nc

I have a sneaky feeling Whoopi is not easy.

Drink!

You're as easy as Whoopi.

The facts don't bear that last part out. You should read the transcript. The host clearly tried...twice...to ask a question. The guest refused to answer.

I think you were right the first time. The guest "played" (your word) the interviewers. By definition, she was dishonest.

Dishonestly, the producers invited Pirro to the show with the premise of promoting her book but with the intent of promoting discourse to feed the show's base...if you're unfamiliar, this is the modus operandi of the show.

It was clearly staged but didn't follow the intended course.

But in the end, a win-win. Whoopi gets some much needed attention, although negative. Pirro gets promotion for her book.

Her behavior was blatantly dishonest. You spelled it out, I agreed. I think you did a magnificent job describing her actions. She "played" someone.

I'm simply agreeing with your premise. Did you not mean to use words that were rooted in dishonesty?

You are diverting, deflecting, and I am sorry, being dishonest, as well.

You don't have to be this way.

Let intelligence be your guide.

Break away from the pack.

The host specifically asked a question about the book that the guest ignored. She specifically wanted to talk about the book, and the guest refused.

As you have stated prior, instead the guest decided to "play" the host.

Dishonesty.

It's your own words, glitter. I'm simply following your lead.

It was dishonest. Lol...he point of the interview was to talk about her book, just like other guests on book tours do when they come to the show. But the panel and hostess didn't want to talk about the book. They were deflecting and creating a sideshow.

Pirro saw the weakness, went for the jugular and voila'! Her book is #1.

We know liberals use dishonesty in everything they do and say but sometimes all it takes is intelligence as evidenced by Pirro to accomplish your task.

If you're defining dishonesty by intelligence then that problem is yours. You, clearly, don't know the difference.

https://www.collinsd...eone-false

I agree with you.

The expression "gotten played" is rooted in dishonesty.

I'm agreeing with you that the guest was duplicitous, by the way. Lesson learned.

It was absolutely dishonest. You stated the guest's goal, and it was not to go though an actual interview. It was to sabotage the interview for personal gain. She made a calculation, and decided it was better for her book to "trigger" someone instead of give an honest interview.

Lesson learned.

The guest outwitted her opponent.

Whoopi didn't have to offer herself as an opponent. She could have contained herself and continued and finished as a gracious host.

She appeared to have gotten played.

When Pirro said she had Trump Derangement Syndrome, apparently, she wasn't wrong as evidenced by Whoopi's display.

There was no dishonesty in it. Pirro called it. Whoopi gave the example.

It is what it is.

We have to understand, the guest acts from a duplicitous nature as her default.

Lesson learned.

YOU CLAIMED SHE WAS A JUDGE.

By the way, you should probably start cutting and pasting from 2:49.

Would you like me to?

But you said her purpose was to "trigger" someone.

That's not the purpose of an interview. It does explain why the guest refused to answer the question.

Thanks again, glitter. You spelled it out perfectly. The guest was being duplicitous, and it is a lesson "liberals" should learn.

Umpire (view profile)
Posted 3:45 pm, 07/22/2018
PIRRO HASN'T BEEN A JUDGE IN OVER 25 YEARS.

And Whoopi has never been a judge.

Oh, no, my love. Let's go over this again.

~glitter and glamour~ (view profile)
Posted 3:18 pm, 07/22/2018
outwit: (verb) to obtain an advantage over someone by being more intelligent.

This says nothing about being dishonest. We know you're used to it since it is a liberal thing.

You don't have to be dishonest to outwit your opponent. Let's say it together..."You don't have to be dishonest to outwit your opponent." Very good. Be seated and open your books to page 2016.

To wit, the guest entered the studio wanting to sabotage the interview for personal gain. Then, the guest thanked the host for allowing the guest to achieve that goal.

Glitter then said we should learn a lesson from that duplicity...and I certainly have.