That lousy attitude...no decency

[Purplehood]

It was short and concise, and I could not find anything to object to in its content.

The guy may be a jerk, a liberal and so on, but I found nothing to disagree with in the article.

Now I'm wondering if I read the same article...
I'm not praising Kerik or Giuliani, but to read this he places all the blame on the conservatives. Leftist' apparently had no part in the "shenanigans". It's all the republicans fault. In fact, Bush obviously orchestrated the whole attack!!!

Paaalease. Makes me want to vomit.

I guess if you read the folks that he attacks as being the full spectrum of the "bad-people", I might agree. I consider those that he named as simply a sampling of all the crooks and idiots that took advantage of the 9-11 attack. We all know that he would never choose to name any of those that are of his ideological leaning. I only differ from his statements in that I wouldn't limit myself to one political leaning or another.

As I have probably stated more than once, I detest the Bush Jr and the Obama administrations equally, and amazingly enough for generally the same reasons.

[Heartland Patriot]

@Purplehood:

I took such great umbrage with the despicable article not for being a political attack; I know enough about that guy to understand how he is politically. And of course there are plenty of folks who do not care for Mr. Bush for any number of reasons. So be it. However, what ticked me off so badly was two-fold...one, he just HAD to put that out there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a day that SHOULD have been about remembrance of the victims and heroes. That he decided to put that article out there on that day, and I'll say this again, shows that HE used it as a political tool, most likely to pour salt into a still open wound, probably hoping to bolster the campaign of his pal, our current head occupant of the White House. Second, he intimated that EVERYONE felt, in someway, as he does when NOTHING could be further from the truth...I don't agree with him and when we go to the polls next year, my lousy one vote equals his lousy one vote. I don't care how many accolades that man has gotten...he does NOT speak for me. YOU can agree with him all you want to agree with him...it is your opinion and as an American you have that right and as a veteran you've more than earned it. I simply do NOT share your viewpoint and if special Mr. Krugman gets to have his say in a venue he has access to, then so do I...and that I'VE earned it.

[Purplehood]

@Purplehood:

I took such great umbrage with the despicable article not for being a political attack; I know enough about that guy to understand how he is politically. And of course there are plenty of folks who do not care for Mr. Bush for any number of reasons. So be it. However, what ticked me off so badly was two-fold...one, he just HAD to put that out there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a day that SHOULD have been about remembrance of the victims and heroes. That he decided to put that article out there on that day, and I'll say this again, shows that HE used it as a political tool, most likely to pour salt into a still open wound, probably hoping to bolster the campaign of his pal, our current head occupant of the White House. Second, he intimated that EVERYONE felt, in someway, as he does when NOTHING could be further from the truth...I don't agree with him and when we go to the polls next year, my lousy one vote equals his lousy one vote. I don't care how many accolades that man has gotten...he does NOT speak for me. YOU can agree with him all you want to agree with him...it is your opinion and as an American you have that right and as a veteran you've more than earned it. I simply do NOT share your viewpoint and if special Mr. Krugman gets to have his say in a venue he has access to, then so do I...and that I'VE earned it.

I understand completely.

I would like to clarify:
I agree with the contents of his article as they are worded.
I do not consider the people he named a comprehensive list.
I am completely ignorant of his viewpoints outside the context of the article. I know nothing about the author.

Having served in Afghanistan, the article simply reminded me of my own personal moral crisis when I was mobilized for Active Duty. My orders stated that I was going to Iraq. At that time (and to this day), I consider the war in Iraq to be unjustified. I was highly concerned about what I would do when faced with a decision regarding my life-long commitment to the US Military; and subsequently receiving orders that I honestly believed were immoral and a violation of the Articles of War. (Military members receive a lot of training on those Articles)
However, I lucked out, and was selected as a replacement to serve in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no qualms about service in Afghanistan.

By the way, I want to make it perfectly clear that I fully support those members of the Armed Forces that have served or do serve in Iraq. One of my buddies that was in my class at Ft Dix and Ft Bragg died the week he arrived in Iraq. I have two sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am quite proud of them.

[Paragrouper]

That he decided to put that article out there on that day, and I'll say this again, shows that HE used it as a political tool, most likely to pour salt into a still open wound, probably hoping to bolster the campaign of his pal, our current head occupant of the White House.

Krugman's piece was very big on opinion and very short on facts to support those opinions. Worse, as you so aptly state above, the timing of its release demonstrates that he is engaging in the very tactic he accuses others of.

Everybody has their own opinion and, thankfully, in our country they have the right to express their opinion. But having the right to say something does not make what you say right.

My opinion: Krugman is a delusional punk.

[Snap E Tom]

Krugman used to be a decent economist. These days, he's just another partisan hack; another one who's part of the problem and not the solution.

There's a classic criticism of Keynesian economics illustrated through a story. If someone throws a rock through a store window, everyone in town should rejoice because now there is demand for a new window, which helps the economy. While most Keynesians would dismiss this as an oversimplification, Krugman still embraces it. He's called 9/11 and the Japan earthquake as opportunities for economic growth and catalysts for prosperity.

Once you start embracing nonsense like that, you're a troll, not a pundit.

[Heartland Patriot]

Krugman used to be a decent economist. These days, he's just another partisan hack; another one who's part of the problem and not the solution.

There's a classic criticism of Keynesian economics illustrated through a story. If someone throws a rock through a store window, everyone in town should rejoice because now there is demand for a new window, which helps the economy. While most Keynesians would dismiss this as an oversimplification, Krugman still embraces it. He's called 9/11 and the Japan earthquake as opportunities for economic growth and catalysts for prosperity.

Once you start embracing nonsense like that, you're a troll, not a pundit.

Well, I'm gratified to see that you at least no longer feel Krugman to be a "decent economist". And, the BEST explanation, and rebuttal, to the Keynesian broken window theory, is by a man long gone, Frédéric Bastiat. Do a search for the "broken window fallacy"...if you haven't read it, it might stir your imagination as it stirred mine.

[Heartland Patriot]

@Purplehood:

I took such great umbrage with the despicable article not for being a political attack; I know enough about that guy to understand how he is politically. And of course there are plenty of folks who do not care for Mr. Bush for any number of reasons. So be it. However, what ticked me off so badly was two-fold...one, he just HAD to put that out there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a day that SHOULD have been about remembrance of the victims and heroes. That he decided to put that article out there on that day, and I'll say this again, shows that HE used it as a political tool, most likely to pour salt into a still open wound, probably hoping to bolster the campaign of his pal, our current head occupant of the White House. Second, he intimated that EVERYONE felt, in someway, as he does when NOTHING could be further from the truth...I don't agree with him and when we go to the polls next year, my lousy one vote equals his lousy one vote. I don't care how many accolades that man has gotten...he does NOT speak for me. YOU can agree with him all you want to agree with him...it is your opinion and as an American you have that right and as a veteran you've more than earned it. I simply do NOT share your viewpoint and if special Mr. Krugman gets to have his say in a venue he has access to, then so do I...and that I'VE earned it.

I understand completely.

I would like to clarify:
I agree with the contents of his article as they are worded.
I do not consider the people he named a comprehensive list.
I am completely ignorant of his viewpoints outside the context of the article. I know nothing about the author.

Having served in Afghanistan, the article simply reminded me of my own personal moral crisis when I was mobilized for Active Duty. My orders stated that I was going to Iraq. At that time (and to this day), I consider the war in Iraq to be unjustified. I was highly concerned about what I would do when faced with a decision regarding my life-long commitment to the US Military; and subsequently receiving orders that I honestly believed were immoral and a violation of the Articles of War. (Military members receive a lot of training on those Articles)
However, I lucked out, and was selected as a replacement to serve in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no qualms about service in Afghanistan.

By the way, I want to make it perfectly clear that I fully support those members of the Armed Forces that have served or do serve in Iraq. One of my buddies that was in my class at Ft Dix and Ft Bragg died the week he arrived in Iraq. I have two sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am quite proud of them.

As a veteran, I 100% appreciate your service, and that of your sons'. I've never been a soldier, just an Air Force aircraft mechanic. I've never been shot at (and for that I am thankful), nor do I consider myself any sort of hero. I have had a bit of time sucking sand in the desert somewhere south of Iraq and though I am proud of my time and the work we did there, I have no desire to ever go back. Whether or not we should have gone to war in Iraq, and the reasons we did so, can be debated among folks, and should be. If the American people feel that we should have never been there, then the laws should be changed to prevent it from happening again. But, just like those that VIOLENTLY protested the Vietnam War, I feel that people (like Krugman) who do these sorts of things PUBLICLY IN SUCH A MANNER provide a morale boost to the bad guys EVERYWHERE...and that puts our guys in more danger than they already are...some guys like to play up inter-service rivalries WAY too much, but I just am not one of them. I have nothing but respect for the hard jobs that soldiers do on the "pointy tip of the spear"...have a good one and best of luck to your sons.

[Purplehood]

@Purplehood:

I took such great umbrage with the despicable article not for being a political attack; I know enough about that guy to understand how he is politically. And of course there are plenty of folks who do not care for Mr. Bush for any number of reasons. So be it. However, what ticked me off so badly was two-fold...one, he just HAD to put that out there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a day that SHOULD have been about remembrance of the victims and heroes. That he decided to put that article out there on that day, and I'll say this again, shows that HE used it as a political tool, most likely to pour salt into a still open wound, probably hoping to bolster the campaign of his pal, our current head occupant of the White House. Second, he intimated that EVERYONE felt, in someway, as he does when NOTHING could be further from the truth...I don't agree with him and when we go to the polls next year, my lousy one vote equals his lousy one vote. I don't care how many accolades that man has gotten...he does NOT speak for me. YOU can agree with him all you want to agree with him...it is your opinion and as an American you have that right and as a veteran you've more than earned it. I simply do NOT share your viewpoint and if special Mr. Krugman gets to have his say in a venue he has access to, then so do I...and that I'VE earned it.

I understand completely.

I would like to clarify:
I agree with the contents of his article as they are worded.
I do not consider the people he named a comprehensive list.
I am completely ignorant of his viewpoints outside the context of the article. I know nothing about the author.

Having served in Afghanistan, the article simply reminded me of my own personal moral crisis when I was mobilized for Active Duty. My orders stated that I was going to Iraq. At that time (and to this day), I consider the war in Iraq to be unjustified. I was highly concerned about what I would do when faced with a decision regarding my life-long commitment to the US Military; and subsequently receiving orders that I honestly believed were immoral and a violation of the Articles of War. (Military members receive a lot of training on those Articles)
However, I lucked out, and was selected as a replacement to serve in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no qualms about service in Afghanistan.

By the way, I want to make it perfectly clear that I fully support those members of the Armed Forces that have served or do serve in Iraq. One of my buddies that was in my class at Ft Dix and Ft Bragg died the week he arrived in Iraq. I have two sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am quite proud of them.

As a veteran, I 100% appreciate your service, and that of your sons'. I've never been a soldier, just an Air Force aircraft mechanic. I've never been shot at (and for that I am thankful), nor do I consider myself any sort of hero. I have had a bit of time sucking sand in the desert somewhere south of Iraq and though I am proud of my time and the work we did there, I have no desire to ever go back. Whether or not we should have gone to war in Iraq, and the reasons we did so, can be debated among folks, and should be. If the American people feel that we should have never been there, then the laws should be changed to prevent it from happening again. But, just like those that VIOLENTLY protested the Vietnam War, I feel that people (like Krugman) who do these sorts of things PUBLICLY IN SUCH A MANNER provide a morale boost to the bad guys EVERYWHERE...and that puts our guys in more danger than they already are...some guys like to play up inter-service rivalries WAY too much, but I just am not one of them. I have nothing but respect for the hard jobs that soldiers do on the "pointy tip of the spear"...have a good one and best of luck to your sons.

I think that a lot of folks don't appreciate how many of us serve that aren't on the "pointy-end". I grew up knowing that I would be in the Military, and never thought about other options (heaven forbid if I had found out I was physically DQ'ed and could never have joined).
I spent a total of 24 years in the Marines and Army and only a single year of that in a Combat zone (and outside the wire). Even if I had never served that year, I would be proud of your service, my service and the countless number of others that served and supported those that did have to fight.

[Medic624]

I think that a lot of folks don't appreciate how many of us serve that aren't on the "pointy-end". I grew up knowing that I would be in the Military, and never thought about other options (heaven forbid if I had found out I was physically DQ'ed and could never have joined).
I spent a total of 24 years in the Marines and Army and only a single year of that in a Combat zone (and outside the wire). Even if I had never served that year, I would be proud of your service, my service and the countless number of others that served and supported those that did have to fight.

[psijac]

I am going to hold a Klan Rally on Martin Luther King Day, but I am not going to allow comments on my post for obvious reasons...

[VoiceofReason]

“What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful.”
Is it just me or do liberals not seem to be happy unless they have something to be ashamed of or feel guilty about.

“and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not”
Everyone agrees with him but some don’t admit it ???????

“Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.”
From what I saw, Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush made public appearances to reassure and encourage the nation. Did George W. Bush not give his first interview until just recently?

“And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.”
A lady I work with was criticizing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that we got into them. I asked her “would you rather fight terrorism over there or here in this country?” I did not receive an answer.

“The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”
See first four paragraphs above.

“I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.”
He is right on one point, the reasons are obvious.

Edited to correct spelling and to add:
Paul Krugman is a maroon.

Curly.jpg (7.64 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

[OldCurlyWolf]

No Comments?

Obviously as idiotic as Mr. Krugman's assumptions are, he has enough intelligence to realize that comments would probably run approximately 20-1 in favor of lynching him or some other unpleasant action.

[VoiceofReason]

Paul Krugman is stupid, an idiot, a moron, blockhead, a fool, an imbecile, a simpleton, dumb, unintelligent, dim witted, a cretin, a chucklehead, slow witted, doltish, addlebrained, intellectually challenged, feeble minded, a half-wit, and not very bright.

Oh, and did I say he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

That’s just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonable assessment.

[VoiceofReason]

I hereby nominate Paul Krugman for this award.

[sjfcontrol]

Paul Krugman is stupid, an idiot, a moron, blockhead, a fool, an imbecile, a simpleton, dumb, unintelligent, dim witted, a cretin, a chucklehead, slow witted, doltish, addlebrained, intellectually challenged, feeble minded, a half-wit, and not very bright.

Oh, and did I say he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

That’s just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonable assessment.

Awe, come on! Tell us what you REALLY think!!