Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Great Column. Paul Krugman hits the nail

  1. #21
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 29 2003, 06:07 PM
    [b] Tru dat, Maryland! [/b][/quote]
    Word up, bruddah !

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    I've been reading the Krugamn stuff in NR for a while. He's a joke. This guy was all atwitter about the wonders of Enron without disclosing that he was a $50K per annum consultant for Enron in their heyday. And frankly, it's hard to take someone seriously when they go on television with the worst case of dandruff this side of a blue-haired old baglady. I'm supposed to listen to a ranting irrational imbecile who doesn't know about the wonders of Head & Shoulders? I don't think so.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Oct 28 2003, 11:38 AM
    [b] A Willful Ignorance
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: October 28, 2003

    Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.

    [/b][/quote]
    Well.....At the risk of continuing to beat a dead horse about Krugman and the Times I'd like to cite another example of why his article was basically a pre - designed leftist hit piece against the Bush administration and nothing else.

    He states we gave $ 500 million to a brutal government, on the surface it sounds pretty damning and hypocritical about this administrations lack of morality and direction, most people who read it will form a negative opinion of the actions we're undertaking over there { which is the SOLE intention of the article } and are too lazy to question whether or not there are valid reasons why the administration headed in this direction.

    Then { since I'm no expert on U.S - Uzbekastan relations }.....I read one of the links posted by Jetset which talk about the relations, I was unaware the Al-Qaeda has " waged a campaign of violence and terrorism against the Uzbekanstan regime ", the state department has concerns about how the regime has forcefully cracked down on the terrorists but it seems pretty clear to me that while both sides have done some awful things the regime is not the aggressor in this battle and is simply reacting [ albeit violently } to atrocities committed against them, to me, it begins to look a little less insidous than Mr Krugman would like his readers to believe.

    Then continuing on the same article, I read we've been helping the Uzbek's train to fight terrorism and we've been co-operating together since before 9-11, this isn't just a marriage of conveinance with us throwing money around to rogue nations in order to get better access to Afghanistan { which could be implied by the Times' article }, this has been a partnership that's been going on for quite a while because and has grown because it is consistant with this administrations stated goal which is to erase terrorism from the face of the earth. again.....if you hear the other side it's not quite so insidious.

    But then as I continued to read I found something out that surprised me even more, the article states " the U.S has tripled its aid to Uzbekastan to a total of 160 million per year, much of this goes toward training Uzbek law enforcement and border security forces trying to stem the flow of drugs, illicit nuclear material, and other contraband along Uzbekastans territory ".....I thought we gave them 500 million ?, maybe we did and maybe we didn't but the bottom line is we seem to have some things in common with the Uzbeks and there are legitimate reasons why we offer them aid, I think an argument can be made that the money we give them is money better spent in our interests than alot of the other aid that we hand out { palestinians etc...}that gives us no return on the dollar, actually it gives us less than no return because all we get from that aid { which the Krugmans of the world are all for } is *****ing and moaning how we don't do enough.

    But again, for Krugman to try to be even a little objective and make an attempt to allude to the fact why some people believe there are good reasons for our position over there and toss out even a small bit of info about it would be counterproductive to the designed purpose of the article, that's why both he and his paper are frauds.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Don't think annoying things like context, perspective or facts will stop the Krugman's of the world from writing ad homimen nonsenses. Take N. Korea for example - the left blames Bush for not "handling" North Korea or say that North Korea is a "bigger danger" than Iraq, implying that it's not so much the use of force they oppose, but rather the [i]methods[/i] in which Bush uses force. (Of course, had Bush invaded North Korea instead of Iraq, their tune would have changed considerably, as we all know)

    Where is Krugman's snide column about how Clinton's 1994 Treaty with North Korea and the subsquent BILLIONS that we sent to them all were used by Pyongyang to develop the very nukes they now are attempting to blackmail us with? Where is the "willful ignorance" that Billy displayed by not investigating to determine whether or not N Korea was actually keeping up their end? Why did Billy respond with lawyers and not tanks when the WTC was attacked in 1993 by an [b]Iraqi Al Queda member[/b]!!! Huh??

    Lefties like Krugman and Moore love to smugly state that the USA (or Bush admin) has given money to this or that horrible regime and imply that they are thusly morally bankrupt, but they deliver things completely out of context, using a narrow perspective and often, things that are simply untrue. Intellectually lazy and emotional liberals eat it up without question, the way a puppie trusts that his master is not poisioning him. The puppy has no concept of posion, thus it never considers it. Sush is (a large part of) the left's allegiance to the Krugmans, Dowds or Moores of the world. Bush is ALREADY an evill dim, corrupt man, these columns just re-enforce those views. Repetition, repetition, repetition.

    My favorite myth, aside from the "Bush lied!" shrieks is the 'rush to war' myth. "Don't rush to war until it's imminent, but of course, we can never know what imminent means!!" When was 9-11 imminent? When was the threat from AQ imminent? When did N Korea become imminent? Had Clinton taken a page out of Bush's handbook and invaded N Korea in 1997 they wouldn't have nukes today. Of course, peaceniks would argue that that war was 'rushed' and that there was 'no threat' and how wrong would they have been! Similarly, if Bush had wanted to invade Afganistan in July of 2000, peacniks would have said "where's the threat?!?!?!?" 9-11 may not have happend then, and they would still to this DAY not believe it was the right thing to do.

    If the world had listened to Chruchhill about Hitler and taken him out when they could have, WWII would not have happened, the Holocaust would not have happened and Churchhill would have forever been remembered not as a prescient and principled man, but as a "war monger."

    Oh - and Napolean is to be admired as a French hero, even though he was imperialist as hell as is personally responsible for the deaths of over 4 million people.

    Sorry - I was all over the place on this one. Man, the left pisses me off. (Not intended at you, Jet Set) Very much intended at you, Tail.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us