Rumsfeld fears the truth

[T-Rexx]

Devastatingly honest pieces like Krugman's are what make the NYT the world's greatest newspaper.

Long live the Grey Lady!

 

[NineOfClubs]

Devastatingly honest pieces like Krugman's are what make the NYT the world's greatest newspaper.

Long live the Grey Lady!

No that rag is proving itself to be akin to Pravda.

 

[T-Rexx]

as for paul krugman - proof that a high IQ does not constitute smart or wise...

...another piece of shit attack piece by a guy who not only thinks he smarter than everyone else but delivers character assassination far too easily

i would suggest that Paul Krugman has very little knowledge of what might be in the "nation's heart"

as he is on the fringe and cannot speak to anything but his own warped mindset

No that rag is proving itself to be akin to Pravda.

I've noticed that Republicans prefer to attack the messengers, rather than construct alternative arguments

I used to think that was because Republicans were so anti-intellectual.

Now, I tend to think it is because their positions are simply indefensible.

 

[JayHawk]

^ Kinda like the ad hominem attacks on Bush throughout by the progressives who now look the other way as Obama runs the same dark evil programs?

LMAO

 

[NineOfClubs]

I've noticed that Republicans prefer to attack the messengers, rather than construct alternative arguments

I used to think that was because Republicans were so anti-intellectual.

Now, I tend to think it is because their positions are simply indefensible.

OK then.

So you want to accept Krugman's words as truth.

I don't. I think he's being exceptionally partisan. Negative. Even, provocative.

Not to mention being very passive-aggressive and a pussy for not allowing comments.

 

[chance1]

I've noticed that Republicans prefer to attack the messengers, rather than construct alternative arguments

I used to think that was because Republicans were so anti-intellectual.

Now, I tend to think it is because their positions are simply indefensible.

Krugman is the one doing character assassination

His position here is the one of cynicism and stretch

Based on his well stated partisanship

The NYT has proven itself to be anything but reasoned or balanced

And this piece is proof of that

Nit to mention Krugman shit his pants when bill O'Reilly pointed his finger at him - on Tim russerts show

Hard to take a guy seriously after that

 

[Kulindahr]

silly me

i thought "cashed in" suggesting he profited

funny

you and yours always say how dumb GWB is

not he's a master manipulator

u need to get your lies str8

Duplicitous, you -- "cashed in" has a varied meaning depending on the context. But it does mean "he profited" -- he got his way.

"Lies"? You speak of lies when you use at least two in your post?

I've never said GWB was dumb, and there aren't any "mine" saying the same that.

 

[chance1]

^ Kinda like the ad hominem attacks on Bush throughout by the progressives who now look the other way as Obama runs the same dark evil programs?

LMAO

Love the "dark evil" reference

Very much so

Wanna cam ?

 

[chance1]

Duplicitous, you -- "cashed in" has a varied meaning depending on the context. But it does mean "he profited" -- he got his way.

"Lies"? You speak of lies when you use at least two in your post?

I've never said GWB was dumb, and there aren't any "mine" saying the same that.

Right

And the club doesn't portray bush as a buffoon?

Make that brilliant buffoon?

Hello hello McFly ?????

 

[Kulindahr]

Shows you how petty and childish Rumsfeld is. He had to "announce" he was canceling his subscription?

Him and the two posts above yours -- little more than whines.

But maybe Rummy is trying to be "with it" -- doesn't everyone tweet their every action to the whole world?

 

[Kulindahr]

Devastatingly honest pieces like Krugman's are what make the NYT the world's greatest newspaper.

Long live the Grey Lady!

I don't know that it's "the world's greatest newspaper", but devastatingly honest pieces are a big point in any paper's favor -- especially when they are passionate dissent from the prevailing view.

OK then.

So you want to accept Krugman's words as truth.

I don't. I think he's being exceptionally partisan. Negative. Even, provocative.

Not to mention being very passive-aggressive and a pussy for not allowing comments.

Where did he say he accepts Krugman's words as truth?

Though all one has to do is look at the police-state-feeding "USA PATRIOT" Act to see that he has a point: the enduring legacy of 9/11, covered by pious memorializing, is a sharp loss of liberty, an extension of the imperial presidency. Expressing that point on the anniversary of the event used to put that bit of tyranny over on the American public is a very, intensely patriotic thing to do.


Yeah, the comments thing was weak. Was he afraid they'd crash the site? Heck, I thought comments were sort of like ratings, for online media.

 

[Kulindahr]

Krugman is the one doing character assassination

His position here is the one of cynicism and stretch

Cynicism is healthy for democracy -- especially a healthy dose of cynicism. One should always be cynical about the motives of government, especially when it involves enhancement of police power and the extension of the role of the military.

The tragedy here is that it took Krugman to say this -- with all the talk of "Hope" and "Change", one might have expected these words from Obama, with a call to overturn the entire "USA PATRIOT" Act, close Guantanamo, etc. So much for leadership.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Where did he say he accepts Krugman's words as truth?

Kinda sounded like it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right

And the club doesn't portray bush as a buffoon?

Make that brilliant buffoon?

Hello hello McFly ?????

Your fantasy about a "club" is getting tiresome.

There are people who portray Bush as a buffoon. There are people who don't.

You trying to pigeonhole people with your made-up simplistic categories is a sign of intellectual laziness. What happened to the chance who actually used his brain?

 

[NineOfClubs]

Your fantasy about a "club" is getting tiresome.

There are people who portray Bush as a buffoon. There are people who don't.

You trying to pigeonhole people with your made-up simplistic categories is a sign of intellectual laziness. What happened to the chance who actually used his brain?

Dude, you joined the club a year ago.

Much to my sorrow.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kinda sounded like it.

Well, since I didn't make this "on topic", I'll dabble in analyzing Krugman:

his piece was overreaching, a bit pompous, but built around a kernel of truth that we as a nation need to face up to, instead of filling our minds with unquestioning pomp and circumstance. It was also somewhat off-target -- he should have lambasted Obama and called on Congress to repeal the "USA PATRIOT" Act and tear down the layers of secrecy that have continued to be put up, along with stripping away the imperial powers that both Bush and Obama have added to the presidency.

 

[chance1]

Your fantasy about a "club" is getting tiresome.

There are people who portray Bush as a buffoon. There are people who don't.

You trying to pigeonhole people with your made-up simplistic categories is a sign of intellectual laziness. What happened to the chance who actually used his brain?

If you're suggesting that the OVERWHELMING supported position is not one of GWB as good old boy folksy have a beer with daddy's boy dumby .......

You should reconsider kuli cuz it's been the narrative for as long as I've been here - and you've been here

That's not a "pigeon hole" - that's an accurate portrayal of life on JUB

My brain is tired - it's 116am

 

[Kulindahr]

Dude, you joined the club a year ago.

Much to my sorrow.

What happened a year ago is that a batch of anti-liberty demagogues took over the lower house of Congress and proceeded to work at nothing but trying to make sure nothing useful got done while Obama remains in the White House.

That reality brought out evidence that you've never been a libertarian at all, but a cheerleader for the Right in many of their most oppressive moments. You cheer for plutocracy, for the stripping of life and liberty from most Americans through economic oppression, and defend those who work for the advancement of theocracy over and over.

The House Republicans are enemies of liberty. Rumsfeld was and remains an enemy of liberty. For that matter, FOX News is an enemy of liberty. That they do it all while chanting libertarian mantras changes nothing: they, with the Koch brothers, will keep leading libertarian chants while leading everyone into chains.

A libertarian society requires checks and balances to stop the accumulation of power in dangerous concentrations. Among those checks and balances is an educated society. But we do not have an educated society; thanks to the left for the last few decades, the populace has been dumbed down and taught to feel rather than think.

But will the Left fight the anti-liberty march of the Republicans? Not really -- they'll go through the motions, while in actuality they plot to be the ones to take those reigns of oppression/suppression and hold them permanently.

Krugman is at least a voice calling for us to think differently, to examine the things done in the name of tragedy and "security". That many of the posts in this thread are aimed at him, rather than examining his points, merely proves that the left has achieved that dumbing-down, and that most Americans, along with Rumsfeld, are afraid of the truth -- after all, it might require them to think.

 

[NineOfClubs]

^ Proof in point!

 

[Kulindahr]

If you're suggesting that the OVERWHELMING supported position is not one of GWB as good old boy folksy have a beer with daddy's boy dumby .......

You should reconsider kuli cuz it's been the narrative for as long as I've been here - and you've been here

That depends on who's boycotting the forum and what mods have been silencing people.

It's been a dominant narrative, yes -- one I've battled by pointing out, to the point of getting weary of it, that GWB has an IQ on par with JFK and above (as far as can be estimated historically) most presidents... and then asking the question of why someone apparently so bright could be so easily led around by the nose.