Krugman has said a whole 'lot of things that were borderline naive at the very best and downright asinine at the worst. There are vast recaps of his stupidity, some on this very forum. Shall we go through all his comments for you to defend...er...I mean so you can "attacking specious arguments against them"? LOL!
Most jobs created are at Mcdonalds or Walmart.
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
Krugman has said a whole 'lot of things that were borderline naive at the very best and downright asinine at the worst. There are vast recaps of his stupidity, some on this very forum. Shall we go through all his comments for you to defend...er...I mean so you can "attacking specious arguments against them"? LOL!
Your whole comment is fucking silly, no reason why I can't add some silly to it.
When someone attacks another person or institution, verbally/physically, and you rally to their side, it is defense - pure and simple. Call it whatever makes you sleep well. Play whatever semantic games you want.
Please show me the number of times on this forum where you have attacked the White House on any topic at all. For each example you provide, I will provide one where you "defended" the White House against something blatantly damaging to the United States. We can see who has more examples. It'll be a fun game!
Oh but the "world" disagrees with you. No, really, that statement is the more accurate.
Ahh, but if a criticism of a person is invalid, and I call it such, then am I really defending the person, or attacking the criticism? I say it's the latter, because the person could change and I'd still attack the invalid criticism.
I note that you declined my challenge. Wise choice, gasbag.
Of course you say it is the latter. Just as you say the criticism is invalid. That's what allows you to keep your silly little narrative going and pretend you're approaching each topic from a balanced perspective.
What a laugh riot!
I have repeatedly said it is the latter.
Again, of course you have. That allows you to pretend you view everything in a balanced fashion, which is hilariously untrue. I repeat, show us some examples of you attacking Obama or the White House on this forum.
Really? I need to dig up instances where I criticized Obama for not being Keynesian enough? Or socialist enough? You don't remember those?
Oh yeah, the various times when the thread was about Obama's crazy spending (for example) and you humorously replied something to the effect of "my only problem is that he's not Keynesian enough" yeah, that's fury alright. Hell hath no fury like a Ricter's bullshit.
Max was totally on target. You are certainly a douchebag.