the meanness of Georgia Republicans

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, we're all a bunch of big meanie double stupidheads

Read the article. If you agree with the actions contained within, you are indeed a "big meanie double stupidhead".

I disagree with most of the actions contained in the article, but calling the GOP "mean"? Surely in all the English language you guys can think of a few epithets for the GOP that are less childish than "mean".

There are senses of 'mean' that do work here, like the one that means 'parsimonious to a fault and/or for all the wrong reasons'. The common North American one is indeed kind of childish.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seems like they used to deign to give these unfortunate people scraps from their most high and mighty farmhouse table, though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Depends on which rich people we're talking about, of course...(regarding the former more than the latter, in which it's safe to say that most if not almost all rich Americans are terrified of the lower classes organizing into political movements...)

True. I was just going to edit that post to add in a 'some' before or 'sometimes' after 'rich people'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Or maybe they don't like the treasury being looted by public employee unions.

That would be easier to believe were most of these people's alleged concerns about the treasury's maidenhead not selective at best.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seems like they used to deign to give these unfortunate people scraps from their most high and mighty farmhouse table, though.

It is mere chance that Roy Barnes had to deal with fewer of those types. One wonders why they have not self-deported to San Francisco over the last decade.

'One' might, but a person with any sense of perspective and compassion for the less fortunate surely wouldn't.