Krugman Article - How Does this Help?

FinanceDude · 11-06-2008, 09:14 AM

I know a lot of you hold Krugman at the NYT in high regard. However, articles like this do more hurt than help, IMHO.......

The monster years - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

I think its time to get over the 2000 election.........

dex · 11-06-2008, 09:47 AM

It amazes me that people get paid to write those things. I'm sure if monsters arise in the future they will be OK because of the past monsters or the future wrong had its roots with the past monsters.

Abreutime · 11-06-2008, 09:49 AM

Summary of article:

"Nah nah nah nah... good guys won"

socca · 11-06-2008, 11:07 AM

One of my favorite quotes (don't know the source) is "big people talk about ideas, medium-sized people talk about things, and little people talk about other people." In this article, at least, Krugman comes across as a small-minded person.

armor99 · 11-06-2008, 11:18 AM

I have heard the words of Krugman for years. The poster child for zealotry in the extreme. Like most extreme liberals he is completely certain in everything he believes. When you say you disagree with him (as with other far left folks), he is completely confused. In his mind his opinion is not opinion... but a fact. It will never matter to him what facts you might ever show to the contrary. In a strange way I envy him.... no doubt... no confusion... must be nice to have that sort of peace of mind. But on the other hand not a lot of doubt, or thought either that I can see going on.

**ziggy29** · 11-06-2008, 11:22 AM

Krugman is a hack and an idiot, Nobel or not -- the Nobel is becoming a prize based on ideology more than merit. And the Nobel committee loves to stick it to the American right.

Even as his candidate is encouraging everyone to stop the bashing and start trying to come together, he has to rub noses in fecal matter. Krugman sucks.

donheff · 11-06-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abreutime

Summary of article:

"Nah nah nah nah... good guys won"

I would have summarized it as "good ridance to DeLay, Rove, Cheney, and their ilk." I will second that.

clifp · 11-06-2008, 01:33 PM

The Vice President is monster wow! I am curious what adjective Krugman would use to describe Saddam or Bin Laden (probably freedom fighter like Reuters) much less a real monster like Hitler.

President Elect-Obama is fine; it is some of his supporters that I am so profoundly disappointed with. I so wish they had left the country like they so often threatened (promised)

FinanceDude · 11-06-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

The Vice President is monster wow! I am curious what adjective Krugman would use to describe Saddam or Bin Laden (probably freedom fighter like Reuters) much less a real monster like Hitler.

Krugman "speak":

Cheney - Monster

Saddam - misunderstood

Bin Laden - warrior and martyr

Hitler - misguided

Genghis Khan - uneducated

Stalin - abused as a child

. . . Yrs to Go · 11-07-2008, 07:19 PM

The word "monster" is way over the line. But the nasty things he references are all true.

This election saw the Democratic presidential candidate called a terrorist sympathizer, Democrats were widely described as "unpatriotic", whole sections of the country were designated as not part of "real" America. I didn't really see the same invective from the other side.

One might also look at the horrible things the Republican establishment did to one of their own, John McCain, when he ran in the 2000 primary . . . spreading stories that he was mentally unstable from his time as a POW, that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was really an illegitimate black girl, etc. etc.

The Republicans seem to relish this kind of thing. Do you think that maybe Krugman has a point.

unclemick · 11-07-2008, 07:58 PM

Krugman is not the guy to convince my Sister to stop voting Republican.

Is he in NYC with Brett and the Jets? Probably he also couldn't get her to reconsider the Pat's - a good football team.

heh heh heh -

. I used to read him a lot about trade imbalances in the runup to the first bubble pop in 2000.

As a Dem - I hope we're still glad we won - say two yrs from now - and that everybody's portfolio is better.

youbet · 11-07-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go

I didn't really see the same invective from the other side.

Of course not. With your own extreme bias from "the other side," you were blinded to the unfair attacks launched from the Dems. But over time both sides will, hopefully, mellow and come to grips with their own prejudices and put them aside in favor what is best for our country as a whole.

clifp · 11-07-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go

The word "monster" is way over the line. But the nasty things he references are all true.

This election saw the Democratic presidential candidate called a terrorist sympathizer, Democrats were widely described as "unpatriotic", whole sections of the country were designated as not part of "real" America. I didn't really see the same invective from the other side.

One might also look at the horrible things the Republican establishment did to one of their own, John McCain, when he ran in the 2000 primary . . . spreading stories that he was mentally unstable from his time as a POW, that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was really an illegitimate black girl, etc. etc.

The Republicans seem to relish this kind of thing. Do you think that maybe Krugman has a point.

Nastiness is part of politics has been forever and as most historians will acknowledge compared to the Presidential campaigns back in the 19th century or even the last most presidential campaigns in the last 50 years this was a civil campaign. See Daisy ad LBJ 1964, Nixon dirty tricks 72, or Willie Horton Bush 41 88.

I think that Democrats have perfected the art of being a victim. No official McCain spokesman or ad ever said that Obama was a terrorist sympathizer.
What Sarah Palin said is he "palled around with a terrorist. Now people can disagree with what the implication of this statement means. One plausible implication is that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, the other plausible explanation is what McCain said "namely that his association with Bill Ayers shows a lack of judgment. Similar story with Republican X called Democrats XYZ unpatriotic, in virtually every case the Republican actually just said that not supporting a certain bill/action would harm the US. The Democrat responded to the implication, with the "the mean Republicans are questioning my patriotism" The Republican says no I'm not questioning your patriotism just your judgement.

It seems me there is a singificant difference between the rabid left outright statements that Cheney= monster, Bush=Hitler and Bush=Worse President ever, and just a nasty innuendo.

Still no point in refighting the battles of the last almost two years.

I was delighted to see at least some Obama supporters, actually listened to the President Elect speeches. This maybe too Kumbaya for many,
but I liked this

youbet · 11-07-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I was delighted to see at least some Obama supporters, actually listened to the President Elect speeches. This maybe too Kumbaya for many,
but I liked this

I liked it too. Sadly, my impression is that the majority of Obama supporters are now locked into a mode of retaliation and retribution which calls for revenge and retirbution. But that's politics in this good ole USA and what will bring us to an end long before our time......

. . . Yrs to Go · 11-07-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

Nastiness is part of politics

It sure can be, but I offered evidence of the nastiness perpetrated by one side and haven't really seen commensurate evidence on the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I think that Democrats have perfected the art of being a victim.

I think I recall John McCain being pretty upset about how he was treated in the 2000 primary. But I guess he was considered a Democrat then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

The Democrat responded to the implication, with the "the mean Republicans are questioning my patriotism"

For the love of God . . . McCain's campaign theme was "Country First". If you run an election where your central message is "I put the country first" can there be any doubt what you're saying about the other guy? It certainly isn't "he puts the country first too".

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

No official McCain spokesman or ad ever said that Obama was a terrorist sympathizer.
What Sarah Palin said is he "palled around with a terrorist. Now people can disagree with what the implication of this statement means.

Certainly the people yelling "off with his head" and "kill him" at the Republican rallies got the implication.

. . . Yrs to Go · 11-07-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Of course not. With your own extreme bias from "the other side," you were blinded to the unfair attacks launched from the Dems.

So refresh my memory please.

youbet · 11-07-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go

So refresh my memory please.

Sure, refer to your posts here!

. . . Yrs to Go · 11-07-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Of course not. With your own extreme bias from "the other side," you were blinded to the unfair attacks launched from the Dems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Sure, refer to your posts here!

Thanks for confirming my point.

youbet · 11-07-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go

Thanks for confirming my point.

And thanks for confirming mine!

Now, why don't we get on to pres-elect Obama keeping his campaign promises, especially those regarding ending the war in Iraq? The oppositon has been vanquished, the new king awaits to be crowned, it's time to hold him to his promises.

. . . Yrs to Go · 11-07-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

And thanks for confirming mine!

Still waiting for all the evidence of the nasty Democratic campaign. You know, the personal attacks. Not the misrepresenting policy position kind of stuff, but the nasty, "he's a bad person who can't be trusted" kind of thing.

I was promised that both sides did it. Only I couldn't see it because I was blinded by my own extreme bias. So I'm waiting to be enlightened.

11-06-2008, 09:14 AM	#1
FinanceDude Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ... Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,727	Krugman Article - How Does this Help? I know a lot of you hold Krugman at the NYT in high regard. However, articles like this do more hurt than help, IMHO....... The monster years - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog I think its time to get over the 2000 election......... __________________ Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)

11-06-2008, 09:47 AM	#2
dex Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,178	It amazes me that people get paid to write those things. I'm sure if monsters arise in the future they will be OK because of the past monsters or the future wrong had its roots with the past monsters. __________________ Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral

11-06-2008, 11:07 AM	#4
socca Recycles dryer sheets Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sarasota, FL Posts: 375	One of my favorite quotes (don't know the source) is "big people talk about ideas, medium-sized people talk about things, and little people talk about other people." In this article, at least, Krugman comes across as a small-minded person. __________________ When are American politicians going to be as concerned with paying money back as they are with borrowing it?

11-06-2008, 11:22 AM	#6
ziggy29 Moderator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,108	Krugman is a hack and an idiot, Nobel or not -- the Nobel is becoming a prize based on ideology more than merit. And the Nobel committee loves to stick it to the American right. Even as his candidate is encouraging everyone to stop the bashing and start trying to come together, he has to rub noses in fecal matter. Krugman sucks. __________________ FIRE Clock: 11:27 PM. FIREd at midnight but very subject to change.... waiting for the government to privatize the gains and socialize my losses in my 401K...

11-06-2008, 09:49 AM	#3
Abreutime Recycles dryer sheets Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 287	Summary of article: "Nah nah nah nah... good guys won"

11-06-2008, 11:18 AM	#5
armor99 Recycles dryer sheets Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 454	I have heard the words of Krugman for years. The poster child for zealotry in the extreme. Like most extreme liberals he is completely certain in everything he believes. When you say you disagree with him (as with other far left folks), he is completely confused. In his mind his opinion is not opinion... but a fact. It will never matter to him what facts you might ever show to the contrary. In a strange way I envy him.... no doubt... no confusion... must be nice to have that sort of peace of mind. But on the other hand not a lot of doubt, or thought either that I can see going on.

11-06-2008, 01:33 PM	#8
clifp Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,338	The Vice President is monster wow! I am curious what adjective Krugman would use to describe Saddam or Bin Laden (probably freedom fighter like Reuters) much less a real monster like Hitler. President Elect-Obama is fine; it is some of his supporters that I am so profoundly disappointed with. I so wish they had left the country like they so often threatened (promised)

11-07-2008, 07:19 PM	#10
. . . Yrs to Go Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,616	The word "monster" is way over the line. But the nasty things he references are all true. This election saw the Democratic presidential candidate called a terrorist sympathizer, Democrats were widely described as "unpatriotic", whole sections of the country were designated as not part of "real" America. I didn't really see the same invective from the other side. One might also look at the horrible things the Republican establishment did to one of their own, John McCain, when he ran in the 2000 primary . . . spreading stories that he was mentally unstable from his time as a POW, that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was really an illegitimate black girl, etc. etc. The Republicans seem to relish this kind of thing. Do you think that maybe Krugman has a point.

11-07-2008, 07:58 PM	#11
unclemick Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ... Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: north of Kansas City Posts: 5,647	Krugman is not the guy to convince my Sister to stop voting Republican. Is he in NYC with Brett and the Jets? Probably he also couldn't get her to reconsider the Pat's - a good football team. heh heh heh - . I used to read him a lot about trade imbalances in the runup to the first bubble pop in 2000. As a Dem - I hope we're still glad we won - say two yrs from now - and that everybody's portfolio is better.