Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Speaker Boehner: “We’re Broke!”

Speaker Boehner: “We’re Broke!”

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Senator Mitch McConnell, said Saturday, “The legislative agenda of Barack Obama is over,” an apparent reference to polls that show the 2010 elections were about smaller government.  Rasmussen polls, according to Scott Rasmussen, show that “The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.”  With Gallup reporting the unemployment rate is at 10.3 percent as of February 10, 2011, it is hard to imagine a more daunting task than making substantial cuts in government spending, while at the same time lowering the unemployment rate.

The Republicans made a campaign pledge to cut spending by $100 billion in this fiscal year. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Speaker Boehner whether the proposed Republican cuts in government spending were too much. Speaker John Boehner seemed genuinely surprised. “David, we’re broke,” he replied.

For most Americans,an announcement by the speaker of the House that the USA is broke, would be very big news. Sadly, it happens to millions of Americans every year: they go broke. When a person is broke, they tear up all their credit cards, begin selling available assets to raise extra cash, cut expenses to the bare necessities, and try to find extra ways to bring in more cash to get rid of debt. I have friends who have moved in with their parents to eliminate the cost of rent. When all else fails, they file for bankruptcy. That’s what happens to Americans when they are broke: they hang on to every dollar they can earn.

But, David Gregory seemed unfazed by Speaker Boehner’s answer. Referring to the disparity between the president’s proposed budget and that of the House of Representatives, he asked; “Is there a collision course here?” Speaker Boehner’s response could have been; “David, I just told you we are broke, do you not understand what that means?” Instead he gave a political response. “It’s time to cut spending,” the Speaker replied.

Finally David asked the predictable question, a reference to the government shut down in 1995, “If there is not a compromise on this, would you rule out a government shut down as an appropriate response?” Speaker Boehner responded, “David, our goal here is to reduce spending, our goal is not to shut down the government.”

What we have in Washington is a complete disconnect with the lives of ordinary working Americans. In Washington they speak a different language than the rest of society. Going broke is a cause for alarm as confirmed by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who said “Our rising debt levels (pose) a national security threat.” Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations also said “We’ve reached a point now where there’s an intimate link between our solvency and our national security.”

Anything that poses a threat to our national security should set off alarms through the halls of Congress and throughout the White House. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Speaker Boehner and Richard Haass have already answered David Gregory’s question. If the government is shut down, it will be because the national debt is beyond the government’s ability to pay. That’s why it poses a national security threat. 

In 2008, “Americans See 18% of Their Wealth Vanish.” In 2010 new home prices reached an all time low. Today, unemployment remains above 9% by any measure. My point is that Americans understand what it means to be broke, and the very mention of the possibility is absolutely terrifying to most people. Americans don’t sit around the kitchen and point blame at who is responsible for shutting down the home because there is no money to pay the rent or mortgage.

They do what they have always done for centuries, they take immediate action to get out of debt as quickly as humanly possible. CNN Money wrote; “As the recovery sputters, many people are working two jobs to make ends meet.”

The voters are ahead of the learning curve when it comes to the dangers of too much debt. The words “we’re broke” may not elevate to the highest priority level within the White House, but for voters who have to live with debt every day, the words, we’re broke, mean cutting expenses now, hanging on to every dollar earned, or otherwise lose everything we own.

Powered by

About DouglasWWallace

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    It’s a pleasure to read a realistic article talk about a realistic subject in a realistic way. The idiots in the American mainstream media are so rich, they have forgotten what “making ends meet” means. So, they lose credibility.

    Nu?

    What else is under new under the sun?

    I don’t know anything about this guy Boehner, and I don’t care what he thinks. I don’t live in America. I don’t have to. But he has my respect for at least having the balls to say “we’re broke”.

    Those of us who live overseas, under the thumb of small élites of families who take their orders from American corporate bosses are preparing for the day when your dollar loses its reserves status – and goes under altogether.

    A small sample of a meeting agenda….

    “A system to lower Israel’s cost of living: that eliminates the inflation- deflation effects of a fiat currency.”

    We all realize what toilet paper you Americans have turned paper money into. Buying silver or gold here is a task because NOBODY wants to sell. We all know exactly what a dollar is worth – nothing!

  • Roger B

    I think I perceive the republican plan here: when the reps are in office they run up tremendous debts, passing out tax gifts by the trillion to their rich friends, invading foreign countries, adding expensive doodads to the defense budget, and generally running up the deficits (“deficits don’t matter!” says Cheney) and dumping trillions into the national debt. You know, like Reagan and Bush. Then, when the democrats get in the republicans demand THEY fix the financial problems!

    Pretty cool strategy. If you’re a republican.

  • Richard E

    I think I perceive the Democratic plan here. When the Dems are in office they run up tremendous debts by passing legislaton before they read it. Pelosi: You have to pass it before we know what’s in it. Dem strategy is to fist pass out tax gifts by the trillions, then afterward try to figure out who owes them a favor. Dems hate invading foreign countries, but absolutely adore President Bush’s surge strategy so much, they used it in Afganistan. Dem’s want Guantanamo closed, except when a Dem is President. Dems add expensive doodads for unions, lobbyist, and political donors, and specifically run up the deficit to the point it equals the entire USA economy, dumping trillions in additonal future liability, virtually destroying the USA credit rating. You know, like Jimmy Carter in the 70’s, 18$ interest rate, long gas lines, lack of respect for USA diplomats, embassy employees humiliated in front of the world on public television, and a failed military rescue that added humiliation upon shame. Then, when the Republicans, like Reagan, came into office, the embassy hostages are released in a matter of hours without a war. Republicans know how to run a country, whereas Dems know how to run it down. Pretty cool if you are a Republican.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Richard E –

    Exactly how big was the deficit when Clinton handed the White House over to Dubya? Oh, I forgot! It was a SURPLUS! And we were on track to pay off our ENTIRE national debt in ten years! And what happened to that surplus? It went away in the very first budget that Dubya submitted, didn’t it?

    Yes, it did. And then came the tax cuts, the two wars (one of which was quite illegal and based on a lie), and Medicare Part D, EACH of which cost more than the stimulus that pulled us out of Bush’s Great Recession, and NONE of which were paid for except by borrowing more money from our grandchildren.

    And when it came to Reagan, if you’d do some actual RESEARCH, you’d find that he (and Bushes I and II) exploded the deficit FAR more than any Democrats have since FDR (who had this little thing called WWII to fight).

  • kurt brigliadora

    Dems, republicans…I was currently told the two party system was over. That our Gov’nt reps take office -to serve their own agenda and build up their “stock”… So that when and if they leave,they get book deals or give speeches for big bucks or get a big paying job from a company they “helped” during their term. So you asked who created this mess? lol) Its simply par for the course, food, insurance premiums, price of gas; has been rising for the past thirty years. What will you say when gasoline hits five dollars per gallon in the northeast?

  • Richard E

    Glen C, exactly who was in charge of congress when Clinton balanced the budget? Oh,I forgot, it was the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi,who was Speaker under Bush’s last years, ran up over 5 trillion in debt from the time she became Speaker to the time she left. In case you aren’t aware, all spending and revenue bills must originate out of the House of Representatives. Oh I forgot, you are a liberal. Of course you wouldn’t know that. As for the Great One, President Reagan, President Obama and Dem leaderships are currently going out of their way to claim him as one of their own. Perhaps you should take that argument up with your fellow libs.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, I see – Congress gets all the credit, huh? So answer this ONE question: if the Republican congress during the last six years of the Clinton administration gets the credit for the surplus, then exactly why is it that as soon as we had a Republican president – Dubya – WITH a completely Republican-controlled Congress, the surplus went bye-bye and we suddenly had record-breaking deficits?

    “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” Dick Cheney said that, guy – and all your tap-dancing about what you THINK happened can’t changed what DID happen.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Shut Down The Government!!!! I think that is a splendid idea, probably the best idea I’ve heard!!!!!

    As far as your article, which supposes that the ordinary person can be compared to the gov’t, you are naive (imo). The ordinary person cannot print money, nor can they afford to finance anything like the individual equivalent of two wars. Lastly, businesses, who have limited their accountability, are allowed, almost required, to be extravagant where individuals (who are actually the ones who sustain the economy) are chastised and made into ‘whipping boys’ for the same behavior business engages in as standard reasonable practice.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Why are poor people morally condemned for practices that businesses consider excellent business practice?

  • Richard E

    G.C. What would you do if you were President and nine months into office our nation suffered the worst attack from a foreign enemy upon Ameerican soil in the history of this nation? Thousands of Americans were murdered by a known enemy. Let me give you a hint. You go to war. Wars cost money. President Obama has been in office for two years. He promised we would be out of Iraq. Never happened. He pronmised we would be out of Afganistan. Never happened. He promised he would close Guantanamo. Never happened. He promised civilian trials for terrorists. After one disasterous trial, that idea went out the window. Presidential candidates promise many things on the campaign trail, but once they get elected into office and receive the daily CIA briefings, they have an AHA moment. President Obama had his AHA moment, and that is why he is pursuing the same wars as Bush, and pursuing the same strategy as Bush, and talking about the same nationsal security threats as Bush. And, since he has been in office, the attacks and threats of attacks continue. So not much has changed, has it?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    What would you do if you were President and nine months into office our nation suffered the worst attack from a foreign enemy upon Ameerican soil in the history of this nation?

    Well, I might start by reflecting that more Americans died in the War of Independence, the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War than died on 9/11, but that’s just me.

    Let me give you a hint. You go to war. Wars cost money.

    So why start two of them? Surely one would have sufficed?

    He promised we would be out of Iraq. Never happened.

    Wrong.

    He pronmised we would be out of Afganistan. Never happened.

    Since he never ‘pronmised’ this, it’s hardly surprising that it never happened.

    He promised he would close Guantanamo. Never happened.

    Not because his will is lacking, but because Congress doesn’t want him to. Accusing him of U-turning on this is a bit like refusing to give your neighbor a house key and then complaining that he didn’t feed your dog while you were on vacation.

    He promised civilian trials for terrorists.

    When? I recall a promise to rethink the system of ‘military tribunals’ for them, but that’s about it.

    Presidential candidates promise many things on the campaign trail, but once they get elected into office and receive the daily CIA briefings, they have an AHA moment.

    This is probably true, but you’ve picked some damn poor illustrations.

  • Richard E

    D.D. Really? Are you serious? If you were President, you would “reflect” while our country was under attack? That has to be the classic liberal response of all time. Maybe flashing a peace sign would work for you, but it won’t win any battles and it would put a lot of soldiers in harm’s way. Which is why President Obama chose to use Bush’s “surge” strategy in Afganistan. Speaking of Afganistan, watch candidate Obama tell Americans troops will be out of Afganistan, and “they can take that to the bank”. As for pulling out of Iraq, listen, watch and weap agina,as Democratic candidate ObamA promises to take soldiers out of Iraq. I suggest you do your research while you are “reflecting.” As to closing Guantanamo, you agree with me, so what’s the problem? You can make all the excuses you want, but the truth is, he broke his promise. Obama campaigned on a promise to conduct civilian trials. Don’t believe me? Well,instead of reflecting on it, you can read the full story. As to your efforts to discredit my point, I can’t resist the sweet temptation of quoting you: “You’ve picked some damn poor illustrations.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If you were President, you would “reflect” while our country was under attack?

    Like I said, that’s just me. Or maybe it’s not. President Bush reflected at least long enough to resist aiming the missiles at the first Arab country that came to mind and pushing the nice big shiny red button.

    Nice evasion of my point, though.

    Speaking of Afganistan, watch candidate Obama tell Americans troops will be out of Afganistan, and “they can take that to the bank”.

    He was talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    watch and weap agina,as Democratic candidate ObamA promises to take soldiers out of Iraq.

    And as I said, American troops are no longer conducting combat operations in Iraq, which was the campaign promise.

    Obama campaigned on a promise to conduct civilian trials. Don’t believe me? Well,instead of reflecting on it, you can read the full story.

    I suggest you read the full story as well, instead of just cherry-picking. If you did, you would know that civilian trials were only one of the options on the table. They were never presented as the be-all and end-all.

    And since there have been civilian trials, isn’t that a promise fulfilled, regardless of the outcome?

  • Boeke

    #6 Richard E: “Nancy Pelosi,who was Speaker under Bush’s last years, ran up over 5 trillion in debt from the time she became Speaker to the time she left.”

    Big Claims demand Big Proofs.

    Actually, the $7trillion debt overhang from the Bush years was caused by the unfinanced wars and big tax gifts to the rich. Oh, and handouts to Big Pharma.

  • Richard E

    D.D. It’s been a fun exercise but all good thngs must come to an end. You gave it your best shot, and a good one at that, at least for a lib. Bottom line, libs will defend a Dem even if it contradicts the truth and their most sacred values. Your last sentence says it all. You accept one embarrasing terrorist trial as a sliver of truth in Obama’s promise, regardless of the “outcome.” So that’s the standard by which we judge the truth? You accept prisoners in Guantanamo because that’s the fault of Congress? Don’t you think President Obama should have checked out his authority before he made the promise? . You accept American troops in Iraq, who remain in harm’s way, as a promised kept. For your informaton, those soldiers in Iraq are receiving “combat pay,” which means the military classifies them as combat soldiers. You accept a surge strategy in Afganistan as a promised kept, even though we both know that the surge means he will break his promise to have all combat soldiers out of Afganistan by July 1, 2011. The “outcome” is important which is why KSM will never be tried on American soil, despite what President Obama’s attorney general promised. Guantanamo will not be closed, despite what President Obama promised. And, when President Obama completes his term of office, we will still be in combat zones in Iraq and Afganistan. It’s like I said before: Not much has changed since Bush, has it? Peace Out

  • Boeke

    #10 Richard E: “What would you do if you were President and nine months into office our nation suffered the worst attack from a foreign enemy upon American soil in the history of this nation?”

    At last! A rhetorical question worth answering!

    I’ll tell you what I’d have done as an experienced manager (which GWB was NOT)!

    1-I’d have been down on Condoleesa Rices ass saying:

    “where the hell were you? Why did you ignore the intelligence report last month that said OBL was determined to attack?”

    “Why did you ignore 6 intelligence reports saying highjacked airliners could be used as bombs?”

    “Why did you say that Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat than OBL”?

    “Were you just too busy setting up sweetheart jobs in the NSA for your pals?”

    “You’re fired! Clean out your desk and turn in your badge”!

    This is nothing more than what happens every day in industry.

    2-Then I’d go down to the Department of Defense and call the Joint Chiefs together, and say:

    “The DoD was TOTALLY DEFECTIVE today! You guys have failed the test. All this time you’ve demanded bigger and better and shinier boats and jets, and you had NOTHING to respond to this act by a bunch of nitwits! A troop of girl scouts could have done the highjackings!”

    “You’re fired! I’m going to recommend to congress that we cut DoD spending by 50% and put some money into airline security, even if it means putting security agents at every airport, no matter the protestations of the carriers, whining about losing money!”

    Then, I’d have gone on TV (commandeering the time, in case the networks protested that they couldn’t interfere with their precious broadcasts for fear of offending advertisers) and said:

    “A group of crazies hijacked airplanes and bombed the WTC today and I think we should drag them before a US court and prosecute them for their crimes, but the Aghan government won’t give them up without a lot of BS so I think we should just invade and grab OBL and his crowd and then get the hell out. We can have it done in 2 weeks. Let the Afghans go their own way. Tell your congressman what YOU want and we’ll decide at the end of the week.”

    I’ve worked in a lot of companies in my day, and the foregoing is the kind of response I’d expect from a good executive.

  • Richard E

    Boeke,
    I’m sorry. I forgot you were there. You may go now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    It’s been a fun exercise but all good thngs must come to an end.

    Or perhaps you just realized that your appalling lack of critical thinking wasn’t getting you anywhere.

    You gave it your best shot, and a good one at that, at least for a lib.

    Gee, thanks, teacher. Do I get an apple?

    Bottom line, libs will defend a Dem even if it contradicts the truth and their most sacred values.

    Richard, I wonder if you even see the irony in that sentence. For one thing, you were doing exactly what you accuse “Dems” of in your exchange with Glenn earlier. For you, anything bad that happens is automatically the fault of Democrats and anything good is to be credited exclusively to Republicans. If good things (like a balanced budget) happen under a Democrat president’s watch, why, it’s entirely because he had a Republican-controlled Congress. If bad things (like a massive deficit) happen during a GOP administration, well, bless me if there didn’t just happen to be extenuating circumstances which meant that the noble, fiscally responsible Prez had no alternative but to blow all that cash.

    You’re a living example of confirmation bias: eager to give the benefit of the doubt to your side, but utterly unwilling to offer your political opponents the same courtesy.

    To cap it all, you assume without any evidence whatsoever that I’m a Democrat supporter. You actually don’t even know if I’m a liberal.

    You accept one embarrasing terrorist trial as a sliver of truth in Obama’s promise, regardless of the “outcome.”

    And you’ve already tried, convicted and executed the prisoner in your own mind. Imagine there’s a serial killer on the rampage in your county. A certain Bill Johnson is suspected of the crimes. The district attorney promises to catch the man and bring him to justice. Johnson is subsequently arrested, charged and brought to trial.

    He is acquitted by a jury of his peers.

    Has the DA broken his promise?

    You accept prisoners in Guantanamo because that’s the fault of Congress? Don’t you think President Obama should have checked out his authority before he made the promise?

    I could have sworn there was a pair of goalposts here a moment ago. Your charge was that Candidate Obama had promised to close Guantanamo and later, as President Obama with inside information, realized it wouldn’t be a good idea. Now, apparently, it’s because he didn’t check his constitutional authority. Make up your mind. Oh wait, you already did.

    You accept American troops in Iraq, who remain in harm’s way, as a promised kept. For your informaton, those soldiers in Iraq are receiving “combat pay,” which means the military classifies them as combat soldiers.

    Those darn goalposts have moved again, just when I’d tracked ‘em down! I pointed out to you that American troops were no longer engaged in combat operations in Iraq, which is true. They can observe, but only if the Iraqi forces ask them to. Otherwise they’re pretty much confined to base. Now, apparently, receiving combat pay means that they are actually in combat…

    the surge means he will break his promise to have all combat soldiers out of Afganistan by July 1, 2011.

    And here we go again. I don’t recall Obama saying in October 2007 that he would have troops out of Afghanistan by July 2011.

    But now that you bring it up, the undertaking (given in December 2009, BTW, not during the campaign) was to begin the withdrawal in July ’11, not to have all troops out by then.

    In short, I address specific promises that you accuse Obama of breaking and you bring up new ones.

    We get folks like you a lot here at Blogcritics. You convince yourselves that your arguments are watertight because you constantly switch out one talking point for another and refuse to recognize when one of your claims has been refuted. This, in your mind, is justified because you are Right.

  • Richard E

    D.D. Oh my! Excessive use of adjectives is the final stage of OCD. You may go now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You may go now.

    Is that Republican for “la-la-la-la-la-I’m-not-listening”?

  • Richard E

    D.D. No, no. It just means that you lost my interest. You don’t have enough confidence in your own political beliefs to be assertive–to admit you are a Lib, so why should I bother? We get folks like you a lot here at BlogCritics and it’s always the same result. Using your afflictions as an example; “your interminable ranting, and uncontrollable,excesively compulsive quest for respect, and impetuous desire for a greater sense of self-worth, compels you to labor outlandishly, struggling to find the right adjectives that penetrates. At the end of the day, it’s not about politcs at all. It is all about self-aggrandizement, which is why you deliberately avoid calling yourself a Lib. Now, my OCD friend, you must go away and leave me in peace. I’ll not visit this URL again, so feel free to talk to yourself.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Oh, the irony.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Don’t leave, Richard. We need Republicans with convictions. Besides, one sparrow doesn’t a spring make. I, for one, am not a liberal, I can proudly say. I’m an anarchist, so stick around if you can. You’ll find this site more interesting than most. It’s really a big tent.

  • Boeke

    Richard E may safely be ignored as a partisan whose mind is closed and who never presents a logical argument, let alone pertinent facts. In other words, just a partisan with a bag full of cant.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    No disrespect intended, Boeki, but I find the liberal mind equally closed. It’s a truly glorious stalemate.

  • Richard E

    Roger, you inspired me to make one more visit to this site. I wish we could have a truly glorious stalemate, but that’s not going to happen, so you won’t get that chance for anarchy. Libs are too weak, too few, and too splintered. Their days are numbered. As state’s buckle under the burden of debt, you might get a taste of anarchy as public employees are forced to play by the same rules as the rest of society. They’ll put a brief fight, but that will last about as long as the Air Traffic Controller’s fight with President Reagan. Ah, memories of the good ole days. I have traveled around the world, met many people from all classes and races, and I have yet to meet a lib who wasn’t dumbstruck by their own dumbness when socializing with a conservative. I do wish someone would entertain Boeke. Poor chap, just can’t get any respect.

  • Boeke

    Patronize much? Condescend much?

    Too bad I’m not a ‘lib’, I know how much you need that to scorn people.

    Maybe if you offered an actual argument, logically presented, and with facts to back it up, you’d find a better audience here. But as it is, you’re just another windbag.

    It must be frustrating to be Richard E.

  • Boeke

    Your unintended disrespect is wasted Roger: I’m not a liberal.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    ( never said you were.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    The comments by “Mary F” and “Jules” were made from the same IP address as Richard E. Given that raises some questions as to their origin and purpose and did no more than agree with him, they have been deleted.

    Christopher Rose
    Blogcritics Comments Editor

  • El Bicho

    No surprise Richard had to make up people that were impressed by his posts

  • Richard E

    Those deleted comments were ligitmate comments from friends at my home last night. Obviously any comment made by them on their laptops, not mine, would contain the same IP address. And, of course they agreed with me. We conservatives tend not to hang out with Libs. I understand BlogCritic’s editors has the right to do what they did, so I accept their right to delete the comments of my friends. But,it doesn’t mean those comments were not valid. I wonder if the Blogcritics editors have ever done the same thing when a liberal has multiple family members in a home who use the same computer, or friends gathered together in the same home and using the same computer. In my case, my friends used a Mac laptop whereas I use a windows laptop. Judging from the number of libs making comments on this site, it seems odd that my friend’s conservative voices were published and then deleted. Given that only 20% of voters consider themselves liberals, and the majority consider themselves at least somewhat conservative, this site enables comments disportionate to the voter population. That’s okay, I have no problem with it. But, my voice, my opinions, and my comments remain, so deal with it libs.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I wonder if the Blogcritics editors have ever done the same thing when a liberal has multiple family members in a home who use the same computer, or friends gathered together in the same home and using the same computer.

    Yes, Richard, we have. (I’m the assistant comments editor here.) It’s often difficult to tell if a different person is commenting from the same location, and one commenter pretending to be multiple individuals in order to make his or her position seem more popular is a very old trick.

    There are some other semi-legitimate reasons for changing one’s Blogcritics handle. Some of us occasionally do so as a joke, and of course there was the incident the other day when a couple of site users decided to try posting under different names because they thought their original ones were blocked. (It was actually a technical issue affecting all comments.)

    I wasn’t around when the comments in question were posted, but if, as Chris says, all they were doing was agree with you in toto, I can see why he didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Also, as a personal observation, I have to wonder why, if your friends are indeed of the exact same mindset, they couldn’t just leave the arguing to you.

  • El Bicho

    Why are you arguing on BC if you have friends over? Sounds like you make for a lame host

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    To the contrary, a roomful of friends cheering you on as you collectively make fools of Roger Nowosielski, Christopher Rose and Dr Dreadful makes for rousing good fun. And it’s so easy, even young children can join in!

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I find that a surprising remark, Alan. By my count you have only ever made a fool of one person…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    You can count? Who knew!

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    The more educated part of you knows many things, Alan; unfortunately we more often see your inner churl, which knows very little and is unable to learn.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    I don’t come in parts. I am one complete learning-disabled churl.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Yet I have read and enjoyed, even learned from, articles and comments you have written that were entirely churl-free.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    I’m deeply disappointed that you ever enjoyed anything I wrote. That was the farthest thing from my mind.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Life is full of disappointments, Alan, but it is how one deals with them that matters.

  • Clavos

    Nifty little exchange, boys!

    Score so far: Chris – 1; Al – 0.

    Tipping the balance: Chris’ wit vs Al’s childishness.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Since I’ve just been included in this exclusive club of people who are routinely made fool of, I may as well apply for the position as the site’s third censor. I can think of no better qualification than the one Alan, albeit begrudgingly, has just given me. In return, I promise to live up to all the responsibilities and duties that come with the office.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Having Clavos keep score (#43) is like having Bernie Madoff keep the books. Not exactly the epitome of trustworthiness.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    A crooked accountant, you say?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I’d trust Clavos with my life before I’d trust Alan Kurtz with a sentence…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Then you’d make a good mark for Bernie Madoff.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    And the scorekeeper should take into account that my sharpest rejoinders are invariably deleted by my opponent. Something of an unfair advantage, wouldn’t you say?