( OT ) Clinton Mobbed U.S.A! U.S.A. ! U.S.A.!
 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/16185/20191

Extract

Perhaps, this will bring a tear to your eye. In contrast to the waves of
Booooing that hit Bush today at the Pope's funeral, Bill Clinton was
Mobbed and greeted with adoring chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/16185/20191

Extract

Perhaps, this will bring a tear to your eye. In contrast to the waves of
Booooing that hit Bush today at the Pope's funeral, Bill Clinton was
Mobbed and greeted with adoring chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!

Why'd you snip this part of the story?

"There was certainly a lot of affection for Mr. Clinton, WHO CONSISTENTLY
GOT BETTER PRESS HERE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY THAN MR. BUSH DOES."

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's really no surprise that a socialist would be looked upon more favorably
than a capitalist in a socialist country. Journalists always tend to be a
little to the left of mainstream. In a country like Italy, where
"mainstream" is already shifted to the left, journalists end up being
communists (like the one the Marines fragged in Iraq).

Why'd you snip this part of the story?

"There was certainly a lot of affection for Mr. Clinton, WHO CONSISTENTLY
GOT BETTER PRESS HERE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY THAN MR. BUSH DOES."


Ask yourself:
Why did he get better press?

All those liberal media guys having a big conspiracy?

Maybe he was a better president.

Ralf Chinowski wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/16185/20191

Extract

Perhaps, this will bring a tear to your eye. In contrast to the waves of
Booooing that hit Bush today at the Pope's funeral, Bill Clinton was
Mobbed and greeted with adoring chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!


So what the **** does this have to do with boats? Trying to ruin the group
with OT posting. You crude asshole.



And hiding behind a remailer, you have contributed exactly *WHAT*?

"XXX" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:
Ralf Chinowski wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/16185/20191

Extract

Perhaps, this will bring a tear to your eye. In contrast to the waves of
Booooing that hit Bush today at the Pope's funeral, Bill Clinton was
Mobbed and greeted with adoring chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!


So what the **** does this have to do with boats? Trying to ruin the
group
with OT posting. You crude asshole.



And hiding behind a remailer, you have contributed exactly *WHAT*?

And OT posting accomplishes what asshole?

Some people are capable of thinking about multiple subjects at once. I
understand your envy. Get over it, though. Your energy would be better spent
in other ways.

It is also interesting (for some) to note that Europeans tend to cheer more
for US presidents who are hesitant to exercise the "big stick" but prefer to
use diplomacy (e.g., Clinton, Carter), and understandably, jeer the US
presidents who do not hesitate to exercise the "big stick" and use less of
diplomacy (e.g., Bush, Bush, Reagan).

From a European's (especially the German, French and Russian) point of view,
more talk is more favourable for their interests. When the US uses their
military might against a real/perceived enemy, that "enemy" is almost always
armed/equipped by (guess who?) the Germany, France or Russia.

It should be noted that the revenue generated by these European nations'
resupply of their client states with war materiel is far FAR outweighed by
the fact the resupply indicates destruction of their war equipment by US
forces.

Thus, if I were a European, I would also cheer Clinton and jeer Bush, i.e.,
it is as to be expected.

Cheers,
Franko

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/16185/20191

Extract

Perhaps, this will bring a tear to your eye. In contrast to the waves of
Booooing that hit Bush today at the Pope's funeral, Bill Clinton was
Mobbed and greeted with adoring chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!

Why'd you snip this part of the story?

"There was certainly a lot of affection for Mr. Clinton, WHO CONSISTENTLY
GOT BETTER PRESS HERE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY THAN MR. BUSH DOES."

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's really no surprise that a socialist would be looked upon more
favorably
than a capitalist in a socialist country. Journalists always tend to be a
little to the left of mainstream. In a country like Italy, where
"mainstream" is already shifted to the left, journalists end up being
communists (like the one the Marines fragged in Iraq).

"Franko" wrote in message
...
It is also interesting (for some) to note that Europeans tend to cheer
more
for US presidents who are hesitant to exercise the "big stick" but prefer
to
use diplomacy (e.g., Clinton, Carter), and understandably, jeer the US
presidents who do not hesitate to exercise the "big stick" and use less of
diplomacy (e.g., Bush, Bush, Reagan).

From a European's (especially the German, French and Russian) point of
view,
more talk is more favourable for their interests. When the US uses their
military might against a real/perceived enemy, that "enemy" is almost
always
armed/equipped by (guess who?) the Germany, France or Russia.

Hang on a moment. Are you suggesting that lurking behind all the front-page
rhetoric, there might be economic reasons for the attitudes of other
countries? Money as a motivation? How dare you suggest such a thing. It's
heresy.

Perhaps you can help me reinterpret the photo op we set up with the
Pakistanis a year or so ago, where they wandered the mountains pretending to
help us track down Osama bin Laden. Shortly thereafter, it was announced
that they would be "allowed" to buy weapons from us. Is it possible the
whole thing was insincere right from the get-go? :-)

Sorry Doug,

I promise I will not do that again...

As for Pakistan, let them buy a few twigs from us...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Franko" wrote in message
...
It is also interesting (for some) to note that Europeans tend to cheer
more
for US presidents who are hesitant to exercise the "big stick" but
prefer
to
use diplomacy (e.g., Clinton, Carter), and understandably, jeer the US
presidents who do not hesitate to exercise the "big stick" and use less
of
diplomacy (e.g., Bush, Bush, Reagan).

From a European's (especially the German, French and Russian) point of
view,
more talk is more favourable for their interests. When the US uses
their
military might against a real/perceived enemy, that "enemy" is almost
always
armed/equipped by (guess who?) the Germany, France or Russia.

Hang on a moment. Are you suggesting that lurking behind all the
front-page
rhetoric, there might be economic reasons for the attitudes of other
countries? Money as a motivation? How dare you suggest such a thing. It's
heresy.

Perhaps you can help me reinterpret the photo op we set up with the
Pakistanis a year or so ago, where they wandered the mountains pretending
to
help us track down Osama bin Laden. Shortly thereafter, it was announced
that they would be "allowed" to buy weapons from us. Is it possible the
whole thing was insincere right from the get-go? :-)