I would have to disagree. He believes the nonsense he spews in his NYT editorials. In fact, as he shows as a commentator on This Week with George, he is probably even dumber than he appears at the NYT where he has an editor to tone down his stupidity.
On Aug 8, 7:40 am, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > He's probably not dumb so he is a lying whore > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:32 AM, RichardForbes > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Krugman is not just physically short but also mentally short. > > The man is narrow-minded and has an uncanny ability to be wrong on > > virtually every topic. There are few who get more attention for being > > so damn dumb than does Krugman. > > > On Aug 8, 7:29 am, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The Boys Who Cried > > > “Racist”< > >http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/07/the-boys-who-cried-racist/> > > > > Posted by David Boaz <http://www.cato.org/people/david-boaz> > > > > Some people on the left can’t see any excuse for opposition to > > collectivism > > > except racism. (Which is, of course, as Ayn Rand > > > said<http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html>, > > > “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.”) Today it’s > > Paul > > > Krugman< > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&partner...> > > > : > > > > But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to > > > what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is. > > > > That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same > > > cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which > > > denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. > > > > That is, Paul Krugman can’t understand why people would oppose government > > > control of health care — or skyrocketing deficits, or a federal takeover > > of > > > education, energy, and finance along with health care — unless they’re > > > driven by racism. But he’s not the only one who sees racists under every > > > bed. Take *Washington Post* cultural writer Philip Kennicott yesterday, > > in > > > an essay< > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR200...> > > > titled > > > “Obama as the Joker: Racial Fear’s Ugly Face”: > > > > [T]he poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the “urban” > > > makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the > > Jack > > > Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his > > > detractors fear but can’t openly discuss. He is black and he is > > identified > > > with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and > > > ’70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling > > > crime rates… > > > > Superimpose that idea, through the Joker’s makeup, onto Obama’s face, and > > > you have subtly coded, highly effective racial and political argument. > > > Forget socialism, this poster is another attempt to accomplish an > > > association between Obama and the unpredictable, seeming danger of urban > > > life. > > > > He’s talking about a poster that depicts Obama as the Joker from last > > year’s > > > Batman movie over the word SOCIALISM. It’s not a very effective poster; > > what > > > does the Joker have to do with socialism? But it’s ridiculous to see > > racism > > > in it. > > > > More serious thinkers also try to tar the entire limited-government > > argument > > > with the brush of racism. Take Cass Sunstein, the celebrated Harvard law > > > professor who has been appointed to a high position in the Obama White > > > House. In his 1999 book with Stephen Holmes, *The Cost of Rights: Why > > > Liberty Depends on Taxes* (and you wonder why Obama chose him?), he made > > > such a sweeping argument, called out here by Tom G. > > > Palmer<http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj19n2/cj19n2-10.pdf> > > > : > > > > [I]mmediately after gallantly conceding that ‘‘Many critics of the > > > regulatory-welfare state are in perfectly good faith’’ (p. 216) they turn > > > around to tar all critics of the welfare state with the charge of racism: > > > ‘‘But their claim that ‘positive rights’ are somehow un-American and > > should > > > be replaced by a policy of nonintervention is so implausible on its face > > > that we may well wonder why it persists. What explains the survival of > > such > > > a grievously inadequate way of thinking? There are many possible answers, > > > but inherited biases — including racial prejudice, conscious and > > unconscious > > > — probably play a role. Indeed, the claim that the only real liberties > > are > > > the rights of property and contract can sometimes verge on a form of > > white > > > separatism: prison-building should supplant Head Start. Withdrawal into > > > gated communities should replace a politics of inclusion’’ (p. 216). > > > > The classical liberal ideas of individualism, individual rights, property > > > rights, “negative liberties,” and limited government date back hundreds, > > > even thousands, of > > > years<http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/the_rise1.html > > >. > > > They find their > > > roots< > >http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X> > > > in > > > the Greek and Hebrew conceptions of the higher law, the Scholastic > > thinkers, > > > the Levellers’ ideas of self-ownership and natural rights, the political > > > theory of John Locke, the economic analysis of Adam Smith, and the > > political > > > institutions of the American Founding. To suggest that the case for > > freedom > > > and limited government — or the application of that theory to > > contemporary > > > proposals for the expansion of government — must be attributable to > > racism > > > is uncharitable, ahistorical, thoughtless, and indeed contemptible. > > > > It cannot be the case that every parody of a president who happens to be > > > black is racist. And it is not good for democracy to try to counter every > > > opposing argument with such a blood libel. The good news for advocates of > > > limited government is that our opponents are displaying a striking lack > > of > > > confidence in the actual arguments for their proposals. If they thought > > they > > > could win a debate on nationalizing health care, or running > > trillion-dollar > > > deficits, they wouldn’t need to reach for such smears. > > > David Boaz <http://www.cato.org/people/david-boaz> • August 7, 2009 @ > > 3:30 > > > pm <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/> > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:04 PM, RichardForbes < > > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I love reading books about the Revolution, the Founding Fathers and > > > > our past Presidents. I would be more than game for such a group > > > > effort. Feel free to include anything about the FBI or CIA as well. > > > > > On Aug 6, 7:53 pm, LadybugsTX <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am not trying to cause yet another senseless argument between the > > > > > sides and the inevitable spew of talking points. I was just curious. > > > > > Does anyone actually read books about our history? I would love to > > > > > start some sort of Oprahesque book club where we read a chosen book > > > > > and discuss it at length. If history repeats itself, wouldn't it > > > > > behoove all of us to learn a little bit about it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
