| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I would like to make a request:
A Man in Black, Ancient Sensei, maybe Big Norse Wolf, probably others:
I am not going to ask you not to make walls of text. That would be presumptuous on my part. BUT, if you're going to make walls of text, please don't respond to multiple posters in the same post about tons of different subjects. It is difficult to follow.
I, personally, find that if I'm going to make a wall of text, I keep it on one subject. If I need to respond to multiple people, I either keep the post brief or make multiple responses.
Again, it's only a suggestion. But it would make it easier for me, so I bet it would make it easier for others as well.
Also, you are all stooges of the plutocracy!
Sorry, got caugth up with aMiB.
Union people are silly doodooheads!
Better?
;=)
Edit: changed aliases, since we're doing Kirthfinder characters ;-)
Speaking of responses...oh I am a doodoohead, huh?
[Turns to portly bearded friend]
It's time we wrote something back--type this shiznit down...
EDIT: Woops! NSFW
Wal-Mart moving into a rural town, scraping bottom with its price and forcing all local businesses under, then jacking up prices to make up for lost earnings is free market capitalism at its most pure. Unless you can regulate prices on some level, this is what will ALWAYS HAPPEN. Free market does not lead to more competition, it leads to less competition by way of less competitors.
Agreed.
If you wanted to couple otherwise free-market capitalism with AGGRESSIVE anti-trust policy, then we might be able to find middle-ground. As it sits the less regulation and thus more "competition" we have, the bigger the big companies are going to get until there are only a few companies left. Is it dystopian paranoia? Perhaps, but it's also happening right in front of our eyes.
This is exactly what I see as the #1 responsibility of the government and why I often say things like, "they sold us out". There are inherent problems with pure free market capitalism and it's exactly what you described above. The government has to ensure a fair playing field, something they are doing a very poor job of. Part of this is also the people side of "regulation" to ensure our safety and the ability to prosper. They are doing a poor job in this area as well.
Businesses become more efficient because the inefficient businesses can't compete and are forced out of business by the efficient businesses, not that competition somehow makes existing entities more efficient simply because other entities exist.
I heartily disagree with this. I contract for a business that went through chapter 11 after occurring losses for years. After an extensive reorganization, they are now a very profitable company again. Businesses can adjust against growing competition, in fact, they are forced to. Some will; some won't.
(I assume you mean $80 million.) Those were punitive damages levied against Philip Morris for decades of misleading advertising, after the death of a 67-year-old man. ...
Sorry, this came way too late in the game for anyone to not have been exposed to the dangers of smoking. If this lawsuit hit in the 70's or 80's, sure, I could understand that. This was a cash grab against the tobacco industry because, well, no one actually likes the tobacco industry. This would be like suing a paint company for lead paint 30 years after it became common knowledge that there were risks involved.
The students who could flee in your system are doing fine under the current system we're using in 2011. They're upper-and middle-class students who are actually getting a decent education right now.
Isn't the object to try to improve everyone's education level, the rich, poor and middle class included? And wouldn't the poor benefit from an environment that takes into considerations the additional troubles that are more likely to hold back the learning process of children from these areas?
The only entity with any hope to change this in a holistic way is the federal government, but that's not going to happen, because it's unconstitutional.
This isn't criticism, it's a legitimate question. What's unconstitutional about this? Maybe I'm just not accurately picturing what you have in mind.
Or, and I can't believe I'm defending the insurance companies here, a 74% reduction in 1% of health care costs gets lost in the noise.
Even if they passed the savings along, who would notice? Your insurance bill goes up 14.25% instead of 15% one year. Do you celebrate?
I see a lot of contradiction while researching this subject. Analysts and opponents of tort reform claim 2% for malpractice. Yet quotes from doctors seem to be around 50%. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth lay somewhere in between. My biggest problem with trusting the analysts is that I can't find any of them that will tell me exactly why health insurance costs are so high. At least malpractice insurance and the extra unneeded tests required to rule out that last 1% chance you missed something excuses provided by actual doctors is a reason. It's better than saying, I don't know but it's not what the other guy is saying.
Insurance costs haven't been effected which suggests that there is another problem somewhere. Someone, likely the insurance companies, are keeping this extra moneyGasp. Shock. Surprise. You mean we gave the people at the top more money and it DIDN"T trickle down to the consumer?!?
More on this in a little bit.
Apologies, BNW, and that's why I put the "maybe" there. And I'm not complaining, I'm making a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. I'm sure some posters would prefer I don't follow their conversations and that's fine, too.
Apologies, BNW, and that's why I put the "maybe" there. And I'm not complaining, I'm making a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. I'm sure some posters would prefer I don't follow their conversations and that's fine, too.
The devil, and the argument, is in the details. Otherwise the entire conversation could be held with Og: Big government bad! Grog: Big government good! and Trog "Oooo look shiney!"
If i don't do the argument as point by point people are going to accuse me of skipping over points that are inimical to my argument.
Apologies, BNW, and that's why I put the "maybe" there. And I'm not complaining, I'm making a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. I'm sure some posters would prefer I don't follow their conversations and that's fine, too.The devil, and the argument, is in the details. Otherwise the entire conversation could be held with Og: Big government bad! Grog: Big government good! and Trog "Oooo look shiney!"
If i don't do the argument as point by point people are going to accuse me of skipping over points that are inimical to my argument.
Oh, I understand. And I've no problem with that. Forget the wall of text stuff, perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly.
I lumped you in with the other Paizonians when, really, the problem I have with your posts is slightly different. You never (or rarely) put in the names of the people you are quoting. Sometimes it is obvious who you are referring to because yours is the next post, but not always. When this happens, I sometimes find it hard to keep track of the flow of the conversation because I have to go back and read other voluminous posts to figure out who you're talking to.
And, again, this is just me. If I'm the only one having trouble following the conversation, who cares?
And why is it that recently I've noticed the boards are deleting the first break in paragraphs in all of my posts? Even if I put five spaces in between paragraphs the boards sandwiches them together?
I don't want to make walls of text!
EDIT: And, of course, it doesn't do it on the post where I am complaining about it!!!!
You never (or rarely) put in the names of the people you are quoting.
The "reply" button often doesn't work, goes haywire when someone has quoted something else, and always stops in the middle of a long post so i have to go back and copy/paste anyway in the middle of responding. The people getting annoyed at it weren't people i wanted to talk to anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW
Well, if I'm in the latter category, I'll shut up.
But I'll just add that I often enjoy reading your posts, Citizen BNW, I just wish they were easier to read.
More on this in a little bit.
You win. I accept defeat in this debate. You've made me realize that I based a lot of my premises on one fatal flaw. Most of what I have been arguing is based on the false assumption that the government would set the rules and guidelines to ensure fair competition for private industry. Unfortunately, our leaders have already sold us out to huge mega-corporations.
You guys are absolutely right. If the school system were turned into or faced competition with privatized schools on a balanced scale, it would only be a matter of time until the corporations, with the help of our elected officials, would end up having an immensely negative impact on our future children (or at the very best, no positive impact).
Tort reform, whether it's saving 2% or 25%, isn't going to solve anything until our government creates an environment within the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry where fair and just business practices are enacted, spurring real competition to bring costs down. Until then, big industry (along with big government) will just end up keeping all of the profits for themselves as they do today. Our leaders have not only sold out to the 1%, they are the 1%. Until this changes, I have to agree; most of my ideas won't work.
I do hold belief in a lot of these ideas, given the proper circumstances. I do still believe that they would work and work well if we had a political body that we could trust to make the right decisions for the good of the citizens. For some strange reason, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
You win. I accept defeat in this debate.
Way to go, Team Left!
Now, let's go get Bitter Thorn!
@BNW
Well, if I'm in the latter category, I'll shut up.
But I'll just add that I often enjoy reading your posts, Citizen BNW, I just wish they were easier to read.
Baring someone's name at the top they're in the exact same format as everyone else's posts. I'm not going to spend longer trying to make it pretty with the limited board tools than i do making the actual post.
... two or three posts full of very reasonable and intelligent discourse ...
Am I still talking to the same A Man in Black? Seriously, I feel like I'm talking to a completely different person than I was before? :)
Way to go, Team Left!
I hope you don't consider me Team Right because I'm not even close. And don't ever expect Team Right to admit defeat no matter how sensible the opposition is. You can call me ... Team South by South West. ;)
... Considering we already have a system that is already set up to deal with each district's individual issues, I don't see why we need to scrap that system for an entirely different system that would have the same problems ...
The system is what I have a problem with. Sure, it's less complicated but it doesn't provide an environment that maximizes each students potential. No matter what district you live in, you set the level of advancement based on the average student's learning potential. You'll have an advanced level and a retracted level that's mostly based on that average. Any child that could be accelerated more or should be brought along at a slower pace to make sure they understand the fundamentals clearly are either held back or left behind.
Even certain schools in poor districts could teach accelerated learning for those students that are capable of it. Being poor doesn't make you stupid and being rich doesn't make you smart. Some schools could specialize in deviant children and could concentrate more efforts on discipline than any standard public school ever possibly could (if there is actually a market for such a school). I went to a school that is roughly 50% African American yet because of government standardization, still only teaches Black History for one month out of the year (and it's the shortest month, no less). I believe that many African American and biracial parents would like to send their children to a school that would put a much greater focus on their culture and their needs. Note: Don't confuse or purposely twist this as forced segregation. I'm in no way saying that there shouldn't or wouldn't be other options.
Remember, this all hinges on my utopia where the government actually gives a $h!t about the common person so I'm making more of a philosophical argument here, not a real world one. You stated, as we all know, that small classrooms and a more personal teaching experience is one of the components that would increase the education level. Wouldn't smaller, more personal schools be of great help. We certainly seem to be moving further and further away from this as time goes by. The district I grew up in had a dozen elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools is down to one middle/high school and only two or three elementary schools. Of course, the population has take a hit but it certainly not proportional.
It's obnoxious to call people out for saying ignorant or self-entitled things, but it's necessary, or nobody will ever stop doing it.
* shakes head and sighs *
The government already knows who the new president is. They think they have us all fooled into believing we are voting for the candidate but in reality the candidates are puppets run by rich/greedy corporations.
I do hold belief in a lot of these ideas, given the proper circumstances. I do still believe that they would work and work well if we had a political body that we could trust to make the right decisions for the good of the citizens.
I think your basic desires and the direction you want these laws to go is good.
I think one of the primary flaws in your approach is the one that is common amongst many would be reformers -- the idea that the current laws were not originally designed to do exactly what you are wanting to do yourself. When people put these laws in place they were not originally wanting to establish a monopolistic system, many of the laws were touted at the time as being the means to ensure free and fair competition between businesses.
The problem was the same as it always is -- the laws were flawed and once those flaws were exposed those that could exploit them move to keep the flaws in place.
I think its a case of Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Except it wasn't stupidity honestly -- it was simply a lack of understanding how things got to where they currently are, and the fact that over time systems simply break down and need maintenance.
Lets be honest -- maintenance is something that business as a whole is terrible, and something that Democracy typically doesn't handle well either (especially in capitalist economic systems) simply because maintenance doesn't directly show a profit.
Since it's come up in this thread before, I'll link this here.
The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America’s unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.
Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America’s 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.
If, as some have argued, unemployment benefits allow lazy people to not bother working and employment would jump back up if we stopped supporting them because they wouldn't have a choice but to find a job, why haven't the 52% of unemployed who no longer get a check done so?
My economic theory is that it's because there aren't jobs out there for them. Is the alternative that, even without the government dole, they're too lazy to bother looking?
I feel this is aimed at me since I did invoke the newly minted term funemployment. Don't take this the wrong way. The poor and single income middle-class are/were in no way enjoying this. The only people who may have enjoyed not having the responsibility of working are double income middle-class and the younger generation who had the support or means to get by on whatever unemployment paid out. And we can't even pigeonhole all such cases because plenty of them are/were still feverishly looking for work. But the term exists. Maybe it's an urban legend, I don't know. Where I'm from, jobs are horribly scarce to begin with so virtually no one is enjoying it here.
The problem, obviously, is the result of the worst economy that I've ever seen in my lifetime (and the early 80's sucked balls). My biggest fear is that our government, in their greed and increasing lust for power, have made such horrible choices that we aren't just in some short term dip or recession (yes, I know we're not technically in a recession anymore). I pray that we aren't approaching another stagflation with the potential to start sliding.
Of course if we are, it could be an opportunity to usher in some real political change or reformation and get some people in office that actually do want to make life better for someone other than themselves. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Politics are rarely that simple.
No, they're not. I was joking, mostly in the hopes of getting BT's goat if he ever reads this thread.
@Frogboy--Just kidding.
@Team Left--Just so we're clear, I want to overthrow you, too!
I think your basic desires and the direction you want these laws to go is good.
Thank you.
I think one of the primary flaws in your approach is the one that is common amongst many would be reformers -- the idea that the current laws were not originally designed to do exactly what you are wanting to do yourself. When people put these laws in place they were not originally wanting to establish a monopolistic system, many of the laws were touted at the time as being the means to ensure free and fair competition between businesses.
The problem was the same as it always is -- the laws were flawed and once those flaws were exposed those that could exploit them move to keep the flaws in place.
I think its a case of Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.Except it wasn't stupidity honestly -- it was simply a lack of understanding how things got to where they currently are, and the fact that over time systems simply break down and need maintenance.
Lets be honest -- maintenance is something that business as a whole is terrible, and something that Democracy typically doesn't handle well either (especially in capitalist economic systems) simply because maintenance doesn't directly show a profit.
I agree that we don't need to tear down every broken system in order to fix it. I just don't personally agree with our one-size-fits-all education structure. It's acceptable but could be much more effective, IMO.
@Frogboy--Just kidding.
Just making sure that no one here confuses me with a right-winger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that we don't need to tear down every broken system in order to fix it. I just don't personally agree with our one-size-fits-all education structure. It's acceptable but could be much more effective, IMO.
Well personally I think in some cases it's a case of having reduced things too much. After all the number of employees you need to run a business and the number you need to run it right/well isn't the same thing.
My main concern with Libertarians is that in their desire to see a more compact and efficient government they might not realize that in some cases (indeed I would offer in many cases) the problem isn't too much regulation or too big of a government, but actually the department involved being too small in order to do the job right.
Of course this doesn't stand for every government agency -- but for many of them we have less than 50,000 people to cover 300,000,000+ people worth of stuff for that department.
Every time something goes wrong in a regulation situation and the heads of the related federal whatever are asked why it happened it almost always comes back to two things:
"We were too lax because we were too rushed because our work load was too big. We simply couldn't physically get people to all the places we are required too all the times we are required too and as such things slipped through the cracks."
"We were getting along too much with the businesses involved because without their active help we simply couldn't cover everything. We trusted them to do what they said they were doing and they didn't. We really didn't have the manpower or time to check up on them either."
This was the case with the upper big branch mine, the bp oil spill, things slipping through at ports et al. Ask any regulatory part of the government and the first thing they'll tell you is that they are understaffed to do the job they are responsible for -- and they are right.
People see the 'size' of the government and think its too much forgetting the very size of this country -- in population, geographic boundaries and in business.
We have 307(ish) million people, and if we count businesses as people we have another 28(ish) million... and that's not counting branches of the same company in various locations, all of which are spread over 3.79 million square miles which is itself spread across a continent and many islands across the world.
Of the our population 75.2 million of it are children with only 3,823,142 teachers -- At best that's 19 2/3 children per teacher. We don't have the best rate though because many of those teachers are college teachers or such. The 'average' number of students in a class currently is sitting at about 24.
Federally we have 3.(something) million people total to take care of all this, and of those over half (almost 2/3) are military (not civil service), which leaves us only 1 million to handle everything going on in government (including services for the people in and that had been in the military).
While government *looks* big when compared to what are considered best business practices it's down right anemic, and any business leader should see that.
With all this in mind I'm simply not convinced that was we need is smaller government.
More responsible government? Sure, more efficient government? Yeah I'm good with that too of course. Better government? Again I'm all for that too.
But sometimes in order to increase efficiency and quality you have to increase size some as well.
Near as I can tell, it wasn't even supposed to [lower premiums]. It was more about making Texas attractive to doctors to set up practice, which is a big deal with a state with fast-growing cities as well as a heavily rural population.
It was sold to the people as a mechanism for lowering premiums.
I'm pretty sure that the people in charge knew that full well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I may be a little late to the party, but last week argument about poor deserving to be poor and having too many children reminded me of a classical satire I once read, and it did take me some time to recall its name.
It's a summary on a wikipedia page, but the text itself is short and make an enjoyable read if you like your humor black.
Some arguments are as old as well-off humanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to applaud the (current) level of discourse in this thread.
Considering its humble beginnings, it's amazing how civil it's become.
We've been fairly civil to one another for the most part. Still, there is the occasional pique of rage or frustration.
I just want to applaud the (current) level of discourse in this thread.
Considering its humble beginnings, it's amazing how civil it's become.
We've been fairly civil to one another for the most part.
Maybe that's why this stupid thread petered out...
OK, then, here goes, just for you comrade!
Newt says we should let a couple terror attacks through to prove that we need the PATRIOT Act.
AMiB, I present to you, you're non-existent welfare queen. Lol!
OK, then, here goes, just for you comrade!
Newt says we should let a couple terror attacks through to prove that we need the PATRIOT Act.
Oh, you mean like they did in order to get the Patriot Act in the first place? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AMiB, I present to you, you're non-existent welfare queen. Lol!
AMiB's a non-existent welfare queen! Go syntax!
AMiB's a non-existent welfare queen! Go syntax!
I always knew that there was something fishy about him!
|
Like a turtle, I was slowly working my way through this thread. Then I saw that DA had bunped it back up again and I chewed him out for it. "I'm not done reading!" I yelled.
Then he did his coy b!%!$%%$ and went "Hee hee hee!"
So I popped a cap in his ass.
WHILE I"M HERE:
(Ignoring his claims to no longer be participating) Ancient Sensei, motherf#++in cursing is not motherf*@*in yelling OR hiding behind the symbols. At least, it shouldn't be. Don't be getting your harsh on about s#*&ty b$+@*t*%!. I mean, I love that you're all about the quintessential f@!+in conservatism, but don't tread on peeps who use the full motherf$&*in lexicon! (peeps = people for the info) Swearing like a sailor depreciates the shock value and image association of such swears. I used to flip my s!*+ about "s%~#." Now I can honestly claim to not think of s+$# when I say "s!$@" or see it in writing or hear it.
(F@!& I totally screwed up that argument by holding onto it for so long. "What-evs!")
Oh, you mean like they did in order to get the Patriot Act in the first place? ;)
Uh..not sure what's going on with the quote system..
Just checked the article, and it's a bit flawed- she's on disability as well as welfare, and it does not mention how she got on disability or how long she's been on it. Anyone can end up on disability, regardless of where they live. There's just not enough information here to make a judgement call.
Like a turtle, I was slowly working my way through this thread. Then I saw that DA had bunped it back up again and I chewed him out for it. "I'm not done reading!" I yelled.
Then he did his coy b+&#*&++ and went "Hee hee hee!"
So I popped a cap in his ass.
WHILE I"M HERE:
(Ignoring his claims to no longer be participating) Ancient Sensei, motherf!!~in cursing is not motherf#~*in yelling OR hiding behind the symbols. At least, it shouldn't be. Don't be getting your harsh on about s~#!ty b@@+~t$*~. I mean, I love that you're all about the quintessential f&~#in conservatism, but don't tread on peeps who use the full motherf##*in lexicon! (peeps = people for the info) Swearing like a sailor depreciates the shock value and image association of such swears. I used to flip my s*~~ about "s&&&." Now I can honestly claim to not think of s!#% when I say "s+&!" or see it in writing or hear it.
(F%*~ I totally screwed up that argument by holding onto it for so long. "What-evs!")
What are you smoking?
What are you smoking?
And did you bring enough for the rest of the class?
|
|
And did you bring enough for the rest of the class?
Apparently it was all used up at the polls in 2008.
Newt over Obama? The former Speaker of the House who shut down the government in 1995 (or was it 1996?) to get the spendthrift President then in office to toe the fiscal line, or the man who actually SAID "We're going to spend our way out of this recession" ... and after ripping the Bush administration on overspending, equaled eight years' worth of fiscal abuse in less than two?
Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher, gang.
For calling the United States Constitution "a document of negative liberties," he showed just how out of touch with this country's defining document he truly was in a TV interview years before running for the White House.
On overspending alone, Obama lost me. Wow. $200 billion in overspending JUST IN OCTOBER 2011.
On his do-nothing Senatorial record alone, Obama lost me pre-election.
Due to his complete and total lack of actual work experience in the private sector (his private-sector resume consists, in its entirety, of a part-time job at a Dairy Queen,f and as an ACORN lawyer and a "community organizer," whose job description none of his backers have ever given, but which somehow drew comparisons on the 2008 blogosphere between Obama and CHRIST -- which is funny, because the main difference between Obama and Jesus is... AT LEAST JESUS DOESN'T THINK HE'S BARACK OBAMA...)
On violating the 14th Amendment with the Affordable Care Act by creating an excluded class of citizen (Nebraskans don't have to follow it for 10 years), he should be impeached.
Simply by not knowing there AREN'T 57 states, as he claimed in 2008 -- or not knowing how to proonounce "corpsman" -- by saying "corpse-man" three times -- while presenting a medal to one of our troops, he lost me.
For touring the world -- repeatedly -- to apologize for the greatest country God ever gave Man the concept of creating -- Obama lost me.
For nominating a tax cheat as the man in charge of collecting revenue -- Obama lost me.
For appointing more Czars than the Romanovs ever got crowned, he lost me.
For his wife's "don't eat fatty foods -- I'll have the big-a%% rib platter, please!" I was lost.
For having, "hey, let's raise taxes and create more federal jobs" as his answer to EVERYTHING, he lost me.
For having a teleprompter as a Siamese twin... And sharing a brain with it...
And blaming everything he can't do (read" that means everything) on the Republicans, on Bush, yadda, yadda, yadda, well, guess what he did for me.
Go ahead and defend him. The most common response -- and one many offer first because they lack a cogent argument -- is "you're a racist!" And I actually peed myself laughing at this once, since, as we all know, his mother was white. I guess those same people playing the skin-color card in that fashion have conveniently forgotten the 1963 speech of a man few on the Left will ever, except while being waterboarded, admit was a Republican -- MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. -- who said, and let's all say it all together, that he longed for a day "when a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."
"But he got bin Laden!"
-- No. Some guys called Navy SEALS did. And I defy you to name a person who'd have gone through THIS scenario:
"Mr. President, there's an 80 percent chance that if you approve this op, we'll get the most wanted, most hated man worldwide since Adolf Hitler. And it'll help your poll numbers for a while, too."
"Uhhh, Hmm. Well, y'see... Nah. No. Let's not do that right now. Let's explore other options."
Newt may not win the nomination. He may implode and Romney, the Mormon Milquetoast, may get the nod next summer, and lose next November by eight points (thanks to a slanted media -- for instance, name a network which would've crowed joyously over 8.6% unemployment under GW Bush like CNN/MSBNC did last week!
But here we sit in late 2011, and I, a staunch conservative despite having never cracked the $40k a year barrier (hey, I love being a sportswriter; it just doesn't love me back enough every second Friday), actually wonder longingly how much worse Hillary might've been. (Answer" not worse at all. Better.)
As for the discussion of education funding, it's not the teachers' fault. PARENTS SUCK. I worked as a substitute, and lemmetellya, gang, half of American children are being raised by WOLVES. The other half? Xbox. Can't make chicken salad with THAT part of the chicken, campers.
Here endeth the rant. Let the condescension from myriad parents' basements by twentysomethings who don't go to work at Taco Bell yet begin..... NOW!
Oh Noes! Not the Dreaded "Wait for a bunch of 20 somethings without a job in their mom's basement" Offense! Oh terror of terrors! How could he know!
Honestly that old cliche gets trotted out for every generation that's come down the line since the 50's. Get some new material sheesh.
Get some new material sheesh.
But then said poster wouldn't be able to hastily generalize about condescension in such a condescending tone.
I, a staunch conservative despite having never cracked the $40k a year barrier
No surprise there. Everyone within the 40K to 140K range moved over to the Democrats (or simply gave up in frustration, like me) years ago. The Republican platform is that wealth inequity is the greatest development since the wheel, and their support group is accordingly the rural poor and the ultrarich.
It's to the negative of the Republican party that they've allowed Newt to get this far to begin with because as the OP states, the Newt of the 90's has a LOT of problems. If Hermain Cain's derailment due to affairs knocked him off, Newt, who has had multiple affaris and is a known pain killer abuser, has a hella lot mot backstory to come into play.