#1 2010-05-19 22:36:11

I have said before and I will say again, Bobo is the biggest moron on earth. Yes, this is solely my opinion but I do believe many on this site could make a case for him winning the prize. Now I understand many of you have chosen to ignore him. But really, it is downright funny. His new "hit" piece, like anyone cares what Bobo says, is about the Swifts Beach article and whether Mr. Cruz will stay true to his supporters (who Bobo claims supported the previous Board) by voting against the Article or whether Cruz will vote with Mr. Holmes and Mrs. Winslow (I have to ask, how does Bobo know how they will vote?):

"This whole thing has become a very sad joke. It’s one thing for 235 Town Meeting voters to invoke the notion of democracy while deciding to limit the number of people who can vote on an issue; this is something else entirely. Town Meeting voters decided to put a DEED RESTRICTION on the property in 2007 to prevent this nonsense from every happening again. That decision has been completely ignored by the powers that be in Wareham."

Um Bobo, the "powers that be" since 2007 has been the very people you love so much (you know the Bruce, Brenda, Jane crowd?). For the record, they and only they are responsible for this. I would tell you to fuck off but then I might be accused of using potty language!

Offline

 

#2 2010-05-19 22:44:27

Bobo...maybe you should say there's a giant shark off Swift's Beach...so we shouldn't look at what we should do with it..

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!


TBW
P-SPAN

Offline

 

#3 2010-05-20 00:18:15

As predicted by the Ham of Peace, Cruz apparently had a disagreement or two with the former dictatorship, and that has caused Bobo to go throw a hissy fit.

Offline

 

#4 2010-05-20 07:45:35

P-Span...THE MAN!!

Offline

 

#5 2010-05-20 07:55:44

We are going to have to get it through our heads: Nobody is going to own Walter Cruz. Not Jane. Not Brenda. Not Cara. Not Steve. Nobody.

He is never going to get sucked into the pettiness of voting for or against an issue because of liking or not liking the issue's proponents.  To illustrate: I voted against The Mayor Article not just in small part because I thought its most vocal advocate was/is the south end of a horse headed north.  Walter, a better man than I am, voted against it because he didn't think it was right for Wareham. Period.

And don't forget that Walter was a serious amateur golden gloves boxer, both here in Wareham and while he served in the Army...long enough for the strategies of that sport to become a metaphor for the way he approaches   life : train hard, study your opponent, don't be cocky, protect yourself, don't listen to the crowd, be fearless when you see that the moment is right, be humble and respectful even while you're being tough.  That's Walter.     It doesn't surprise me one teeny bit when he sides with Cara and/or Steve. He listens to them with respect for their knowledge without feeling threatened.    He "duked it out" with Cara in the 2009 election, but "after the bell" and ever since, he has been a respectful friend. Nevertheless, he's not going to agree with her every time.

One more thing: Nobody up there on Tuesday nights is more approachable than Walter. If you ever have a beef with the way he votes , call him up and have an exchange. He wants that.  It's obvious that he's having more fun now than was possible last year.  Why? Because it's hard to have fun when you're surrounded by people who have chips on their shoulders. "Two down; two more to go !"

And make no mistake about it folks, the two people I'm talking about are going to be hard to dislodge.  Every move they make  from here on will be motivated buy their desire to garner votes for the April 5, 2011, election, and we'd be wise to stop celebrating about our successes and do the political equivalent of heading for the gym.

Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2010-05-20 07:57:51)

Offline

 

#6 2010-05-20 08:46:47

I've never seen someone so "us against them, you're with us or you're against us" as Bobo.  Cruz has sided with them more often than not, has backed them more often than not, but once or twice he doesn't vote in lockstep with them and Bobo throws a fit.  Tow the line - tow it not 98 percent or 99 percent - tow it 100 percent, don't deviate even in the slightest or Bobo goes bonkers.

All of the support Cruz has given them in the past doesn't matter to Bobo.  Cruz has, God forbid, disagreed with the Hypocrite Elite, and so now Bobo will do everything he can to destroy the man.

I hope Cruz's supporters are taking notice of the bashing he is getting from Bobo, the Out of Town Spokesman of the Hypocrite Elite.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-05-20 08:52:33)

Offline

 

#7 2010-05-20 09:15:07

The Cream Cheese Consumer wrote:

Yes, it’s fair to ask why he can’t see through all this. It’s no secret he didn’t get along particularly well with former selectman Bruce Sauvageau, who can be blunt to a fault. But the issue here shouldn't be who strokes his ego the most. It should be about what’s in the best interest of the town.

Ohhhhh, now we finally see what this is all about.  Cruz disagreed with Sweet Brucey, and THAT, in the eyes of the Barracuda Boy is considered an unforgivable crime against humanity.  It doesn't matter how many times Cruz has helped them in the past - he disagreed with Sweet Brucey, so now he faces the wrath of Sweet Brucey's lackey.

Oh and Bobo, you complaining about someone else's ego will always be funny.

Offline

 

#8 2010-05-20 11:17:14

You know those often corny ,but occasionally cogent ,observations that begin, "There are two kinds of people in the world: there are those...."   Well, here's another one:

There are two kinds of people in the world: there are people who are givers , and there are people who are takers.

Now look in the rear view mirror at last year's BOS.  Four takers and just one giver.  Walter Cruz ran for Selectman not as the pawn for any individual or group, but because he felt fortunate to have been successful in his own life and wanted to give back to his town.  He is totally without ulterior motives. Then take the others...one by one..... Case closed.

The fact that we have one of those "takers " writing a weekly column for a publishing company that is staring at Chapter 11 and can't afford to pay someone who has the reputation, at least, as a person who, when asked to do something ,rubs his thumb against his first two  fingers and winks.

Where, to put it bluntly, is the payola?

That brings me back to my Westfied Opinion. About three months ago The Rag Man announced/admitted that The Observer was a publication that championed opinions. That cleared him from any possible legal charges later on if it could be shown that he took money from sources that wanted him to push an opinion favorable to the donor.  This is not an accusation of a crime; it is no more or less than a possible explanation of something that otherwise doesn't make sense.  "If you two guys will keep pushing the Westfield Project, we'll help you with your bills."  It doesn't even have to be "under the table."

Nothing illegal, but it just makes you wonder how sincere they are when they talk about affordable housing for seniors and then run rough shod over the  provable desire of the  original Westfield  donors to have  recreation be the number one priority for the property.  Just an opinion.......

Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2010-05-20 11:19:33)

Offline

 

#9 2010-05-20 12:04:47

I was wondering if anyone else saw the similarities between Swifts beach and Westfield. Bruce and Bobo want you to vote it down and put it to rest. They want to keep Westfield alive and not allow it to die. Each is a parcel of land but only one will block Bruces view. One is reserved for future generations and the other is a misquito breeding ground. It was the desire of the former owners of Westfield that the property be used for a possible school or recreation by future generations. It was the desire of the former owner of Swifts Beach to develop the property for recreational use by future generations. Bruce wants to ignore the wishes of both former owners for different reasons. He wants to develop Westfield for reasons unknown and he wants to block any development at Swifts Beach that would ruin his view. There is a reason he didn't do well in the last election and there is a reason he is writing a column in a dying newspaper. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Offline

 

#10 2010-05-20 13:50:12

Good points, Dick and Mayor.
I saw the former Chairman's house when I was at Swifts Beach a few weeks ago.
He has a decent view, but the property is in disrepair and probably isn't worth a lot. Not $180,000.00 at least.
In my opinion.

Offline

 

#11 2010-05-20 20:09:08

Each person stands for his or her actions/behavior every time there is an opportunity to act. It's philosophically pure.   So Slager gets a chance every five minutes, and it's not an impressive record. But, even he gets a chance.

Offline

 

#12 2010-05-20 20:27:10

P.S.  Mr. Cruz probably doesn't read that garbage paper. He has better things to do.

Offline

 

#13 2010-05-20 21:58:01

tmvoter wrote:

P.S.  Mr. Cruz probably doesn't read that garbage paper. He has better things to do.

yeah, Slager is an a-hole.  He thinks he's so perfect and knowledgeable.  I just read his interview with Ana Miranda from the school department.  Mostly, I just read her responses and skipped over his questions.  He showed his true arrogance and ignorance when he continued to refer to Dr. Rabinovitch as Mr. Rabinovitch even after Ana referred to him as Dr.  Either he wasn't really listening to what she had to say or he simply is incapable of showing anyone any respect.

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com