And my ‘rant’ occurred before you made your flimsy cite – was I supposed to read your mind?
So you were at it before you decided to grade the cite that you did not like - oh yeah that’s even better
I can’t believe I’m posting to this thread again, but here goes.
Blown, about your cite that you are so fervently defending. First of all the link provided goes directly to the current front page of the Capitol Hill Blue website. It is customary to give us a cite that directly links the article to which you are referring. Moreover if I do a search in the Capitol Hill Blue with key words “Clinton rape Oxford” I got four pages of hits, and not one says anything about Clinton. In fact, the latest date on the search is: 5-Jul-2001. Thus I find your cite to not be very useful.
However, I’m a tenacious girl, so I looked for other articles searching google with the same key words in addition to Associated Newspapers. Oddly enough I hit on a site called The Right Angle. In this site I noticed they used the same cite as you, also producing the front page of the Capitol Hill Blue.
So I say Hmmm, who is this Associated Newspapers Ltd. company that these guys are touting as such authorities? So I do a search on them and find their home page. It turn out that this fine organization publishes some of the finest tabloids in England: Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Evening Standard, Metro, and * Ireland on Sunday* (which it didn’t own until 2001). None of these fine publications have on line databases, so they can’t be checked directly. Now I’m no Brit and would know a good tabloid from a bad tabloid, but I suspect that a tabloid is not the most reliable source for hard news. I think it pretty reasonable to discount these sources as not exactly the most dependable, thus one can logically question their validity.
Next time check your own cites.
I have explained time and time again, that the link was just part of an article form the Associated Newspapers Ltd. IT WAS NOT THE LINK FOR THE CITE!
Furthermore, I just used the cite, I had nothing to do with it other than find an article, post it, and cite it, I did not defend it as you claim. Just like so many other posters here, I did a search and posted the results. Unlike me and other posters here at least you tried to investigate the source. It is still kind of laughable that some will immediately discount a cite just because it is contrary to their belief.
BTW, Straight from Oxford - “Clinton did not sit University examinations before transferring” Finished all his course work and then just bailed out on his final exams? I doubt even FU would do that!
Perhaps it was the perjury. It could possibly be the obstuction of justice. Illegal campaign contributions comes to mind and so does renting out the Lincoln bedroom for even more of that illegal money. Draft dodging and dope smoking is a reason to start. Personally, I was sort of offended with the selling of classified computer, missle and nuke info to the Chinese.
You could write a book on all these things and many, more more. Now that I think about it, there have been several really good books on this very subject and some of them were even written by liberals.
[sarcasm]
Yeah but where is your cite - it is all lies I tells ya. That is what the unreliable newspapers say. You are so evil to say that without personal knowledge of the instances you are speaking of - even if you do you are …
[/end sarcasm]
Well, I guess we’ve settled the question of the rationality and analytical skills of your typical rabid Clinton hater.
Errr, make that colleagues
the previous posts were about just one of the many things. it was kinda fun to watch the typical clinton lover jump at any thing contrary to their belief. like he was a rhode scholar. he for no, apparent good reason, left oxford just before sitting his exams. so he is a rhode scholar only if you believe that one need not earn a degree to claim the title. going off on different tangents as if to distract from the known record.
there are certainly far more evils that would be far easier to support with links for those that cannot accept printed text. I just figured that by the time I looked at the thread it would have already been addressed - no i did not read the whole thread.
Dubya’s past isn’t believed to be Osmondish and he never got closer to Saigon than California, but where was the outrage of the GOP over his nomination? (And to the best of my knowledge, Chaney’s DUI’s didn’t stand for “Dancing with Uniformed Inuits”.)