CA is the 5th worst state in getting value for your money (Orange: utilities, move to)

[eccotecc]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

So, radio, maybe this would be a good time and place to explain how other persons' vacuous, shallow "generalizations about millenials" makes your generalizations about boomers somehow correct and appropriate?

Do you think that the majority of FOX News and Alex Jones watchers / listeners being "aging baby boomers" translates to all boomers being that particular brand of bonehead? Correlation equals causation?

You went to college. Take any Logic 101? Higher crime in black communities means blacks are genetically predisposed to criminal behavior?

I mentioned a ways back that I had enjoyed some of your earlier posts. You are rapidly dismantling my opinion of your intellect here. And simple, over zealous, youthful idealism isn't the factor I'm talkin about.

Dang Mutt,

You put on your growling, snarling watch dog face.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Dude, if you want it spelled out simpler. Not all fox news right wing tea partiers are older aging baby boomers but most are. Look at the demographics that constitute the fan base of Fox news, the tea party and such.

The generalizations of millenials in vacuous articles on yahoo tend to talk about ambiguous work ethic, not politics which are largely polled and studied.

Seriously, what is your beef with this? The Cold War fear of socialism taking over the US if there's any newly enacted program is largely a problem with past generations.


I think you're taking this way too personally.

Lmfao! You just COMPLETELY either missed or chose to avoid my entire point. And the illogics of your position. I have never once made a derogatory comment about millennials. And if we also assume that all the negative commentaries about millennials are wrong - how would that make your generalizations about boomers correct?

The demographics of Fox News and Alex Jones doesn't translate to your accusation that constitutes baby boomer mentality. As I asked: did you ever take Logic 101? No need to answer. You didn't. You haven't the slightest notion how to establish a premise and arrive at a valid conclusion.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by eccotecc

Dang Mutt,

You put on your growling, snarling watch dog face.

Just lifting my leg a bit. Shrubbery looks like it needs watering.

[Nema98]

Whatever, sure we are expensive but I ain't moving anywhere.

Lovely state.

[eccotecc]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Just lifting my leg a bit. Shrubbery looks like it needs watering.

HaHaHa, we do know how to have fun.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lmfao! You just COMPLETELY either missed or chose to avoid my entire point. And the illogics of your position. I have never once made a derogatory comment about millennials. And if we also assume that all the negative commentaries about millennials are wrong - how would that make your generalizations about boomers correct?

The demographics of Fox News and Alex Jones doesn't translate to your accusation that constitutes baby boomer mentality. As I asked: did you ever take Logic 101? No need to answer. You didn't. You haven't the slightest notion how to establish a premise and arrive at a valid conclusion.

Well first off, I never said they were patently wrong about millenials. Just that there are over generalizations made of millenials out there that people convey. I was just noting that while they seem ridiculous to me, it's what people assume to be factual about millenials, and in a lot of cases it's not far off from being true. Like always you can't over generalize but while I can't assure that all baby boomers subscribe to proto typical right wing views, I can assume that most of the time if I'm getting called a lazy liberal who doesn't get economics 101, it's usually a baby boomer.

Tulemutt, as much you struggle with this you too espouse a premise that is as close to the whole narrative that things are fixed and it's been like this since time immemorial. I don't know how you try to keep wiggling out of that by claiming to not be this or that label. It's essentially the same story. You can disregard me as being simple and a product of youth but I offered you economic history that's as complex as any thing out there most economic historians generally subscribe to. What do you say? You tell me to read brave new world so that I can understand how the elite run things and cleverly take advantage of things. You also tell me to read 1984, a popular book tons of older people tell me to read even though they don't get Orwell's, a socialist, main message. I mean, it's the same old wisdom about change = pissing in the wind and what not.

[radiolibre99]

You're sitting here smugly talking about how far I am about this but you're clearly espousing similar rhetoric my generation has heard from yours.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by goodgirl49

You do make a good point, but people with a larger family to raise might want more living space.

They might. And that's fine. And I don't fault people for going wherever their heart leads them.

I'd also point out, though, that dogs aren't the only animals that have curled up with their young in small dens for ages. That's also the way humans lived until fairly recently relative to the course of human history. And somehow I suspect folks back in little huts laughed and loved life as much as we do today. In any case, thousands of generations of living warm and cozy together like gerbil families managed to get us where we are today. Somehow, people managed to find satisfaction along the way to keep going.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

That's because your idea of third world, like so many Americans, is a sub-Saharan utterly destitute, no running water like country. Most of the world has developed. There are a lot of extremely impoverished slums still of course but the idea of all nations still being mud huts is a bit outdated.

I don't think the US looks like the slums of Mumbai by any means but it does remind me of the stagnant countries of Eastern Europe, more so than Western Europe (excluding the UK).

On two occasions, two mind you, I've heard Europeans, one from Italy and another from Denmark say that they were shocked at the level of poverty they saw when first visiting the US. They said the housing standards in the ghettos were poorer than back home, and that (and this is what surprised me the most), that minus the worst favelas, the US reminded them a bit of Brazil. A bit, grant you. Others I've met have said the US reminds them of Russia. In other words they didn't think the country reminded them of Western Europe at all and more like a huge, rich but stagnant nation with a large disparity of rich and poor.

Of course the Americans around us in the discussion argued back but they admitted they've never even left the country to explore. So of course no American wants to admit that this nation is not #1 in terms of standard of living or quality of life anymore.

It's really not fair to compare small European countries to the US. I know, because I was doing the same thing after visiting Ireland for the first time. Now I love Ireland and have been a couple of times, and I noticed how some things seem to work better than here at home.

Than someone pointed out to me you're comparing a country that has well under 5 million people with a country that has well over 300 million.

And these European countries aren't getting overwhelmed with people who are just coming across the border either, further straining the systems in regards to education, healthcare, and employment.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

You're sitting here smugly talking about how far I am about this but you're clearly espousing similar rhetoric my generation has heard from yours.

Not at all. You are superimposing your biases on what I, and others, are writing. You have these stereotyped suppositions about boomers and you overlay them without critical analysis.

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Well first off, I never said they were patently wrong about millenials. Just that there are over generalizations made of millenials out there that people convey. I was just noting that while they seem ridiculous to me, it's what people assume to be factual about millenials, and in a lot of cases it's not far off from being true. Like always you can't over generalize but while I can't assure that all baby boomers subscribe to proto typical right wing views, I can assume that most of the time if I'm getting called a lazy liberal who doesn't get economics 101, it's usually a baby boomer.

Tulemutt, as much you struggle with this you too espouse a premise that is as close to the whole narrative that things are fixed and it's been like this since time immemorial. I don't know how you try to keep wiggling out of that by claiming to not be this or that label. It's essentially the same story. You can disregard me as being simple and a product of youth but I offered you economic history that's as complex as any thing out there most economic historians generally subscribe to. What do you say? You tell me to read brave new world so that I can understand how the elite run things and cleverly take advantage of things. You also tell me to read 1984, a popular book tons of older people tell me to read even though they don't get Orwell's, a socialist, main message. I mean, it's the same old wisdom about change = pissing in the wind and what not.

You know bub, it's hard to think and respond maturely when you are still young. But some young people do pretty well in spite of their youth. I notice the ones who do think with sophistication and depth are those who engage in conversations by asking questions and being willing to examine things without the kinds of preconceptions you override everything with.

Note: again, I don't hold those generalizations about millennials as true. I flat out disagree that it has anything to do with generation.

But the real nut of what I have just pointed out to you, repeatedly, is: regardless of whether lots of FOX News and Alex Jones audiences are boomers, there is - ZERO - factor there that encompasses an entire generation's character. The existence of legions of bumble-brained old folks who never learned to think logically / rationally doesn't mean that is a marker of age. It's a marker of young people who couldn't think their way out of a garbage sack growing into old people who still can't think their way out of a garbage sack. Simple.

You not only need to read Brave New World, but also a basic introduction to logic and rational analysis.

Btw: I didn't suggest you read 1984. Slow down. Read carefully. Learn how to process what people are saying without jumping to conclusions and generalizing.

Or don't. And make a fool of yourself.