Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎2000s: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade
Line 2,437: Line 2,437:  
== 2000s ==
 
== 2000s ==
 
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind.  We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many.  With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind.  We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many.  With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism?  At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794

edits

Navigation menu