By Kyle Frazier
Round Table editor-in-chief
The political cycle continues in this 2010 election year. An 800-pound elephant is in the room; that is to say, the Grand Old Party has taken back the U.S. House of Representatives. Hide your kids, hide your wife because Congress is not going to get anything done.
The teabaggers and other conservatives are in euphoria because of the recent election. However, they fail to recognize the Gridlock that is going to occur in a matter of no time at all, because President Obama will veto a good majority of what the GOP tries to pass.
In effect, although it didn’t seem possible, the U.S. government is even more inefficient.
Although there is a slight chance that Obama will learn to compromise and the conservative House will be willing to compromise with open minds, both of these would only occur in a perfect world. Perfection is often impossible, but, hopefully, the stubborn leaders of the two parties can find some common ground and will compromise.
Compromise, however, may be difficult with the stubborn ignoramus the GOP has selected for the Speaker of the House, Florida Sen. John Boehner.
This grunt’s first declaration was to “repeal this monstrosity” (in reference to the health care bill). After hearing this, one must ask which insurance agency is behind his attacking position.
Obama has actually agreed to tweak the bill to help some businesses as has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.). The Republicans cannot expect to win this fight. Making changes to the bill may fly, but the entire repeal would be out of the question.
There are extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum (i.e. television commentators Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann) and both of them are probably in a big fit about the recent elections, but rest assured, nothing is going to change for better or worse. Well, maybe worse, but still the gap between liberals and conservatives will not allow work to be done as it has this entire decade.
Captain Sandwich? • Jun 22, 2011 at 3:26 am
No, it wasn’t. You know you’re wrong. You are stretching the use of the word so thin.
Boehner does “routine, unglamorous work”, then? Really. Have you seen the Capitol Building? Have you seen him playing golf with President Obama? Have you seen his suits? His salary? What about that isn’t glamorous? As for routine, well…the word grunt does not mean someone who simply does “routine work.” That could describe any job.
Grunt will always be meant to describe someone in a lower position; a peon. Stop trying to defend the word’s use. You failed to explain in any way how Boehner’s job fits that description.
As for the use of ignoramus:
President Obama is a loser.
There’s my opinion article on Obama’s health care bill. Problem? Why? Perhaps it is a bit immature and contributes nothing to the article? Of course people are free to use words like ignoramus and loser, but I’m also free to criticize the use of them.
It’s obvious you’re only being so stubborn (appropriate use of the word, since you REFUSE to admit that you’re wrong) because you agree with the content of the article. I don’t get it, frankly.
A bit late, I guess.
blitheone • Dec 2, 2010 at 8:47 am
@Captain: re–‘Even if he was writing about something CLEARLY making Boehner an ignoramus, he shouldn’t literally write the word, but let the readers judge for themselves.’ The writer’s use of the word ‘ignoramus’ is appropriate as it is the opinion of the writer being expressed in an OPINION BLOG. Some readers will agree with this assessment, some will not. It seems absolutely ridiculous that you are complaining about a writer stating his opinion in an OPINION BLOG…isn’t that the point? Also, the use of the word ‘grunt’ may seem confusing if you are focused only on the word used in the context of military ranking…however, the word is also used to described ‘one who does routine, unglamorous work’…again, this was an appropriate use of the word in the opinion of the writer.
Quack • Dec 1, 2010 at 8:33 am
No, you’re wrong.
Captain Sandwich? • Nov 24, 2010 at 2:19 pm
So I’m right.
Grammar Wars • Nov 23, 2010 at 8:26 am
I am an English teacher, and would like to update the commenter “No/Captain Sandwich” on the state of grammatics. If “Seriously?” was using the word “your” in a possessive way, he spelled it correctly. As we all know, the conjunction of you and are are joined with an apostrophe to create the word “you’re,” which is used descriptively. The sentence “I love your insulting of Kyle’s opinion,” is in no way incorrect.
a person • Nov 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm
the comments are funny. plus, it’s funny how no one is debating on the opposing side, the republican’s view. it’s titled, republicans bringing down the house or something. debate on that, kyle did a good job. be nice.
No • Nov 16, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Well first, you used the wrong kind of “your” (just for future reference). I’ll also forewarn you about my parentheses. If you read all of this then you will likely notice that I think that they’re awesome.
Second, I wasn’t insulting his opinion, I was criticizing the way he expressed it. Obviously he’s free to write what he wants, but insulting a politician for no reason (other than being of the opposite party, obviously) will prevent the article from really being taken seriously. I did not mean to insult him in any way, and if I did then I apologize. You should have taken notice of the word baselessly (which spell-check insists is not a word, but I assure you, it is). My comment was not baseless. I gave my reasoning for it, and it wasn’t even an insult. Even if he was writing about something CLEARLY making Boehner an ignoramus, he shouldn’t literally write the word, but let the readers judge for themselves. Calling him stubborn isn’t as bad because there is a reason for it (although the reason is not in the article, it’s relatively obvious that he’s referring to the Republicans’ unwillingness to cooperate with President Obama).
As for the comment about the use of the word “grunt”, I was just a bit confused. Maybe there’s something about the word that I don’t understand, but I consider Boehner to be of a slightly higher rank than “grunt”.
Also, my name doesn’t matter. This is the comments section. Look at yours anyway. If you want to be taken “seriously”, then at least end your name with an exclamation mark or something. A question mark makes you completely unreliable (do you get the irony? This is a joke that I must point out so that you don’t point it out yourself and think that you’ve “got me”). Though I’d appreciate it if you’d use the question mark when writing my name next time (unless you reply to this, in which case you can call me No, sans question mark, or really anything you want). I apologize for angering you, Seriously?
P.S.
It’s kind of mean of you say that you love that I insulted him. You should try to be more thoughtful.
P.S.S.
If you actually read this, then I apologize for the length of it and I thank you for doing so.
Seriously? • Nov 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
I love your insulting of Kyle’s opinion. I feel like you have a ton of credibility, being a person who proclaims their opinion under the pseudonym “Captain Sandwich.”
Captain Sandwich? • Nov 12, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I have two questions:
1. Are you aware that most presidents are elected with congresses of the opposite party? Having the Presidency and the two houses of congress in the hands of the same party was out of the ordinary.
2. Why is John Boehner a “grunt”? He’s going to be the highest ranking Republican soon. Though I liked the way you called him an ignoramus.It really lends credibility to your opinion when you insult a politician so baselessly.
Though I must commend you on the Antoine Dodson reference.
blitheone • Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 am
Well said, sir…well said!