p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Frimost said:
Well pp_man, you see Clinton did many of the same things Bush did but he was slick and had a wonderful media department to spin the news and distract the people. Clinton was like a cheap stage magician, smoke and mirrors, look and him talk and distract you while he does the opposite with his actions.
I don't Bush is all that dumb, he just doesn’t give a shit what you think about him, many times he just says what he means, talks straight-opinion polls be damned. That's why I like him, because he has the Texas style of not only doing what he says but not apologizing for it, not lying about it, not denying it. I like the bluntness, some people call it crassness, it may seem like a blundering style-like a bull in a China shop. But his style is intentional, not accidental. At least we know what we are getting with him, he is a known quantity, we can anticipate his stances. With Clinton you never knew just what the hell he would do.
Clinton was slick because he told you ALL the things you wanted to hear, He played to the press, he danced like a little trained monkey for the cameras as they plied their little diplomatic tune. But he didn’t actually DO half the things we said he would do, or even half the things he said he did do. Bush has the opposite style, which I like more personally.
There were times PP-man, that it seemed Clinton was doing what was in the best interests of EUROPE, NOT America. And that is WRONG because he is (or was) OUR president elected by OUR people. That is why you liked him and why I did not, it was the same deal with Gorbachov and the former Soviet Union-loved by the world and hated by his own country.
That doesn't tell me anything at all about what good he's done America. I didn't mean Clinton, I meant Bush.
So as I suspected there's nothing that can be pointed at...
ppman