You're not very intelligent, are you? Ignoring your other stupid post you've already been slammed for (I mean, criticizing poor leadership can apparently mean you hate the school, right? So if you had disagreements with either Trump or Biden, you hate America by your logic?), I think you should improve your reading comprehension. I dealt with the intent of the act, not the results of the act. I said nothing about whether or not it actually hurt the University of South Carolina. Though that was her prerogative. That is the governor's seat to fill. Nothing stops USC from giving her a permanent seat. All I said was that it was stupid to view it through the lens of football fandom. The motivation was clearly not a Clemson fan trying to stick it to South Carolina. That was never the intent, which was my only point. Basically, you're just dumb. No amount of all caps and terrible grammar will change that.
I think I am as intelligent as the next guy, but when I'm trying to decipher someone else's "logic", I am often at the mercy of the person at the other end of the debate.
So lets see - here is what you posted:
I don't care where the board members went to school if they're competent and put the university's best interests forward. I would imagine most elite graduates from any school wouldn't want to torpedo the largest university system in the state. But if you think Haley did it because she was a Clemson grad who wanted to hurt the University of South Carolina, rather than being a politician rewarding a political donor, you're a fool.
You state that you said, "nothing about whether or not it actually hurt the University of South Carolina. Though that was her prerogative". That was her prerogative? To hurt USC was her prerogative? Who says?? But the intent of the act becomes moot doesn't it, if the results of the act is in fact harmful to the University.
Muschamp had great intentions for the FB program, and I'm sure Martin does as well for the MBB program. Holbrook was also a heck of a guy. But two of those three got fired, and the third's seat isn't exactly cool these days. But that's not because of intentions, it's because of results.
But I JUST NOW referenced the FB program. I've quoted your comments I first responded to above - there is NOTHING in them about viewing ANY of the Moore fiasco through "lens of football fandom", so not understanding where you veered on that one. I think most who have responded to this thread understand that Moore's contributions to USC were mainly for academia than athletic endeavors.
But then you try to close by instructing us of Nikki Haley's true "motivations" of removing the top donor to USC from the USC BOT to replace her with a political donor to Haley herself. Are YOU Haley's political campaign manager? Her biographical author? Again, trying to argue intentions against results after the fact may seem a pointless endeavor of futility, but you keep being you I guess.
My question to YOU: what contributions to USC did that political donor Haley appointed to the BOT can you inform us here, and how did they compare to Darla Moore's contributions over time??? What "intentions" did that political donor have for the improvement/advancement of USC, and how did they stack up??
I'll hang up and listen......
