Krugman talking about the "Conscience" of "Liberals" would be precisely like Pepe talking about the "Courage" of his "Convictions". But then keeping to things that don't exist is what they do best.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Stinking Farce That is Versailles
Krugman talking about the "Conscience" of "Liberals" would be precisely like Pepe talking about the "Courage" of his "Convictions". But then keeping to things that don't exist is what they do best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
It's a repost, but I like the BS meter.
I didn't see the post [still don't].. what was the title?
Similar from Princetonea.
Incidentally, AA, over at Hot Air, one of the guys doesn't think this is a big deal, but I really do.
I couldn't read that piece of bovine excrement to the end, but now that AA reposted it, I forced myself to do it. Vomitorium. Mr Rot is right--Krugman has crossed a line here, in his eternal descent. No turning back.
Here's Morrisey. I think he's wrong that the offense lies only in the politicization on the holy day.
The issue is that Giuliani really was a goddamned hero over there right at the site of the mayhem directing emergency workers around.
Most politicians would be cowering in a goddam bunker.
Also, W was masterful and gave powerful and beautiful speeches there the next day.
Fine, those two weren't actually firemen walking up stairs in the fire, but what was their role supposed to be?
Morrisey makes though a cogent point:
it’s such a lousy piece of writing. It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers. It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut.
Ah, but it passes muster with Princeton, and the Nobel Prize committee...
Cogent?
Krugman's being a weak literary stylist makes his uncivil words excusable?
Tecs out of the mainstream, unless the mainstream is the NYT editorial office.
Standard Rotter straw man fallacy:
(a) I say Krugman is beyond the pale, has crossed a line, is on a downward spiral straight to Hades.
(b) Then I say that, on top of that, he's a lousy writer.
(c) Mr Rot draws the obvious conclusion: Krugman's being a weak literary stylist makes his uncivil words excusable.
A little gem. Even Aristotle could not have given a better example of an utter fallacy, when he wrote the Sophistici Elenchi.
Just pay up, you former Enron advisor.
A=>B, for all A and B, says Rot.
Talking to Pepe?
And what does a bien pensant in good standing about these these uncultured yobbos who feel no twinge of class-inculcated shame in hating mass-murderers?
Why, you hate them, of course. For what else can a good bien pensant, who has purged all hate from his heart by simple act of subscribing to Mother Jones, do when confronted with some benighted hatred, but to pour enlightened hatred on it?
Hanson rightly refudiates Krugman's (and thus Tecs') point of view and brings the weight of History to bear on it all.
Tecs, you're not gettin out of this one. Pay up. Didn't Enron give you piles of cash?
Apparently the responsibilities of the presidency are not those of writing a blog. Who woulda thunk so?
would the author of the thread share with us how he, in contrast, is in any position to snicker about the courage of anyone's convictions (or, barring that, even courage in general) ?
Charly, who comes to the defense of Pepe, who is now hiding in his Darkroom at a far remove from the country that was unwise enough to take his assurance as to what was good for it, wants the author of the thread [that would be me, sans alternative carte] to "share how he is in a position to snicker about..."
I point out to "Charly" that the "author of this thread", which [again] would be me, was not snickering at all. There is nothing but the pathetic in fleeing from the havoc consequent upon what you wished on the USA.
If you care to test the courage of my convictions, "Charly", try it.
Looks like an empty hand to me.
Uh huh.
not even a pair of deuces ? C'mon AA - you can't be going around finger-wagging and distributing satisfecits without having something to show for yourself. How do we call that - I forget ?
If you are looking for something in your hand, the only reliable find you've had is your stick.
As for finding the courage of your convictions... good luck on that hunt.
Ok, I'll start the bar low for you. How about that. You got that ?
No ? Ok how about this? You're got more than this, right ?
Post a Comment