Since the thread deals with some people’s hatred of Clinton (purported by the OP to be irrational), I fail to see how it’s a personal attack to point out examples of it.
And I sincerely hope my explanations in my last couple of posts above aren’t too ‘stupid’ for you to follow. 
Who gives a rats ass about you. We WERE talking about Clinton.
You should have made it clear. A doctoral student that has not even learned to communicate effectively in writing - you sure that you were not asked to get out?
BTW, if you did a quick search on Clintons record, you should have found the Associated Newspapers article about his trouble in 1969.
No…The OP asked why:rolleyes:
Look, I really, really really don’t understand this “kicked out” of Oxford thing. I think it is a perfect example of the stupidity and near insanity engendered by the hatred of Clinton brought up in the OP. It sounds like some here regard Rhodes scholarship at Oxford as some kind of four-year, degree granting program. It is not. It is an opportunity to study at Oxford for a term of two years. Optionally, if the scholar wishes to stay for a third year, he or she may apply to do so and may be accepted to remain for an extra year. It appears that Clinton left after his two years to go to law school at Yale.
Please read here about the Rhodes scholar program if you don’t understand what it is.
To look at this situation and say, “Clinton left halfway through his studies at Oxford. He must have been kicked out. He was kicked out because he sexually molested or raped someone” is so wrong, and requires such a suspension of rational thought that it represents both stupidity and mental impairment. Don’t be stupid.
B & I, you have once again sidestepped the point in favor of personal attacks on me.
In the larger context of hatred of Clinton, we were discussing the credibility of a charge that he left Oxford because he raped someone.
In support of this charge, you asserted that you didn’t know anyone who had changed college curricula when everything was going OK.
I informed you that I was one such person, which contradicted your assertion.
If you don’t give a ‘rat’s ass’ about this, you are saying that * you don’t care about any facts that contradict the opinion you bring to this debate.*
Which doesn’t surprise me in the least.
I will respond if and only if you address this long-overdue point.
And try to keep a lid on the personal attacks – this is Great Debates, not the Pit. I’ve been more than patient with you on that.
Blown & Injected, you seem to be having problems with comprehension of my posts. I’m not sure why, I thought I was stating things fairly clearly. Hence, I will break your post down and respond to it very carefully so you will not miss any important points that I raise.
If you will look back to my first post on the previous page, you will find that I bolded the sections of your cite that robbed it of all its credibility. I will do you a favour and repeat this so that you do not even have to go to the effort of going back and checking what I’ve already posted.
Firstly, you are insisting that the accusation levelled at Clinton is gospel truth. The article you quote (but do not link to) only refers to it as an “allegation,” and a “claim.” The person making the claim is not named in the article, casting serious doubts on its credibility and the article you quoted was not even reporting on information gained first hand by the reporter, but is instead reporting on an accusation made on a website. This website appears to be somewhat obscure, is not one of the major news sources (and hence cannot be readily believed) and appears to be considerably partisan in its portrayal of the news. You did not link to either article, but instead quoted an article about another article. The only published record of the alleged rape that you have given us was by you in your post on the page previous. Your supposed cite has nothing backing it up, and is certainly not grounds for believing your repeated assertion that Clinton raped a girl while attending Oxford.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I am not a Clinton lover, as I said in one of my prior posts, I am not even an American and I think that he had good and bad points. The only time I mentioned morality was in commenting on your seeming lack of it, by (and I feel I am repeating myself ad nauseum here) making such a serious allegation of someone without proof. Is that clear to you, or should I say it slower?
My “I don’t like it rant” was about the cite you posted. As I explained above, it is worthless.
See above, see previous page.
Nowhere in your post can I find any testimony of the AR State Police. Maybe you’d like to repeat it. All I can find is a mention of an unnamed “retired State Department Official”
Neither I nor Bill Clinton can be held responsible for your limited experience.
gex gex
You are confused. I quoted part of an article and cited that article. There was a link to another news site and you seem to have totally lost it because you do not seem to be able to follow or regard a cite as credible unless there is a link you can follow on the net. Sorry you could not comprehend the point to asking you to support your assertions. That is what the AR S.P. was about - they also seem to have testified as to Clinton’s sexual offenses.
AND
FU my “persoanl attack” was in retaliation to YOUR attack on me - so don’t give me the save it for the pit crap - YOU STARTED IT!!!
You also do not provide any credible reason for why one would complete nearly all of a program then quit. You just mentioned that, with no proof, that you have done such a dumb thing yourself.
Wrongo. The example of Bill commiting “adultery” is a perfect example. Sure, you might be able to take the moral high ground & say “I can’t respect any man who doesn’t respect his wedding vows”. And that’s fine. But then when dudes point our that many of the dudes in the Oval Office did the same thing- then YOU gotta tell US why you despise Clinton but “Like Ike”. Note that there was a suit claming Bush jr slept around also- I suppose that this means he should resign “toot-sweet” as Cece would say?
What the Clinton haters must do is justify their special hatred of Bill. Now, if you despise every politico who used his power to get laid- well then you are in for a LOT of hating. Then, really, it isn’t Bill you hate, it’s middle-aged powerful white dudes getting blow jobs because women adore power. In that case- why just Bill?
B & I, both of your statements below are false.
You are either forgetting things that don’t support your arguments, or deliberately ignoring them.
About what I’d expect from someone who treats legitimate criticism as an attack.
Get a grip.
Yep, FU not taking shots at at the poster :smack:
rationalized as "legitimate criticism "
AMEN. I want to gag every time somebody says that the president or any politician is to be used as moral example. Sweet Christ, I have trouble thinking of a worse profession to choose moral leaders from. It’s like asking Michael Jackson to babysit your kids.
Once more unto the breach… Which part of Rhodes scholarship at Oxford being two years duration did you not understand? Please review my post above for further information and a link.
Both perfectly legitimate criticisms.
i) You read my post wrong (no one else seems to have); you hate Clinton.
ii) You were definitely ‘on a roll’, ala Blutarsky (once again, you’ve conveniently forgotten that your post immediately preceding questioned Clinton’s scholastic achievements, and never backed it up.)
Just because it points out your shortcomings doesn’t mean it’s a potshot.
Okay, a cite (Oxford University Press Release, 2001) and a quote, and I wash my hands of this bullshit (I swear I will!).
Of course, with a guy like Cawkwell vouching for him, who can say anything!
My confusion was only possible to your poor writing.
I forgot nothing. You went off on a rant, refusing to accept the Associtated Newspaper cite.
The roll as you call it was made up in your mind.
Well even if you do not accept the Associated Newspapers claim (NOT MY CLAIM - I just did a short search) that accused him of rape, or attempted rape, your own post says HE DID NOT COMPLETE HIS WORK AT OXFORD!
So at the very least, he is a rhodes scholar only if you believe one need not be successfully to claim the position.
He just decided to leave and get his law degree - which is doing him a lot of nothing right about now since his own college’s found him fit for at least one other thing - disbarment.
If my writing was the problem, there should have been others making the same mistake you did.
Yes, B & I, you forgot (or ignored) your claim that he flunked out of school. Your cite does not make any mention of him flunking out of school – his flunking out occurred only in your mind.
And my ‘rant’ occurred before you made your flimsy cite – was I supposed to read your mind?
Um, colleges don’t disbar anyone. Bars do.
his flunking out occurred only in your mind.
According to FU
This is GD