Originally Posted By woody >>Sure, the middle class has some issues that are unique to it. That doesn't mean their interests and those of the poor never intersect, as you said.<< Like War On The Middle Class??? That's the whole premise of this thread. Maybe we should change the thread to War on the Middle Class and Poor. They all suffer because the Democratic Party needs a revolution.
Originally Posted By woody >>I've found it interesting here that some people, whom I've felt were quite disturbed at other posting sites and discussions, come here and also post in a disturbed and defective manner.<< Wow. This coming from a guy who regularly insults people in a thread without any substance in the post. As for substance, you added nothing and haven't even read the book. BTW, The author is works at Air America. Interesting how some people don't even question his credentials. His authority is guaranteed. Amazing.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Maybe we should change the thread to War on the Middle Class and Poor. << There is no need to wage war on the poor.
Originally Posted By jonvn Reagan, it was said, started the war on the poor. That's already been established.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<BTW, The author is works at Air America>> As if that's some cardinal sin. He is a nationally syndicated talk show host. He has a local show on KPOJ in Portland from 6-9 (PDT), then he does a national show from 9-12 (PDT), then he will occasionally fill in for Air America hosts. While I haven't read his books, listening to him on the radio he gives me the impression that he is quite well studied in Jeffersonian democracy and usually puts the "smackdown" (as some would say) on rt-wing crank ideas and opinions from the Founding Father's intentions, to Unions, to conspiracy theories.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Sure, the middle class has some issues that are unique to it. That doesn't mean their interests and those of the poor never intersect, as you said.<< <Like War On The Middle Class??? That's the whole premise of this thread.> And it's a real thing. But that doesn't mean that the interests of the poor and middle class never intersect.
Originally Posted By woody >>And it's a real thing. But that doesn't mean that the interests of the poor and middle class never intersect.<< Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. All indications are that you bought into the premise without thinking about it. Your response also indicates your lack of reading comprehension. I notice how conveniently you changed the meaning of my quote. I said "The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect." You slipped in the NEVER. Ha!!! You're very funny and not very credible. In fact, you're incredible.
Originally Posted By woody Did you noticed that you stayed on for over 100 posts MISREPRESENTING my quote? <<The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect.> (I said this) >Never? Really?< (Dabob2 said this)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Christ Woody... Don't intersect and never intersect are the same damned thing. If you had said they usually don't intersect or rarely intersect that would be different. But you didn't. You said DON’T. If I say I don't cheat on my wife it means I NEVER cheat on my wife, not that I usually don't. Pull your head out and stop jumping on Dabob2. You pulled a Beau on this one.
Originally Posted By woody No I didn't. And you conveniently pulled a straw man. There are similar interests between the middle class and the poor, but for the most part, their interests don't intersect. This is especially true when public policy is described. Each group is affected in different ways. If you also buy into the premise of the book, you would agree with my premise that the "The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect." Otherwise, why would there be a WAR against the MIDDLE CLASS? A war is against one distinct party!!! Okay, you don't know what you're talking about. I can accept that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I notice how conveniently you changed the meaning of my quote. I said "The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect." You slipped in the NEVER.>> You said what you said Woodman.... Just like Beau, you try to wiggle out of your own words.
Originally Posted By woody >>Just like Beau, you try to wiggle out of your own words.<< No, I haven't. I stand by what I said. In my previous post, I continue to stand by what I said. BTW: "Don't" doesn't mean "Never". There is a difference. If you don't understand the word "don't", why did you change it to "never" when "don't" is sufficient. Again, I stand by my statement.
Originally Posted By woody "You said what you said Woodman...." Another twist. My name is "woody", lowercase and without the man. Wonderful example of the twisting of word. You need to take a "roadtrip" because the "RoadTrip" is tripped.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If you don't understand the word "don't", why did you change it to "never" when "don't" is sufficient.>> Well, I really didn't want to point this out. But perhaps Dabob2 just didn't want to appear to be uneducated. <<Main Entry: 1don't Pronunciation: 'dOnt 1 : do not 2 : does not usage Don't is the earliest attested contraction of does not and until about 1900 was the standard spoken form in the United States (it survived as spoken standard longer in British English). ***Dialect surveys find it more common in the speech of the less educated than in that of the educated;*** in those places (as the Midland and southern Atlantic seaboard regions) where it has lasted in educated speech, it is most common with older informants. Surveys of attitudes toward usage show it more widely disapproved in 1971 than it had been 40 years earlier. Its chief use in edited prose is in fiction for purposes of characterization. It is sometimes used consciously, like ain't, to gain an informal effect.>> Source: webster.com Separation and asterisks added by me; entire quote is from Webster.
Originally Posted By woody jonvn: I wonder who the one being nut truly is. RoadTrip: What have you proved? Nothing at all. You ridicule the common usage of the word "don't". I knew it will come to this. You change out a word to bring clarity, yet you only manage to confuse the meaning that I'm trying to convey. >>Well, I really didn't want to point this out. But perhaps Dabob2 just didn't want to appear to be uneducated.<< Well, he did appear uneducated because he failed to read my sentence properly and can only debate it when he changed my word and thus, the meaning of it. And you did it too. Both of you are in the same boat. I certainly hope you won't get into a pissing match on the use of contractions in the english language. You won't want to be called uneducated. Quoting "Don't is the earliest attested contraction of does not and until about 1900 was the standard spoken form in the United States" In your post, you used a contraction "didn't". What luck!!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In your post, you used a contraction "didn't". What luck!!!>> One difference though my man... didn't is considered proper usage. Don't is generally not considered proper usage, being thought of in the same way as ain't. There is nothing wrong with contractions in general… just SOME contractions. You see the proper contraction for does not is doesn't; not don't. I’m not going to argue this any longer. The basis fact remains the same. You jumped Dabob2 for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Originally Posted By woody >>One difference though my man... didn't is considered proper usage.<< Only in your particular sentence, not my sentence. >>You see the proper contraction for does not is doesn't; not don't.<< Very bizarre statement. In my sentence... Quote "The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect."... "interests" is plural (more than one), thus "do not" is proper usage. "Does not" only applies to the singular (one). >>You jumped Dabob2 for absolutely no reason whatsoever.<< You gotta to do better than this. Dabob2 was wrong to change the meaning of my sentence. And you have got to understand my sentence cannot be changed to "The interests of the middle class and poor doesn't intersect." LOL!!!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You do realize he's nuts, right?<< Now we're gonna need a Woody pledge too.
