On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 10:55:08 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/10/2016 08:15 AM, dpb wrote:

snip
So you've said but given that it doesn't answer the question of why
would you go searching, knowing likely whatever he was going to say
would set you off? Or, as I surmised, was it aimed your direction by
somebody else for the purpose? I'm interested in these dynamics; I
believe they're a very destructive trend in modern culture.

Of all the comparisons I can think of Newt vis a vis HH is not one I'd
make. But, what would be the point of yet another tweet saying the same
old hackeneyed phrase everybody else has used for the last 75 years? At
least, Newt gave reason to consider what he had to say whether you agree
or not. And, in this case, don't see how anybody can not think we're in
dangerous times with serious threats all around us...




Years ago I opened a Twitter account but never used it.
When Trump's Twitter tweets started filling the news, I decided to
log-on for the first time to see what he was saying...and of course
bypass the news reports.

On Dec 7, just for the hell of it I decided to see what Newt said.


OK, let's make sure we have this right. You created a twitter account
years ago, but never used it. On Dec 7, you decided to go to twitter
for the purpose of seeing what Newt was tweeting?




Since I was new to Twitter, I did not realize at first that if one's
thinking is so muddled they can't put their idea across in one Tweet,
they will follow-up


There you go again. Derbydad pointed out to you that there is a small
limit to how many characters can be in a tweet. Do you text? Same
thing there. Yet here you are, implying that Newt must be "so muddled"
that he can't put his idea across is one tweet. Hell, I'm not even
on Twitter, but I've heard enough about it, seen enough tweets in the
news, from Trump for example, to know that they are very short msgs,
similar to texting.


They appear on the feed in reverse order

That said, it was that one Tweet I quoted that I had a problem with.
Even though it was pointed out to me that I was in error for not
realizing it was one tweet which was part of two others...
even had I taken all three as one continuous statement, I still would
not have felt any differently.


As to the HH comparison. No Newt and HH are not the same politically.

It's simply that they both seem to be nothing but huge gas bags.


You have to go back to HH? What about Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and a
long list of *current* Democrats? Schumer is the poster boy for
gas bags. Any time anything happens, a cat farts in the woods,
Schumer calls a news conference to weigh in. Now *that* is a gas
bag!




(Additional comments will be addressed as I respond to others here)