bayonet1976, Are you people really suggesting that the ATF walk into a potential tinderbox unarmed? I wouldn’t suggest that a cop walk into any domestic dispute unarmed. Domestic dispute are notoriously volatile.
Is there anything the Clinton Administration did that didn’t piss you guys off?
Andros, pointing out hypocrisy is an old and valued method of debate.
Wrong again :rolleyes:
I am not a Republican! There are several things that I hate about the Republican’s, but Clinton seemed to be more concerned about himself (his legacy) than his country.
Again? I don’t think so.
I suppose it was indeed foolish of me to assume that a person defending the honesty or Iran/Contra, and claiming that Clinton was a rapist because he left Oxford early, might be a Republican. Consider me bitch-slapped.
As lightstrand said, pointing out that the hypocrisy of the Republicans who were slamming Clinton for taking PRC money when they themselves were grabbing hand over fist is a perfectly acceptable tactic of debate. I never said I approved of either Clinton or the Pubs doing it – but if you’re going to thwack one for doing it, thwack everybody who does it, if only to be fair. You want to throw Clinton in jail for it, fine. Just be sure that he has lots of neighbors behind bars for the same offense.
Gee, I’m sorry. I can’t be everywhere or even read everything. All I know is that despite Ken Starr and the OIC spending $100 million dollars (plus threatening and/or jailing potential witnesses) the Tyson Foods thing never blipped my radar. Could be my bad, I suppose.
Exactly what article of the Constitution says this???
What you are describing is more along the lines of a monarch. This is America. We don’t have those.
Well, for what it’s worth, that pretty well describes my father, too, and he’s certainly no monarch. I just don’t see where you make the connection between what was described and a monarch.
The President has lots of checks on his power (one of these days, I’d love to say “HER power”), such as Congress, the Supreme Court, the media…sure doesn’t sound like a monarch to me! Nope, not at all.
The point is…the President is a LEADER. Or at least, he should be, whether he is a monarch or a President. The least he could do is ACT like a leader.
Which is what Clinton did…the least…
andros wrote,
Several of have made this point before but I figure there’s no harm in having another pass at it. The OP asks why there is so much personal hatred of Bill Clinton. Maybe the title is a little too vague but the opening clause is pretty clear
I have shared Sampiro’s amazement for a decade. His core question, with my italics, is
Despite several attempts to distract us and convince us that the OP said something along the lines of Can anyone think of anything that went wrong during the Clinton administration, “defending President Clinton’s possibly illegal or unethical actions” is not supposed to be the focus of this thread.
If you don’t have a strong personal hatred of Clinton, the thread is not really about you. Merely objecting to Clinton’s dissembling, sexual indiscretions, or use of the pardon power is irrelevant - lots of us who don’t hate Clinton’s guts object to some of his actions. Despite repetitious (and factually empty) assertions to the contrary, nobody in this thread is saying Clinton was perfect.
Given that plenty of presidents have lied and philandered, answer this: If you do have a strong personal hatred of Clinton, yet you maintain it is not motivated by partisanship (Squink’s theory), his effective refutation of right-wing success dogma (my theory), or residual jealousy over adolescent notions of popularity (Icarus’s theory), then explain why you don’t hate all those other Presidents.
Again, Sampiro simplified a lot when he wrote the title to this thread. I think a lot of people are arriving late and weighing in with stuff that’s already been said because they haven’t read the whole thread. I’m not saying that’s the most horrendous crime in the world but it is lending a sort of whacky-carrousel feeling to the debate.
I don’t know. Many college students “pack up and leave” before their degree is completed. I don’t assume that the reason for this in their cases was an allegation of rape. Why should I believe such a thing in the case of Bill Clinton?
There could be any number of reasons why Clinton left, and frankly, I don’t care. He was never my president, and I am not a Democrat. However, I do think that it’s fairly low to make such serious allegations of a person based on what amounts to rumour and gossip. Your cite has no more credibility than had you told us that a friend of a friend told you that Bill Clinton dyes his hair.
To make an allegation about any person with so little proof is disgracefully nasty. To accuse someone of rape with such scanty evidence is downright despicable, and could only be done by someone without any morals at all.
Clinton-haters should be jumping all over B&I. He is making you all seem like wackos by assiciation.
I don’t know. Many college students “pack up and leave” before their degree is completed. I don’t assume that the reason for this in their cases was an allegation of rape. Why should I believe such a thing in the case of Bill Clinton?
There could be any number of reasons why Clinton left, and frankly, I don’t care. He was never my president, and I am not a Democrat. However, I do think that it’s fairly low to make such serious allegations of a person based on what amounts to rumour and gossip. Your cite has no more credibility than had you told us that a friend of a friend told you that Bill Clinton dyes his hair.
To make an allegation about any person with so little proof is disgracefully nasty. To accuse someone of rape with such scanty evidence is downright despicable, and could only be done by someone without any morals at all. **
[/QUOTE]
Well I found a newspaper article, provided a cite, and you still refuse to accept. The see no evil comment earlier in the thread sure seems appropirate.
It is also laughable to hear you comment on morals!!! - Even Clinton lovers eventually admit that he ranked low on the morals scale.
Well now, since you attacked the cite provided, and provided no reason except for your own I don’t like it rant, the ball is now in your court to provide evidence to support your assertion that the cite is not credible. Why don’t you start with the testimony of the AR State Police and work back to the college days
YOU say it is possible he just packed up and left because lots of college do that. The only one’s I know of that did that, did it because things were not good. I do not know of anybody that was doing great that just packed up and left after years of good success.
I don’t know. Many college students “pack up and leave” before their degree is completed. I don’t assume that the reason for this in their cases was an allegation of rape. Why should I believe such a thing in the case of Bill Clinton?
There could be any number of reasons why Clinton left, and frankly, I don’t care. He was never my president, and I am not a Democrat. However, I do think that it’s fairly low to make such serious allegations of a person based on what amounts to rumour and gossip. Your cite has no more credibility than had you told us that a friend of a friend told you that Bill Clinton dyes his hair.
To make an allegation about any person with so little proof is disgracefully nasty. To accuse someone of rape with such scanty evidence is downright despicable, and could only be done by someone without any morals at all. **
[/QUOTE]
I found a newspaper article, provided a cite, and you still refuse to accept. The see no evil comment earlier in the thread sure seems appropriate.
It is also laughable to hear you comment on morals!!! - Even Clinton lovers eventually admit that he ranked low on the morals scale.
Well now, since you attacked the cite provided, and provided no reason except for your own I don’t like it rant, the ball is now in your court to provide evidence to support your assertion that the cite is not credible. Why don’t you start with the testimony of the AR State Police and work back to the college days
YOU say it is possible he just packed up and left because lots of college do that. The only one’s I know of that did that, did it because things were not good. I do not know of anybody that was doing great that just packed up and left after years of good success.
My guess is that, for an aspiring politician from Arkansas, law school was a better course of action than graduate work in political science. Clinton’s election as attorney general of Arkansas three years after graduating from Yale law school seems to support this notion.
Regarding your claim (below):
After earning a master’s degree, and successfully completing most of my course work towards a doctorate in applied statistics, I decided that it would take too long, and would not move my career in the direction I wished, to finish this doctoral program.
At which point, I enrolled in and completed a second master’s degree (in telecommunications) at a different school, which turned out to be a much better fit for my career.
Now that I have provided an example of something you claimed did not exist, please name an individual who got admitted to a Yale-caliber law school after being forced out of another school for rape.
Left a political science program for a second master’s degree in telecommunications to further his carrer in politics.
Yeah right - something is fishy
And since the topic is Clinton, I’m not about to look for other criminals admitted to Yale.
Do you really believe he would say, I changed schools/majors after being accused of raping another student at the last school I attended.
Re-read the post B & I
This took place in 1969?
So, the Republican administration of Richard Nixon conspired to cover up the crime of a pot-smoking draft dodger?
Sounds perfectly credible to me.
This is the whole problem B & I – when the topic is Clinton, your blind hatred renders you incapable anything – apparently, of even reading a simple post correctly.
It’s kinda cool, realizing that twenty years from now we’ll still be able to make these folks froth at the mouth whenever we want. What a great credibility buster 
-Thanks again Bill.
Yeah, and since you seem to wish to resort to personal attack - I’ll just forget the OP and resort to your blind stupidity.
Your love for the liar prevents you from recognizing the conceited self centered person you both seem to be.
Well maybe I won’t completely forget the OP.
The post is not as simple as you say, and since you said it, try to explain why you seem to state “My guess is that, for an aspiring politician from Arkansas, law school was a better course of action than graduate work in political science.” Then seem to quote something about almost finishing a doctorate in statistics, and then leaving. Then I enrolled in and completed a second master’s degree (in telecommunications) at a different school, which turned out to be a much better fit for my career.
I still wonder why one would go through all that effort for a doctorate and then quit - Still makes no sense to not finish when one has almost finished the work
Thats so true! I am amazed at the ability of the Left to always respond calmly and rationaly when discussing Nixon, Reagan, or Bush Jr. If only those golly-darned Clinton-bashers could treat Clinton in so civilized a manner!
Thats so true! I am amazed at the ability of the Left to always respond calmly and rationaly when discussing Nixon, Reagan, or Bush Jr. If only those golly-darned Clinton-bashers could treat Clinton in so civilized a manner!
Oh brother! Anybody can make that claim.
I guess the O.J. can claim himself to be a credibility buster because he was not convicted of murder.
B & I, in my post above, I, F. U. Shakespeare, am the one who started work on a doctorate in applied statistics.
Not Bill Clinton.
It’s not a quote about Clinton, and I never said it was.
I was merely offering a counter-example to your claim that no one would leave an academic program they were succeeding at.
I did exactly that, for the reasons I gave. (My doctoral work was at the University of Maryland (Baltimore County), and my telecommunications master’s is from George Washington University).
Got it?
And while Squink is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, I believe his comment meant that your credibility was damaged by
a) your misunderstanding of my example;and/or
b) simply saying ‘something is fishy’, instead of doing a
quick google search on Clinton’s academic record
Geez, this thread is getting counterproductive.