[Samurai_Jack]

I have concluded that the success of the clinton presidency is primarly a factor of the positive reporting that the MSM constantly served up to him. There was very little that could happen during the clintonian 90s that the Media didnt fawn positive reporting upon.

This positive reporting served to promote the internet speculative market 'bubble', and it served to disguise the danger lurking as americans endured multiple unanswered attacks on US Soil and against interests abroad. Not to mention that the clintonistas deployed troops into more countries than any president in previous history.

Presidents Bush (41 and 43) and Reagan in contrast succeed in their presidencies IN SPITE of the constant barrage of negative press. If conservative presidents were showered with the fawning and positive media coverage that the liberal presidents INVARIABLY receive, their success would be legendary.

Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[CriticalJ]

hear, hear.

[sodpoodle]

"This positive reporting served to promote the internet speculative market 'bubble', and it served to disguise the danger lurking as americans endured multiple unanswered attacks on US Soil and against interests abroad. Not to mention that the clintonistas deployed troops into more countries than any president in previous history".


It were indeed a "FOOLS' PARADISE"