On 12/10/2016 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 10:55:08 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:



snip
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?






As usual you got things wrong one more time.

But I might not have made myself clear...so I will spend the time to
give you the whole story:



I signed up for Twitter possibly seven years ago but never used it.

When I saw Trump's tweets appearing on the news all the time I decided
to actually log-on to Twitter about a month ago mostly so I could see
directly what Trump had to say.

On Dec. 7th the news sources mentioned Gingrich and his Twitter
statement so even though I am not following him I can easy access his
Tweets to see what he had to say.

So even though I have been on Twitter a month, I simply had not bothered
to log on to Newt's account until I saw a news item on it.

FWIW: I have also replied to both Trump and to Gingrich. Even though
they will not read my replies, I am sure their staffs are keeping some
kind of score.


BTW: Just so you know I am an equal opportunity insulter I took a chance
and have made a few comments on Lewis Farakhan's Facebook page.

Holy **** is that guy a phony, and I stated so right on his page a few
times. Though he never replied, he never bothered to remove my remarks
either.






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)