Boehner was an idiot to go on 60 Minutes. The interview began innocently enough, but it soon became apparent that the whole thing was a set-up to get him to break down. Has he never watched CBS before?
CBS's only concern, just like WataugaWatch's, is destroying anyone who steps into the role of the enemy, and Republican Speaker of the House is definitely the enemy.
The ironic thing is that even as 60 Minutes was hyper-focused on making Boehner cry to try to undermine him before he even starts the job, had they listened to what he was saying, they would have heard a man who is dedicated to working with those across the aisle from him, ready and willing to compromise.
Tears or not, we could all probably be nicer people by working with our opponents as Boehner seems ready to do.
Mike D. said "the whole thing was a set-up to get him to break down."
Wow, those CBS communists are clever devils!
Can you imagine the segment conference on that one?
"Okay, Leslie, you ask him about how hard life was for him growing up, and bingo! he cries! Then we destroy him!"
It's not that crying is a sign of masculine weakness, Mike D. It's that crying seems manipulative, kind of like Virginia Foxx tearing up on cue.
John Boehner, according to you, "is dedicated to working with those across the aisle." There is absolutely nothing in his recent past to suggest that, or do you have really good sources on Capitol Hill?
Mike D., I disagree with you more often than not, but I usually find your comments to be thoughtful. But this time you are way off target. The 60 Minutes interview was very fair, certainly not a "set-up."
And when you say Boehner "is dedicated to working with those across the aisle from him, ready and willing to compromise," I have to ask what planet you've been living on these past two years. He wouldn't even allow himself to use the word "compromise," insisting instead on seeking "common ground."
This man will soon be two heartbeats away from the Presidency. That makes me a little weepy!
So what if he didn't want to appear weak to his own party as he was brazenly proclaiming his intent to work with the opposing party? Tomayto, tomahto... we all know what he was indicating.
And personally, by the way, I don't think either party should put forth an emotional train wreck as its spokesperson. I'm just saying that you might want to embrace him as much as WataugaWatch can, when a bogeyman is what is what is usually sought in this forum. It's tempting to attack his weakness, but you could have a person totally unwilling to compromise. From that individual, you would get nothing you want, and a strong person who would be difficult to attack. And yet, WataugaWatch seems totally incapable of the compromise Boehner seems to possess.
Identify enemy. Find weakness. Exploit. Attack. Destroy. When one subscribes to purist partisan politics, as WataugaWatch does, there can be no other modus operandi, even though you and I, or Henery and I, might wish to seek common ground.
It wasn't I who was splitting hairs, MikeD. It was Boehner doing that. To the Speaker-elect, "common ground" means enacting whatever the Democrats are willing to cave on while "compromise" means saying NO to anything won't cave on. Unfortunately, Obama has been willing to cave on almost everything. Some pundits have said he tends to punt on first down, and that, sadly, seems to be true.
To Why Can't I be Anonymous, cite for me some recent examples of irrational discussion on WW. Just because you might disagree with the stated opinions doesn't make them irrational.
And to MikeD, please don't leave WW. No partisan side has all the answers, so imput here is quite valuable!
To Why Can't I be Anonymous, cite for me some recent examples of irrational discussion on WW. Just because you might disagree with the stated opinions doesn't make them irrational.
I will do you one better. I will cite you the fact dissenting opinions are censored and not posted on the site. It is much easier to argue if only one side is allowed to be told.
If you really want a case in point, go to any thread.
Screaming censorship in a comment posted on this supposedly "censored" site. I know you won't appreciate the irony, since you have no clue what irony is.
Let's see here: You come uninvited to a private party, insult the other guests, call the host a creep, and piss in the punch bowl ... and then get angry when you get thrown out the front door into a snow drift.
I don't understand why JWW lets ANY of you jerks on here at all, and you're on here ALL THE FREAKIN' TIME!
"Let's see here: You come uninvited to a private party, insult the other guests, call the host a creep, and piss in the punch bowl ... and then get angry when you get thrown out the front door into a snow drift." - Henery
Henery,
This is almost exactly what I told Johnny Rico when he complained about getting booted from this blog. On the other site, he complained that he had been censored, then banned from WataugaWatch, but he also indicated that getting banned was his desired outcome, so I asked him, "why complain if it's what you were trying to make happen?". If you go to a party and do everything you can to get kicked out of the party, don't complain when the host of the party accommodates your request!
Mike D., I guess I missed your earlier comment, but I'm perfectly glad to know that we agree on this, at least.
These people are like snipers, shooting from cover and hoping to kill, so they're by nature cowards. They're like the kids we all knew in school who wouldn't strike a blow in a schoolyard fight until their foe was down or had his back turned.
John Boehner tears up on 60 Minutes while confessing what a superior human being he is.
Boehner was an idiot to go on 60 Minutes. The interview began innocently enough, but it soon became apparent that the whole thing was a set-up to get him to break down. Has he never watched CBS before?
ReplyDeleteCBS's only concern, just like WataugaWatch's, is destroying anyone who steps into the role of the enemy, and Republican Speaker of the House is definitely the enemy.
The ironic thing is that even as 60 Minutes was hyper-focused on making Boehner cry to try to undermine him before he even starts the job, had they listened to what he was saying, they would have heard a man who is dedicated to working with those across the aisle from him, ready and willing to compromise.
Tears or not, we could all probably be nicer people by working with our opponents as Boehner seems ready to do.
Still, he was stupid to go on the show.
Mike D. said "the whole thing was a set-up to get him to break down."
ReplyDeleteWow, those CBS communists are clever devils!
Can you imagine the segment conference on that one?
"Okay, Leslie, you ask him about how hard life was for him growing up, and bingo! he cries! Then we destroy him!"
It's not that crying is a sign of masculine weakness, Mike D. It's that crying seems manipulative, kind of like Virginia Foxx tearing up on cue.
John Boehner, according to you, "is dedicated to working with those across the aisle." There is absolutely nothing in his recent past to suggest that, or do you have really good sources on Capitol Hill?
We'll believe it when we see it.
Mike D., I disagree with you more often than not, but I usually find your comments to be thoughtful. But this time you are way off target. The 60 Minutes interview was very fair, certainly not a "set-up."
ReplyDeleteAnd when you say Boehner "is dedicated to working with those across the aisle from him, ready and willing to compromise," I have to ask what planet you've been living on these past two years. He wouldn't even allow himself to use the word "compromise," insisting instead on seeking "common ground."
This man will soon be two heartbeats away from the Presidency. That makes me a little weepy!
"He wouldn't even allow himself to use the word "compromise," insisting instead on seeking "common ground.""
ReplyDeleteTo quote Monty Python, "If you're gonna split hairs, I'm gonna piss off". :)
So what if he didn't want to appear weak to his own party as he was brazenly proclaiming his intent to work with the opposing party? Tomayto, tomahto... we all know what he was indicating.
And personally, by the way, I don't think either party should put forth an emotional train wreck as its spokesperson. I'm just saying that you might want to embrace him as much as WataugaWatch can, when a bogeyman is what is what is usually sought in this forum. It's tempting to attack his weakness, but you could have a person totally unwilling to compromise. From that individual, you would get nothing you want, and a strong person who would be difficult to attack. And yet, WataugaWatch seems totally incapable of the compromise Boehner seems to possess.
Identify enemy. Find weakness. Exploit. Attack. Destroy. When one subscribes to purist partisan politics, as WataugaWatch does, there can be no other modus operandi, even though you and I, or Henery and I, might wish to seek common ground.
Mike - I have seen plenty of criticism of Democratic politicians on this website. What do you mean when you say partisan politics?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't I who was splitting hairs, MikeD. It was Boehner doing that. To the Speaker-elect, "common ground" means enacting whatever the Democrats are willing to cave on while "compromise" means saying NO to anything won't cave on. Unfortunately, Obama has been willing to cave on almost everything. Some pundits have said he tends to punt on first down, and that, sadly, seems to be true.
ReplyDeleteOk, guys. I get it. I apologize for reaching out.
ReplyDeleteI seek to slow the reckless partisan pendulum which has been gaining momentum of late. Perhaps I should pedal, and peddle, my message elsewhere.
Perhaps Mike, you just need to learn that this forum isn't here for the rational discussion of various ideas.
ReplyDeleteThis is a place where the frothers come to reinforce each other and to complain about how government doesn't do enough for them.
Think of it as a Wacko Support Group!
To Why Can't I be Anonymous, cite for me some recent examples of irrational discussion on WW. Just because you might disagree with the stated opinions doesn't make them irrational.
ReplyDeleteAnd to MikeD, please don't leave WW. No partisan side has all the answers, so imput here is quite valuable!
To Why Can't I be Anonymous, cite for me some recent examples of irrational discussion on WW. Just because you might disagree with the stated opinions doesn't make them irrational.
ReplyDeleteI will do you one better. I will cite you the fact dissenting opinions are censored and not posted on the site. It is much easier to argue if only one side is allowed to be told.
If you really want a case in point, go to any thread.
This is most amusing, "Truth Is Apparent":
ReplyDeleteScreaming censorship in a comment posted on this supposedly "censored" site. I know you won't appreciate the irony, since you have no clue what irony is.
Let's see here: You come uninvited to a private party, insult the other guests, call the host a creep, and piss in the punch bowl ... and then get angry when you get thrown out the front door into a snow drift.
I don't understand why JWW lets ANY of you jerks on here at all, and you're on here ALL THE FREAKIN' TIME!
"Let's see here: You come uninvited to a private party, insult the other guests, call the host a creep, and piss in the punch bowl ... and then get angry when you get thrown out the front door into a snow drift." - Henery
ReplyDeleteHenery,
This is almost exactly what I told Johnny Rico when he complained about getting booted from this blog. On the other site, he complained that he had been censored, then banned from WataugaWatch, but he also indicated that getting banned was his desired outcome, so I asked him, "why complain if it's what you were trying to make happen?". If you go to a party and do everything you can to get kicked out of the party, don't complain when the host of the party accommodates your request!
Mike D.,
ReplyDeleteI guess I missed your earlier comment, but I'm perfectly glad to know that we agree on this, at least.
These people are like snipers, shooting from cover and hoping to kill, so they're by nature cowards. They're like the kids we all knew in school who wouldn't strike a blow in a schoolyard fight until their foe was down or had his back turned.