition.

The Jones lawyers weren't quite good enough to prevent a weasel from
finding a hole.

You mentioned Bronston vs United States.
In my review of some of the links, I found this interesting overview:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf

It covers a bit of the history about how misleading a court can be
determined not to be perjorative. This is not a compliment to our
legal system.
Especially when Clinton can claim that Lewinsky had sex with him, but
he never had sex with her, even during that particular act.

Unfortunately, this particular parsing of the technicalities allowed
Clinton to get away with lying. As the article says, he found the
loophole he was looking for.

Now, if this guy can parse things that well, he is not the kind of guy
I'd ever get into a contract with, because he'd sure as heck find a
way, a loophole, or an omission/commission to escape anything he
wanted to. Yeah, he's that good. They had him fenced in, and he
escaped through a loophole.

I can imagine some pimply-faced teenager trying to tell the same thing
to the girl's dad: " I didn't have sex with her. (under his breath)
She had sex with me."
I don't think daddy would see the difference.

I'm not a lawyer. Now I'm even more pleased with that. I want the
truth and the whole story, not just the piece you want me to think.

> > > Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
> > > going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.
> > BINGO! *See how he dragged all this stuff out? *Had he behaved, or not
> > dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have
> > proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral
> > office.
>
> You really are on some serious drugs. *First you claim Clinton "wouldn't
> have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth", then when I point out
> the facts of the timeline of the civil trial and the independent counsel
> investigation, you claim this is evidence that he "dragged it out". *Not
> only can you not think in a linear fashion, you truly are ignorant of the
> facts of what really happened. *The investigation started in the first place
> to investigate Clinton, not his "friends" his political rivals, or anyone
> else. *First it started with Whitewater and couldn't find anything, then it
> went on to travel office firings, FBI files, Vince Foster's suicide, and
> finally the Lewinsky scandal. *Then you want to claim the biggest witch hunt
> in the history of the US was all the fault of Clinton's "antics"? *The world
> you live in is quite far from the place most call reality.

Many of the things they went after Clinton for were nonsense. Much of
the rest appears to be escape by deceit, much as with Lewinsky.
I never have seen a good explanation of why FBI files were in the
White House, or why Rose law firm papers were found in the trunk of an
old car, or a good explanation of why they fired the travel office
employees.

> > > I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
> > No excuse. *And most get caught and pay the price and learn their
> > lesson.
>
> Actually most don't, but Clinton certainly did and most certainly paid a
> high price for it, but what does that have to do with whether he was guilty
> of perjury or not? *You keep reaching farther and farther, but you're no
> closer than you were when you started.
>

> "Misleading" does not equal lying, and lying (even under oath) does not
> equal perjury. *
I expect, and respect, only honesty.
Misleading and lying are both dishonest. They are both deliberately
intended to leave the listener with the wrong conclusion. That is a
dishonest act.
Only a lawyer would find otherwise.

> False to the point of ridicule, and it didn't happen in the Oval Office to
> begin with.
There you go, parsing things with Clintonian technicalities.
IIRC, is was a room just off the Oval Office. Still, it wasn't the
White House proper.

> > > Not to the USSC. Try reading the decision sometime.
> > Got a link? *I'm in the mood for comic relief!
> Of course you'd think that. *The law is just a joke to you.
> Bronston v. United States

The law is not a joke. And the link I provided above shows just how
frightening the law can be. In their zeal to specify everything, the
lawyers have made it easy to get away with anything.

> Obviously you don't support a vigorous defense. *You support some system
> where the defendant is required to make the plaintant's case, even though
> the plaintant didn't have a valid case to begin with. *You support a system
> where a defendent is required to provide 'your' particular definition of
> something, even though a completely different definition was supplied,
> agreed to by both sides and the court. *You support a system where it's
> perfectly OK to subvert the political, civil, and criminal systems of our
> country so long as such subversion is aimed at someone you don't
> particularly like.
Not at all. I support (but will never see) a system where all parties
are required and inclined to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.
I expect all the facts to be available to both sides (called
discovery). I expect the arguments to be about what applies to the
laws at hand, and each side to present the law and the facts from
their own perspective. I don't expect juries or judges to make
decisions without the complete set of relevant facts.

I also expect to be disappointed. This is based not only on my own
experiences (where their defending laywer presented material during
the discovery that was dishonest, and much of which was complete
fabrication. The goal was not to present the truth, but to scare me.
It worked, because there was no way to prove much of what they
claimed, either to be the truth or not. Since there was a possibility
that the judge would believe their lawyer, who knew the statements
were false, I settled for less than half of what was stolen from me.
This was not perjury, since it never got to the court and the "I
swear" point. But it was purely dishonest. It is difficult to fight
an accomplished liar. And THAT is why I dislike the Clintons.

> May you be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, a victim of malicious
> prosecution, hounded relentlessly, forced to spend a fortune to defend
> yourself, forced to provide public testimony on private matters, unjustly
> terminated from your job, sold out by your lawyer, and thrown in jail for a
> crime you didn't commit, all by a bunch of people who have your standards..

If they had my standards, the above diatribe wouldn't have a chance to
occur.

> I'm really starting to enjoy your silly games. *By all means continue.
>
> > > Only
> > > in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.
> > In the US, it wouldn't have been a court matter except it became
> > evidentiary in the legal proceedings that were going on for years.
>
> Which doesn't justify subverting the political system, ...
Read the link. It was Clinton who perverted the truth, and found
loopholes to pervert the system.

f-newguy

September 8th 08, 12:26 PM

> wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 11:54 am, "Mike" > wrote:

Evasion by snippage noted.

Mike[_22_]

September 9th 08, 02:30 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Sep 6, 11:54 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you. As our
> > country
> > is a nation of laws, you think the US is a joke also.
>
> The law is no joke. It's application in the courts is rapidly
> becoming a travesty, however.

Based on what? Your anecdotal nonsense?

> > This is the biggest joke yet. First you say Clinton lost his law license
> > because he didn't tell, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> > truth" and then on the other side of your mouth you say lawyers have no
> > obligation to the truth. You should apply for a position in the Bush
> > administration.
>
> Talk about twisting words! You are absolutely Clintonian!
> I said that lawyers will stretch, twist, pervert the truth, etc. I
> did no say this was OK.

Nor did I allege anything of the sort. Silly strawman games don't work with
me.

Your words:
"Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means possible.
They no longer have ANY OBLIGATION (emphasis added) to present the truth,
the whole truth, or anything like the truth."

More of your words:
"It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the
perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it."

Tell me again how I twisted your words again.

> It's just a sad recognition that this is what
> happens. I don't approve of it at all, but as you say, my opinion
> doesn't matter.
> When I say that the courts are not about truth, I mean that the truth
> is no longer the goal of some or all of the lawyers.

Lawyers don't have the obligation to make the other side's case for them
regardless of what you think.

> The case of Bronston that you cite makes it quite clear that the court
> rules now make it OK to not tell the whole truth, but instead to
> knowingly mislead the court.

That's not what Bronston says at all. It says that juries may not interpret
intent on misleading but factually correct statements, and there's a very
good and sound reason why this is which has been clearly articulated by the
text of the opinion. It also says it's the responsibility of the opposing
side to ask better questions if it feels the answers are misleading. Try
reading it again.

> While I am no supporter of many things in the Bush administration, the
> facts of this topic being discussed proves quite cleanly that it is
> Clinton who talks out all sides of the mouth, etc.

On one issue that involved purely personal matters. That much is correct.
I've also provided numerous examples where the same has been done by the
present administration in matters that greatly affect the public. So from
an objective viewpoint rather than from an ideological one, you tell me
which is worse, if you can. I doubt you can.

> > Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Definitions vary quite widely in
> > the
> > public, which is exactly why the Jones lawyers insisted on providing a
> > definition.
>
> The Jones lawyers weren't quite good enough to prevent a weasel from
> finding a hole.

That was never their intent to begin with, nor did any such thing happen.
The lawsuit was thrown out of court for reasons which have nothing to do
with anything you've mentioned. That's a very pertinent point which you
keep choosing to ignore.

> You mentioned Bronston vs United States.
> In my review of some of the links, I found this interesting overview:
> http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf
>
> It covers a bit of the history about how misleading a court can be
> determined not to be perjorative. This is not a compliment to our
> legal system.
> Especially when Clinton can claim that Lewinsky had sex with him, but
> he never had sex with her, even during that particular act.
>
> Unfortunately, this particular parsing of the technicalities allowed
> Clinton to get away with lying. As the article says, he found the
> loophole he was looking for.

You keep assuming that it was Clinton's obligation to make the case for
Paula Jones and arguing from that assumption. That's why your horse loses
before it ever gets out of the gate.

> Now, if this guy can parse things that well, he is not the kind of guy
> I'd ever get into a contract with, because he'd sure as heck find a
> way, a loophole, or an omission/commission to escape anything he
> wanted to. Yeah, he's that good. They had him fenced in, and he
> escaped through a loophole.

Hogwash. They never had a case to begin with. I've already asked you this
once and you ignored it, so I'll restate the question. Do you have any idea
how weak a civil case must be to get thrown out of court?

> I can imagine some pimply-faced teenager trying to tell the same thing
> to the girl's dad: " I didn't have sex with her. (under his breath)
> She had sex with me."
> I don't think daddy would see the difference.

More fallacious, irrelevant, and misleading analogies. Or should I say
"lies"? I'm sure you think you're clever for coming up with them, but you
aren't.

> I'm not a lawyer. Now I'm even more pleased with that. I want the
> truth and the whole story, not just the piece you want me to think.

As a wise man once said, "want in one hand...."

What you want, or what career path you choose is irrelevant to whether
Clinton committed perjury or not.

> > You really are on some serious drugs. First you claim Clinton "wouldn't
> > have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth", then when I point
> > out
> > the facts of the timeline of the civil trial and the independent counsel
> > investigation, you claim this is evidence that he "dragged it out". Not
> > only can you not think in a linear fashion, you truly are ignorant of
> > the
> > facts of what really happened. The investigation started in the first
> > place
> > to investigate Clinton, not his "friends" his political rivals, or
> > anyone
> > else. First it started with Whitewater and couldn't find anything, then
> > it
> > went on to travel office firings, FBI files, Vince Foster's suicide, and
> > finally the Lewinsky scandal. Then you want to claim the biggest witch
> > hunt
> > in the history of the US was all the fault of Clinton's "antics"? The
> > world
> > you live in is quite far from the place most call reality.
>
> Many of the things they went after Clinton for were nonsense. Much of
> the rest appears to be escape by deceit, much as with Lewinsky.
> I never have seen a good explanation of why FBI files were in the
> White House, or why Rose law firm papers were found in the trunk of an
> old car, or a good explanation of why they fired the travel office
> employees.

Non-objective people rarely are satisfied with any explanation if it goes
counter to their ideology. That doesn't mean such explanations weren't
provided.

> > Actually most don't, but Clinton certainly did and most certainly paid a
> > high price for it, but what does that have to do with whether he was
> > guilty
> > of perjury or not? You keep reaching farther and farther, but you're no
> > closer than you were when you started.
> >
>
> > "Misleading" does not equal lying, and lying (even under oath) does not
> > equal perjury.
> I expect, and respect, only honesty.
> Misleading and lying are both dishonest. They are both deliberately
> intended to leave the listener with the wrong conclusion. That is a
> dishonest act.
> Only a lawyer would find otherwise.

Strawman rhetoric and false analogies are both intentionally misleading and
both were used by you in your lastest reply (as well as in others). By your
own account you must not have too much respect for yourself. I'm not sure I
blame you.

> > False to the point of ridicule, and it didn't happen in the Oval Office
> > to
> > begin with.
> There you go, parsing things with Clintonian technicalities.
> IIRC, is was a room just off the Oval Office. Still, it wasn't the
> White House proper.

Oh jeez, this is a real knee slapper.

Your statement:
"Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, ..."

My reply:
"False to the point of ridicule,..."

Rather than try and defend your obviously primary assertion even though I
called BS (it would have been fun watching you try), you focused in on a
'technicality' which was my secondary and obviously factual retort.
Furthermore the only reason I included it in the first place was to point
out your continual exaggeration of the facts in a vain attempt to support
your weak arguments.

> > > > Not to the USSC. Try reading the decision sometime.
> > > Got a link? I'm in the mood for comic relief!
> > Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you.
> > Bronston v. United States
>
> The law is not a joke.

They why do you keep alleging it is?

> And the link I provided above shows just how
> frightening the law can be. In their zeal to specify everything, the
> lawyers have made it easy to get away with anything.

Ignorance is the basis for most fears.

> > Obviously you don't support a vigorous defense. You support some system
> > where the defendant is required to make the plaintant's case, even
> > though
> > the plaintant didn't have a valid case to begin with. You support a
> > system
> > where a defendent is required to provide 'your' particular definition of
> > something, even though a completely different definition was supplied,
> > agreed to by both sides and the court. You support a system where it's
> > perfectly OK to subvert the political, civil, and criminal systems of
> > our
> > country so long as such subversion is aimed at someone you don't
> > particularly like.
> Not at all. I support (but will never see) a system where all parties
> are required and inclined to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth.

I seriously doubt you even know where that phrase originates or how silly
and irrelevant it is to any point you're trying to make.

> I expect all the facts to be available to both sides (called
> discovery). I expect the arguments to be about what applies to the
> laws at hand, and each side to present the law and the facts from
> their own perspective. I don't expect juries or judges to make
> decisions without the complete set of relevant facts.
>
> I also expect to be disappointed. This is based not only on my own
> experiences (where their defending laywer presented material during
> the discovery that was dishonest, and much of which was complete
> fabrication. The goal was not to present the truth, but to scare me.
> It worked, because there was no way to prove much of what they
> claimed, either to be the truth or not. Since there was a possibility
> that the judge would believe their lawyer, who knew the statements
> were false, I settled for less than half of what was stolen from me.
> This was not perjury, since it never got to the court and the "I
> swear" point. But it was purely dishonest. It is difficult to fight
> an accomplished liar. And THAT is why I dislike the Clintons.

Material presented during discovery is subject to perjury laws (you seem to
either forget or are ignorant of the fact that the original Clinton
testimony was presented during discovery proceedings). Obviously there is
more to the story than you're presenting here which isn't favorable to your
version of events. I'm not really interested in hearing the sordid details
of your legal troubles. I'm just pointing out that you're contradicting
yourself (again) whether you realize it or not.

So based on your own perceptions of how you got screwed by the legal system
(naturally the other side of the story will never be disclosed here), you
have formed a strong bias based solely on your own anecdotal evidence or
other false analogies like the OJ trial, and therefore you are clearly
justified and condemning our court system, lawyers in general, and the
Clintons based on these emotional experiences and observations. Curiously
though, you have no sympathy for Clinton being subjected to a frivolous
lawsuit by the same legal system you condemn and justify that by saying he
got what was coming to him because of his own "antics".

> > May you be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, a victim of malicious
> > prosecution, hounded relentlessly, forced to spend a fortune to defend
> > yourself, forced to provide public testimony on private matters,
> > unjustly
> > terminated from your job, sold out by your lawyer, and thrown in jail
> > for a
> > crime you didn't commit, all by a bunch of people who have your
> > standards.
>
> If they had my standards, the above diatribe wouldn't have a chance to
> occur.

Well you certainly have a different evaluation of your standards than I do.
You justified the frivolous Clinton lawsuit and 7 year witch hunt and every
thing that was spent in his defense on those false accusations because he
got what was coming to him because of his "antics". You justified the
impeachment procedings because he was "dishonest". You claim lawyers should
ignore relevant case law because YOU don't agree with it, and you claim
Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office, even though
there was no legal basis for it. Those ARE your standards which you can't
even bear the thought of being applied in your own direction.

> > Which doesn't justify subverting the political system, ...
> Read the link. It was Clinton who perverted the truth, and found
> loopholes to pervert the system.

Your link does not support your statement regardless of what you might
think. Even after the "whole truth" was made known to the judge in the
Clinton lawsuit, she STILL threw it out of court. So in the end Clinton
made misleading statements about a deeply personal matter which were
immaterial to the outcome of the case to begin with. Even if you simply
assume he intended to mislead, that intent had nothing to do with the
outcome of the lawsuit and everything to do with preventing the Jones
lawyers from publically embarrassing him and harming him politically (which
was their only intent in the first place).

And still you haven't even tried to argue against my assertions that the
Jones lawyers brought forth a lawsuit they knew was frivolous to begin with
for nefarious purposes (AKA subverting the civil courts), you haven't even
tried to argue against my assertions that Republicans brought forth a
taxpayer funded witch hunt (AKA subverting the criminal justice system), and
you haven't even tried to argue against my assertions that Republicans
brought forth impeachment proceedings that weren't supported by the US
Constitution and they knew would fail (AKA subverting the political system).

What you can't seem to understand is I really could give a rat's arse what
you think of Clinton morally, ethically, or however else you chose to judge
him based on your unidirectional standards. I have never tried to defend
him on those grounds regardless of your strawman BS that I am. Your
argument is essentially that even though you as much conceed that Clinton
can't be legally held responsible for his actions, the end didn't justify
his means for defending himself. Yet on the other side of your mouth you
justify what happened to him in the end even though the means were
execrable. You can't have it both ways. Pick one and go with it.