“Normally Play-Doh is about as exciting as my day gets.”
Only because we weren’t so blessed.
Hmm…
Wondering how the MSNBC-Newsweek account could be so different from the local paper, I spent about half an hour digging into this, and Garfield is right. It turns out the BBC reported enthusiastic receptions, but still it’s just dueling media.
Then I found this page, arguably put together by a Bush fan, but still there are pictures from the restaurant. And a video. From the restaurant. 
It doesn’t look like snubbing, frankly.
What part of the news you quote actually contradicts the OP? The gist of the OP is that the Pres got a less than effusive reception. Your quotes just show that firstly **some ** people who were there were keen on the Pres (which the OP doesn’t deny) and that a visit by the Pres was memorable for those you quote, which it would be regardless of the general level of enthusiasm for him.
Ya got nuthin so far.
It refutes the part of the OP that says “everybody ignores him”, maybe?
Additionally, the part that says he came face to face with the part of the public that wishes he’d disappear.
So, pretty much all of it really.
I think that one is allowed a little hyperbole, particularly when one links to and quotes extensively from the source of the story so that the fact that one is being a little hyperbolic in one’s opening statement is clear. Even if your quotes contradict “everyone ignores him” they don’t make a dent on the gist of the story or the OP. You’ve ruined nuthin.
Yes, you’re completely right – how silly of me. The first one and a half pages of this thread CLEARLY got across the fact that many people at the restaurant thoroughly enjoyed the President’s visit, and absolutely DID NOT gloat over the “fact” that he was ignored. How ever could I have been so misled, with such gems as
I know you must feel a little deflated (the multiple orgasms this story must have caused in the hard-line lefties could account for that, single … um … handedly, let alone the realization that it didn’t happen quite the way they pictured it after all), but for pete’s sake…
The OPs link to a column describes a sedate reception and a deafening quiet. The articles I posted clearly show a different scene. Thanks to Liberal’s link, there are photos of people at the event who are clearly NOT ignoring the president, which would seem to give a bit more weight to the local paper’s stories. Unless you’ve got some photos or something showing
If I’ve “ruined nuthin,” it’s only because you’re too in love with the delusion that the President was ignored to see the real story.
Bush is still a liberty smashing tyrant. But you are correct. It does seem that the MSNBC-Newseek reporters took, um, liberties with the facts. I should have known better, frankly. There’s no way he’s walking into an event where the participants haven’t been hand picked.
There is nothing in that BBC article that contradicts the OP’s link that Bush got a less than effusive reaction in the diner. The only mention of the diner in that article is in the context of someone being negative about a Bush policy on free trade.
Garfield your first link says nothing to contradict the OP article at all other than to say a waitress was excited to have served the president and that people were talking about his visit. Your second linked article describes similar reactions. Whoopydoo. They would have been excited to have been in a diner with any president just because small town diners don’t receive Leaders of Superpowers every day. Doesn’t mean that the OP’s article which says his reception in the diner was less effusive than a POTUS normally gets is inaccurate.
Your second article also describes the reactions of Bush’s own breakfast invitees. You are surely not stupid enough to think they weren’t hand picked and necessarily representative of the rest of the people in the diner? Plus it describes the Alveys, who had no choice because Bush sat down at their table. They say nothing effusive about Bush at all but just express some excitement at having met the Pres. And that he showed “kindness”. Wowee.
The key descriptive points made in the quote (leaving out editorialising) in the OP are as follows. Let’s see if your articles contradict:
“No one rushed to shake his hand.” - Nope
"There were no audible gasps or yelps of excitement that usually accompany visits like this. " - Nuh
“In Peoria this week, many patrons found their pancakes more interesting. Except for the click of news cameras and the clang of a dish from the kitchen, the quiet was deafening.” - the only talking mentioned in your linked articles is from conversations commenced by Bush himself
"Another woman, eyeing Bush and his entourage, sighed heavily and went back to her paper. She was reading the obituaries. “Sorry to interrupt your breakfast,” a White House aide told her. “No problem,” she huffed, in a not-so-friendly way. “Life goes on, I guess.” - Nope.
Your linked articles can be summarised as: Bush visited a Diner and spoke to some people. Some people were excited that the POTUS visited. None of that contradicts the OP.
You’ve got nothing.
And Lib, you need to read more closely. Those articles use the classic trick of focussing on some shiny details while containing no overall description of the scene, in the hope you will assume the scene was shiny.
Less than effusive? Could you be a bit more vague? 
I mean, no one fell to their knees and smothered his feet with kisses or anything, but Jesus, man, there comes a time to admit a mistake. The BBC article and the pictures and the video make it clear that the president was surrounded by people whom he engaged and who paid him lots of attention. Let us not embarrass ourselves with cheap rationalizations.
It’s not a failed photo op, it’s a ticker-tape parade that hasn’t happened yet.
I have to say, brentroos, that your website shows us just how much a fair and impartial observer you are. The Obama photo retouch needed a bit of cleaning up, though, but the fake conversation between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain brought back those childhood memories of reading a junior high school imitation of Cracked Magazine, so I guess that your site isn’t totally worthless.
From growing up there and visiting my parents there almost every year, this is much more in line with the kind of reception for him I would expect. Not that such near adulation of such a bad president is really anything to be proud of. One need not have a position as extreme as the 20 **brentroos **talked to to find Bush’s record highly objectionable.
It’s is not even a good forgery. Here is the original, btw:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:c9HBJSYvkg4HxM:http://www.theday.com/gbl/media/dynamic/lrgimages/a8obama120406.JPG
The fact that he may smoke does not make it legitimate. He probably craps too, but that doesn’t mean you can make a photoshop image of him taking a dump and pass it off as real.
Mr. Roos, I just want to say, right here, that I’m a patriot. I’m a proud American, and a registered Republican.
I respect the office of the President of the United States of America, for he is the face that America gives to the world.
I am very disappointed with the man who holds that office, right now.
If he were to walk into a restaurant where I was, right now, I could think of very few better ways to express my disappointment than to ignore him, politely. This is why the event of the restaurant happens to draw my attention.
Can you honestly describe what happened in that location when he walked in? Thank you for your time and effort.
Oh, and welcome aboard. I admire your effort in keeping your blog up, though I have to admit I don’t quite understand some of the things you say on it. But I’m a old fashioned sort. I think Roosevelt ruined the country with the WPA projects, and I think that a man should be judged, not on the color of his skin, but by the content of his character and the quality of his efforts. I think that whatever a terrorist says about an issue should be ignored, and we should make our decisions based on what we feel is right. I think that each and every one of us should acknowledge that we hold this land in stewardship for our children, and that we have a responsibility to improve it for them, rather than lay it ruin.
In fact, I think there’s a bit too much talking about rights, and not enough talking about responsibilities, on both the side of the citizen and the side of the government.
You?
Neither does one have to hate the president to peacefully protest his policies.
Your blog.
Post #76.
Post #77.
Perhaps you’d like to add a line-something like,“The Truth can bite you on the ass sometimes.”
Funny how 3200 American soldiers didn’t die for no reason on his watch. Or several hundred thousand Iraqis.
Funny, too, how you repeat the same old false stories about Clinton and bin Laden that every right-wing talking-point-repeating pundit and blogger has been repeating since roughly the time the 9/11 Commission’s report came out in an attempt to make it look like the events of 9/11 happened because of something Clinton didn’t do, instead of many (MANY) things Bush didn’t do.
If you’re going to come here and simply repeat the lies and half-truths that the Right Wing Echo Chamber and Faux News have been parroting for several years now, this won’t end well.
I fully understand this type of “humor”. You post anything that will damage your opponent, and if you get caught in an outright lie, you claim that you were “joking”. Hey, we Evil Dems listen to Rush occasionally, too.