That, according to Paul Krugman, is what you are committing if you don’t support the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

And here’s a column written by a adult that questions the Obamatons committment to science over ideology as it pertains to the recntly censored EPA report questioning the validity of global warming.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/the_epa_silences_a_climate_skeptic__97290.html

Since Mr. Krugman, brilliant and intelligent man that he is, has called anyone who disagree’s with his view an earth traitor, let’s juxtoppose these two columns and see which one actually makes a legitimate point and which one was written by a 17 year old throwing a hissey fit because he’s not getting his way.

OK ed, here’s Krugmans Friday column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1

It’s basically a political screed that could have been written by anyone on this blog. Here’s the gist.

We need another stimulus bill even though the current pile of freshly printed cash hasn’t even been spent.

All the other economists are stupid and clinging to old ideas.

Recycling and doubling down on FDR’s failures is not an old idea but, a fresh!, new!, progressive! idea!!

Republicans suck.

Centrists suck.

Everybody who doesn’t agree with me sucks.

My mouth looks like a vagina.

So…lets debate this brilliant mans “ideas”.

BTW…Bush went to Yale too.

Bush was better on his worst days than Carter was on his best. If you let the media’s constant and grossly unfair treatment of him mold your opinion then that just means you’re a stooge. It doesn’t mean Bush was worse than Carter.

Bill,

Now that you and Roger have made pains to rake Princeton over the coals as yet another bastion of liberal poofery, never mind they get the best students, be advised I misstated slightly. He is Princeton faculty but he went to Yale with PhD at MIT.

Considering all the Yalie politicos I’m inclined to take the Roger tack that something “must” be wrong with the place, but the entire issue of where he went to school is so durn silly it begs laughter and derision (even if he did go there).

The conflation of Brooke Shields with Paul Krugman is at least imaginative. Two points for goofy invention, not to mention
equating the Nobel Peace Prize with the Prize for Economics, but you do have to wonder if Reagan and Bush had won instead of Arafat and Carter would it be held in higher regard. My guess is hell yea.

Arafat might have seemed like a good choice at the time but not in retrospect. As for Carter being the worst of the worst you really don’t want to go down that path do you ?  It’s a four letter word that looks like mush and lush.

I really like the way you say “if” you had bothered to debate the issue properly it would have been for naught. If ???

Besides, links to rightwing nutbar websites is not a debate. REading Krugman and debating his thesis point by point would be debate.

The funny thing is I agree completely he is a political axe-grinder. Most economists are, which is one reason they tnd to be so worthless. Still, these lowbrow attacks are so unimpressive. Even Brooke Shields could do better. I’d lay money on it.

Krugman isn’t even an economist. He stopped being one of those decades ago. Now he’s just another hyperventilating political leftist who sees the great global warming swindle coming apart at the seams.

Princeton? Please. I wouldn’t insult my ass by wiping it with an econ degree from Princeton…or any other ivy league brainwashing depot. These idiots epitomize he old phrase “those who can do…those who can’t teach…I’m not impressed by titles or degrees or similar letters of self importance. History is scattered with the corpses of such wiz kid pricks.

Nobel Prize? Great, but has he ever won a prize that’s worth something to people other than the impotent metrosexual eurosocialists on the nobel committee? First prize in the “Creepiest Swarthy Potential Child Molestor” look alike contest doesn’t really count, although he’s certainly earned it.

As Bill said, it wouldn’t matter if we posted links to data or sites that expose the global warming hoax. You’d simply find a reason not to read them or disregard what little you would read. You’ve cast your lot and now your stuck.

I see now why you refuse to use your real name. I’d be ashamed of being that wrong that often myself.

Biscuit -

What does “Princeton educated” mean anymore, other than that the person is potentially halfway socialist?  Brooke Shields went to Princeton.  I’m sure she’s not a shambling moron, but do we want her setting our economic or energy policies?

And Nobel Prize-winning?  Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Prize, as did Yasser Arafat.  So I suppose Krugman is in good company - a bumbling nice guy who is widely regarded as the most ineffective president in the history of our country and an unrepentant terrorist. 

Hardly ringing endorsements in support of why the country should do what Krugman recommends.  I have been around academia enough to no longer be overly impressed by someone waving around degrees and credentials as if that somehow automatically establishes their credibility and authority on their pet topic.

Show me what he has DONE and ACHEIVED.  I have yet to find any of his arguments “compelling”.  You find them compelling because you are predisposed to agree with them.  If Roger or Bart or I directed you to a compelling argument on the other side of the issue, I have no doubt whatsoever you would poo-poo it disdainfully and find all kinds of reasons why it is not to be regarded. 

Krugman is every bit asmuch of a political axe-grinder as any of the other bobble heads.

I love it when a Princeton educated Nobel Prize winning iconoclastic economist is attacked by folks who have never bothered to prove they can even spell kat.

And such cogent compelling arguments too. Krugman has nothing on you folks. Look at what you wrote compared to what he wrote.

Look, the environmentalist argument is starting to crack, but not the science. The problem is no one objects when you talk lightbulbs and windmills but when you start to say significant economic sacrifices are needed that’s a different story.

Carbon sequestration is a tough subject. Cap and trade is not an easy sell. Getting the world to respect the Kyoto Treaty or its followup is a tough job.

This is evidence Roger that Bart is Centrist, center of the far right perhaps.

Krugman isn’t an economist, he’s a political hack who plays economist. His opinion is worth about as much as Al Gores Nobel Prize. Nothing.

His column stinks of desperation. Good. At least he’s still sane enough to see that the global warming hoax is falling apart. Sadly, he’s tied his reputation to it. Hence the desperation.

Not that his reputation will be damaged. On the left, it’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about hating the right people and clinging bitterly to the right failed ideas.

i don’t much like Krugman when he writes on economics.

He sounds like one of those looney global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate catastrophe/deteriorating atmosphere holy desciples in this article.

Compliments of Rick Moran in American Thinker-

“It says something about the Nobel Committee that they would take anything this man writes seriously.“

Krugman is a danger to his own misbegotten reputation as a voice of reason…

OK. I declare Krugman a traitor against the human race.

His turn.

CLICK HERE

Very Sexy®

NOTED THIS AD ON RIGHT-SIDE OF PAGE:
Bamboo wireless push-up monokini

A natural beauty. New fabrication for improved fit and quality.

• Side bamboo rings
• Molded wireless push-up padding
• Ties at neck
• VS logo back closure
• Imported micro nylon/spandex

YOU SHOULD SEE THE MODEL!  BETTER THAN KLUGMAN!

Post Your Comments: