Why is DU being constantly spammed with Paul Krugman's Freeper bull crap?

[NJmaverick]

the guy is anti Obama and just writes one freeper like attack after another. Why does his lies and false attacks, that are better suited for the Free Republic, make up one out of every 10 posts here at the DEMOCRATIC Underground? Why are so many DUers actively working to help the GOP by spreading false information that is beneficial to their cause????

[cali]

1. He's a very well informed economist

and his pov is NOT "false information" or "freeper bull crap". I don't always agree with him, but I certainly always consider what he has to say.

[NJmaverick]

2. He has an agenda that overides whatever his background once was

beyond that he has never proven himself able to run an economy. Obama's people have and that's a HUGE difference. Paul Krugman was attacking and actively working against Obama, since the primaries. He still has and he has be as intellectually dishonest as is humanly possible. His attacks are full of lies and contradictions and distortions of the facts. He has gone off the deep end.

[Captain Hilts]

10. You missed the column in which he enthusiastically praised Obama's budget. nt

[JVS]

15. What is that agenda? How does it contradict the background he once had? When have Obama's people..

demonstrated the ability to run an economy?

I'll agree that Krugman was a transparent Clinton partisan during the primaries, but I don't see how advocating for the Swedish bank crisis model rather than the Japanese model makes him a raving lunatic.

[NJmaverick]

19. Since he entered the poltical arena and threw his support behind Hillary

his agenda has been to take Obama down, to smear and slander him using his economic credentials as his weapon.

[JVS]

22. MORE EVIDENCE, LESS ASSERTION.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

CAPS FUCKING RULE!

[NJmaverick]

35. Don't be lazy, do your own research if you don't feel there is enough

evidence for you. Be critical in your thought process.

[JVS]

41. YOUR CLAIM, SO THE BURDEN IS ON YOU

PROVE YOURSELF

[NJmaverick]

43. I am not the one constantly spamming the board with Krugman's anti Obama propaganda

you need to justify that action, not me

[JVS]

44. I DON'T NEED TO JUSTIFY IT. I DON'T DO IT.

YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND CLAIM THAT IT'S ANTI-OBAMA PROPAGANDA, JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM

[NJmaverick]

51. He is a PUMA with a NY

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

[JVS]

74. 2/11/08 is kind of an early date to establish PUMAism.

Here he is about a year later. Doesn't sound like a PUMA to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIu94vj9onM

[NJmaverick]

78. It shows just how far back his irrational hatred of Obama extends

and that he can't be trusted to write with out bias.

[JVS]

88. What it doesn't do is prove that he retains an undying primary hatred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVY4oaA4ZW0&feature=related

zOMG he's crazed with rage!

[NJmaverick]

100. hey he serves your agenda, so I guess it doesn' t matter if he is right or honest

[JVS]

112. What agenda?

[burythehatchet]

179. you're one of NIXON'S PEOPLE. I know you are.

[LostinVA]

185. We all know what a HUGE HRC Primary Warrior you were, JVS

YOU CAN'T HIDE YOUR AGENDA FROM US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JVS]

255. LOL

[amborin]

205. NJmaverick: YOUR agenda must be right wing neo-liberal policies, clearly

[Djinn]

227. I can GUARANTEE he aint serving my agenda

Unless he went and joined the IWW while I wasn't looking - Pigs will fly before ANY mainstream US commentator/columnist is pushing my particular barrow - I can still appreciate Krugman has a wealth of knowledge which you haven't even attempted to counter.

[girl gone mad]

137. But you are spamming the board with false character attacks.

[ArchieStone1]

146. He was with Edwards, actually

At first. Then Edwards withdrew. And he supported Obama over McCain.

[chimpymustgo]

186. He did not support Hillary. He said her healthcare plan was better than Obama's and Edwards' was

best. But here at DU, that was a sacrilege. So Krugman, one of the most liberal - and smart economists around - is called a Freeper.

[stillcool]

118. "Demonstrated the ability to run an economy"..

What global financial crisis has Krugman managed? What government/global financial position has he held that demonstrates his ability to run an economy?

[EFerrari]

194. How did I miss more than 1000 of these gems.

[CAcyclist]

244. That's what I was wondering. nt

[Djinn]

225. Obama's people have proven they can run an economy

you're freakin' KIDDING right? You mean the people who swallowed privatisation, glorified deregulation and think that the smashing of Glass Steagall was a GOOD thing?

What on earth makes you think Rubin has shown he can "run an economy" unless you're meaning running it into the ground :crazy:

I'm really glad to see there's criticism of Obama here at DU - I feared it would have turned into an all mighty circle jerk after the election as happened at other (semi)left leaning forums. It was like now "we" have a Democrat in office we can shut our eyes, stuff our ears full of cotton wool and pretend the world is a shiny happy place.

I've had my disagreements with the admins of this site over the years but if there's really enough "anti-Obama" (blasphemy - get the torches) stuff getting posted to prompt you to post this lame thread then I reckon I'll be here more often.

If self identifying progressives don't criticise him the HUGE pull to the right will continue - they have WAY more money and influence over him than you do - you NEED to criticise him

[DrDan]

87. that may be true - but he lacks the requisite hero-worship

obviously a hack economist.


That is the permeating theme the past couple of days.

[NJmaverick]

90. True he has been a hillary supporting Obama basher for over a year

and now he is just a bitter PUMA with a column in the NYT

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx

[DrDan]

103. that article is 13 months old - time to get over it

he doesn't suffer from the same level of hero-worship found around here.

[DrDan]

123. oh gosh - there's that 13-month article once more . . . it sure is getting around today

[Runcible Spoon]

124. Frakkin Kee-rist you are a one trick pony.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[stillcool]

119. He lacks no such thing..

his word is golden, and even though he has no desire whatsoever to take a government position, his fans want him to take over. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with a person holding another view, or someone critical of the way Krugman expresses his opinion.

[DrDan]

122. I support that position as well - guess I should have put in one of those

sarcasm thingies. I like Krugman. I think he should be listened to. I support his position to not take a job with the administration - some are good at implementing policy, some are not. He has no obligation to take on such a role.

My point actually was that there are many here who find him to be a hack simply because they see him as a critic of Obama's.

[stillcool]

127. I think it's all about the language..

and I understand that too. A moderate piece doesn't get the attention that something more caustic does. Form wins over substance every time.

[billyoc]

3. Krugman is despised over at freerepublic.com.

And by the GOP in general.

And by Rush Limbaugh.


And by you...

[JVS]

18. touche!

[Runcible Spoon]

125. ding ding ding n/t

[cliffordu]

236. Ouch....That's going to leave a mark....

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

4. Oh please. OMG someone questions Obama BURN HIM!!!!!!!

Krugman is pretty much the smartest motherfucker in the room on the economy.

Just because he disagrees with the Obama administration doesn't change that fact.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a freeper, but making such a false dichotomy like you just did is CERTAINLY something freepers do all the time...... hmmmm.....

[NJmaverick]

5. Unlike alll the mindless fools that worship the idiot paul krugman

your post is a JOKE

[Runcible Spoon]

126. No, the real joke is you and your overblown witch hunt on Krugman.

Fuck man, CALI respects Krugman and she's about as unapologetic an Obama supporter as any.

[Bjorn Against]

150. Oh how I wish I could see you debate Krugman face to face so we could see who the real idiot is.

[Political Heretic]

170. We don't "worship" experts on a subject. We simply LISTEN to them without freaking out when....

....their analysis doesn't jive with the position of one of our loved ones.

[cali]

6. Actually, Krugman is only one of quite a few smart motherfuckers

on the economy. People who elevate him to "smartest" tend to do that because they know of so few economists.

[NJmaverick]

7. Anyone that has read Krugman's work with a critical eye and a basic understanding

of economics, knows Krugman is full of shit. He may be intelligent, but he let that take a back seat to his personal vendetta against President Obama.

[TankLV]

50. Wow - which proves that YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!!!

I've read and comprehended Krugman at great length - and his words are ALWAYS spot on...

Yours, on the other hand, prove your INGORANCE on this matter...

[NJmaverick]

56. Krugman compared Obama's supporters to Nixon's people

he is a PUMA with a NYT's column

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[Runcible Spoon]

128. Hmm, I guess he was probably talking about supporters like YOU.

Of course, most Obama supporters are lovely people. It's disingenuous to say that article is referring to ALL of his supporters...it most certainly refers to people like you.

[TankLV]

198. OOOOO - he compare obama's SUPPORTERS to Nixon - OOOOO

which doen't make Krugman's analysis of ecomonmic issues lees correct>

EPIC FAIL!

Some of Obama's supporters ARE asses - which you prove nicely...

[Bjorn Against]

152. How much Krugman have you read? You seem to only be able to link to a single article.

[Political Heretic]

171. That is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

You're getting desperate.

[burythehatchet]

178. did you miss the part about NIXON'S PEOPLE???? WHAT's RoNg wItH YoOoOoO?

[leftynyc]

234. Personal vendetta against the President?

Got any proof for that?

[Political Heretic]

182. The tendency doesn't represent me.

I said he was pretty much the smartest because, knowing (meaning having read - I do this as part of my career) a great plenty of economists I personally like Krugman a great deal.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Because he's one of the few that saw this shit coming. That's why. nt

[NJmaverick]

12. He saw it the same time everyone else did

[Political Heretic]

172. False.

[DrDan]

9. you mean Nobel-in-Economics-Krugman? That one?

Perhaps he has something to say about the economy. Perhaps he is worth listening to? Perhaps we should spend more time listening to "experts" rather than journalists and politicians.

[NJmaverick]

13. I mean the one that has been writing political hit pieces since the primaries

[DrDan]

52. are there errors in his commentary? or is it just that he has some disagreement

with the direction of the administration?

What I read here yesterday (and I am not accusing you of this, of course) is that any criticism of Obama's strategy should be immediately silenced. We (the citizens) should not be critical of the administration - but should get in line and offer nothing-but-support. Sounds a lot to me like junior's administration.

[NJmaverick]

59. Yes they are chocked full of errors

but that is to be expected from someone that compared Obama supporters to Nixon's people

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[DrDan]

71. you bring out a 13-month old article where Krugman requests unity

"I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. "

And whether you want to admit it or not, their is a cult-like following - most noticable here.

Now - how about some of them lies.

[NJmaverick]

75. Yes here is another article that is a year old

wondering why Krugman has such hatred for Obama. It's clear Krugman is a bitter PUMA with a column to persue his persona vendetta

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

[DrDan]

82. so now you give me an article NOT by Krugman, but someone's interpretation

of the controversial relationship.

And this one expresses Krugman's preference toward partisan politics - a stand that is nearly universal here at DU. If anything, the members here align more closely with Krugman that with Obama on that issue.

c'mon - let's havce some of the lies he is spreading.

[NJmaverick]

92. Are you lying or just too lazy to click the link back to his orginal hate filled article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?scp=

[DrDan]

96. I already read that 13-month old article - I want to hear about the lies he is spreading

I do not see a single lie in that article. Some opinions that I am sure you do not agree with. But nothing I would consider a lie.

How about the lies you claim.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

220. The article you site is 13 months old

The political landscape has changed so much since then and you fail to see that. I was as pro Obama as they come and I thought Hillary was a horrible candidate. But let it go. Krugman is brilliant and I am letting by gones be by gones. You should try and do that too.

[JVS]

11. Krugman isn't a freeper.

Since September, in the name of preventing economic collapse, the party has gotten itself into some very questionable relationships with big business. As such, criticism should be expected.

[NJmaverick]

14. He is a freeper in the sense that the facts have taken a back seat to his personal agenda

[JVS]

16. I have some questions up above. You need more content to back up your denunciations.

[NJmaverick]

17. Anyone that bothers to read one of his columns with a critical eye

and an open mind can see that I am correct.

[JVS]

20. Dude, get some content. This is the lamest argument I've seen from you in a long time.

[NJmaverick]

27. What's lame is your blind support of Krugman

Krugman has been a joke since his days of writing glowing articles for Enron, while he was their paid consultant.

[Bjorn Against]

153. Can you please provide a link to one of his "glowing articles of Enron" or are you making shit up?

[Skittles]

223. what a fucking load of BS

Krugman always disclosed

[Djinn]

229. you REALLY wanna inspect that beam in your eye

He consulted for a minute (in the scheme of these things) amount of money for Enron in 1999 - this is a pathetic attempt which a 12 year old with an internet connection could shoot down in seconds.

Krugman himself spells it all out here, in simple language for those who keep repeating this nonsense:

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.html

Anything here you like to counter? you know with actual facts rather than a "nasty man is mean to Obama" tantie?

I can not believe I'm defending a free market capitalist who's praised cheap labor AND Thatcher but counter-spin makes for strange bedfellows I guess

[WyLoochka]

25. It is you who are reading in to

his point of view something that isn't there. This "personal vendetta" claim of yours is bullshit.

I read Krugman "with a critical eye and an open mind" and he makes much more sense to me than Geithner and Summers.

[NJmaverick]

28. Open your eyes and stop blinding following an ethically challenged man

His work is used ONLY for propaganda purposes, not for serious economic discussion.

[Djinn]

230. Krugman is ethically challenged

but you're OK with Summers, Geithner, Rubin et al?

Oakey doakey I think we can all give up now - your nonexistent economic analysis is showing

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. I'm reading your posts with a crtitical eye and I think you're full of it

...but hey, if you can scare some of the people into thinking you're more well-informed, go right ahead.

[moez]

54. Actually, it that's the case....

YOU seem to fall into your own definition of a freeper....

[NJmaverick]

61. Try thinking and reading for a change

here is a good article to see where KRugman is coming from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[Djinn]

228. pot meet kettle

:eyes:

[Jennicut]

21. Krugman is not a freeper. He is not a politician. He is an economist with an opinion.

Sometimes I agree with that opinion and sometimes I do not. However, I find it funny that the people here who make fun of Obama worshipers get all in a tizzy when Krugman is questioned.

[NJmaverick]

29. He is a politicl animal who long gave up being an economist

he is a political hack, with an ax to grind and a column to do it with.

[MercutioATC]

83. Soyou disagree with Krugman's economic views? You belive Obama is making good decisions?

Simple question:

Speaking ONLY about Obama's economic recovery plan...

Do you believe that Obama is making good decisions?

[NJmaverick]

86. He doesn't write about good economic theory,

he barely mentions anything that could be considered true economics. He is all about politics, these days, and all about trying to take down Obama (so he can declare himself right and brilliant for supporting Hillary).

[MercutioATC]

94. Care to answer the question?

Is Krugman wrong?

Is Obama making good economic policy decisions?

[NJmaverick]

97. Yes Krugman is wrong, dead wrong

that's the fun thing about just writing columns, you can always be wrong. His theories have never actually worked or been proven in the real world.

[MercutioATC]

107. Well, our opinions definitely differ. I believe Krugman is a lot closer to "right" than Obama is.

In fact, my biggest problem with Krugman is that he doesn't go far enough.

[Bjorn Against]

155. He doesn't write about economics? Have you even looked at the list of books he has written?

Here is a link to the first page of books written by Paul Krugman that are for sale on Amazon, notice that there are actually multiple pages filled with books that he has written if you click on the links at the bottom of the page. Most of these books are not about politics, but rather economics textbooks. With your statement that he does not write about economics you have clearly proven that you have absolutely ZERO knowledge of anything Krugman has written aside from that single article from thirteen months ago that you keep linking to over and over again.

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1237754026/ref=sr_pg_1?ie=UTF8&rs=1000&keywords=paul%20r%20krugman&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Apaul%20r%20krugman&page=1

[Djinn]

231. there's a HUGE difference

between wishing people would support their arguments and not post outright slander and "getting in a tizzy when Krugman is questioned"

I'm an anarchist - I don't so much "question" Krugman as take up a position at the POLAR OPPOSITE end of the economic spectrum as he does. However I'm pained by the ever worsening political discourse in the west which sees character assasination, spin and completely unsupportable assertions presented as fact.

[depakid]

23. Why are some on the left as paranoid and ignorant as those on the right?

:shrug:

It's actually embarrassing.

[NJmaverick]

30. yes those that keep posting his self serving crap are VERY EMBARRASSING

and I wish learn to think and open up their minds. Why don't you start reading his column with an open mind and a critical eye, instead of simply accepting it because it's good anti Obama material???

[depakid]

37. Your paranoid rantings are -how do you put it? Strange.

And ill informed.

[NJmaverick]

39. If you had a valid position or an intelligent though, you would have to resort to

your dishonest labeling

[depakid]

46. Here' a hint: you probably should let this drop

because you're really sounding unhinged....

[NJmaverick]

58. You are full of crap. Krugman compared Obama supporters to Nixon's people

that is where he is coming from


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[depakid]

140. I'm guessing that you fail to see the irony in that statement

and the article you cite.

[Reterr]

142. I suspect so

Btw depakid, at least imo you are one of the few posters here who consistently makes sense :thumbsup:.

[Runcible Spoon]

129. I really wouldn't count Ole NJMaj as "left"

:puke:

[Danger Mouse]

24. Epic fail.

[NJmaverick]

31. LOL! Lamest post ever

[TankLV]

55. Your OP is the lamest post ever - EPIC FAIL pretty much sums up YOUR OP...

[NJmaverick]

60. What's lame are the people supporter Krugman the PUMA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

<<Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.>>

[Warren Stupidity]

136. freeper puma, what else ya' got?

what a pantload. A pro-Clinton essay from February 2008 in the middle of a very intense primary season does not a PUMA make. Your OP is crap. Your defense of your OP is pathetic.

[TankLV]

199. Umm - Krugman was SPOT ON then, as usual...

SOME of Obama's SUPPORTERS, like you, are an embarassment...

"What's lame are the people supporter Krugman the PUMA" ???

Your english composition is almost as good as the Freepers, too...

[Reterr]

208. This should delight a student of irony

Seriously, do you not see the irony of posting that over and over again while venomously attacking anyone who disagrees with Obama on anything :rofl:?

I should probably rec this too. It is unintentionally hilarious.

[Danger Mouse]

91. See, I'm no fan of Krugman, but your OP is still an epic fail.

Calling him a freeper is just stupid and childish. Calling him a PUMA is just absurd.

[NJmaverick]

95. Childish huh? So what do you call Krugman for comparing Obama's supporters

to Nixon's people? The guy is just a bitter PUMA who has a NYT article that allows him to pursue his anti Obama agenda. He and the Freepers have a common hatred for President Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?scp=

[Danger Mouse]

98. What do I call him for saying that? I call him wrong.

Like I said, I don't like him. I think he uses hyperbole too much, and some of my least favorite people here worship him like he's the second coming. That still doesn't make him a freeper or a PUMA.

[NJmaverick]

102. You can call him the terms you want, I will choose mine

either way DU would be much better off with out so much Krugman spam, which was the point I was trying to make

[Danger Mouse]

108. Yes, DU would be better off without people spamming the same Krugman articles over and over again...

but that STILL doesn't make him a freeper or PUMA.
Your point was lost in the name calling.

[Political Heretic]

173. .

[liam_laddie]

26. NJmaverick seems to be equating criticiism of...

the President's economic program with disapproval of Obama's overall agenda. Not at all the same. Krugman rightly attacks the "same ol', same ol'" Wall Street/Goldman Sachs insiders protecting their own parochial interests (which Big Money seems to equate with the US economy) as against doing something truly effective for the rest of us. I think Krugman, Nouriani and others are fully justified in calling out Geithner, Summers and yes, Obama, on this aspect of the President's agenda. Hardly freeper attcks.

[NJmaverick]

32. Nope, I am equating dishonest attacks where the facts are distorted to match an agenda

instead of properly analyzing the facts to reach a reasonable conclusion. This is like when he would write glowing articles about Enron, while getting paid by them.

[FrenchieCat]

40. The success of Obama's presidency will hinge on his repairing the financial system.....

Why does Krugman believe that Obama wants to fail on that front?
That's the part that I don't quite understand.

President Obama has way more at stake in getting this right,
than Paul Krugman.
Why folks would believe that Krugman has all of the right answers
and Obama doesn't have any, is truly mistifying to me.

As for criticism, it works both ways. Not just one.
Folks like me, who are totally rooting for the President's success,
find it hard to put up with those who don't care one way or the other,
if the President, who is already dealing with the media and the GOP,
loses too much mandate prior to being able to accomplish some real
long reaching goals. But of course, I can't stop the criticism.....
but I don't know why folks believe that they can control the criticisms
aimed at Krugman. Some of them are warranted. He does approach things
in a combative way, when he doesn't really have to. Robert Reich says
some of the same things, but doesn't attempt to slash and burn while doing it.

[NJmaverick]

49. Krugman is rooting for and working for Obama's failure, because of this

<<Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

He is a PUMA with a NYT column

[FrenchieCat]

68. Well he'll have to work that out on his own.

I'm not going to help him with it, that's for sure.

That's why I don't understand why folks believe that his answers are the only one. :shrug:

[dbmk]

145. Well, just because you WANT to make it right and have more at stake..

.. - and I think Krugman does not fault Obamas intentions there - you can still apply the wrong tools.

My impression is that Krugman operates from the right intentions and visions. But is very limited in his appraisal of the politically possible. He is an intelligent guy, but he is being almost intellectually dishonest in the way he writes about it.

He must know he is not factoring in the political landscape, when he makes a lot of his assesments.

That does not in any way warrant the OPs description. But his critique should certainly not be read at face value.

[liam_laddie]

121. correction of my error in post #26

Meant Nouriel "Roubini" of course. Duh, too early in AM.

[MoonRiver]

33. So far, not ONE person on this thread agrees with you.

Now I know there is still hope for rational discussion on DU. :headbang:

[NJmaverick]

36. lol! Sorry but a swarming by the anti-Obama crowd doesn't make you right

it's just shows how lacking in intellectual content your position is. Perhaps more critical reading and thinking and less counting, would prove very helpful to you.

[MercutioATC]

57. One CAN both support Obama and believe he's making poor economic decisions.

I support almost everything he's done. The exception is his economic recovery plan. I don't just think it'll be ineffective, I believe it's dangerous.

[NJmaverick]

63. Krugman is a PUMA that never supported Obama

instead he compared his supporters to Nixon's people

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[MercutioATC]

70. So what? That doesn't make Krugman wrong about Obama's recovery plan.

HRC was a lot more critical of Obama than Krugman was, and she's now SOS. Do you disagree with everything she now says because she wasn't always an Obama cheerleader?

[NJmaverick]

77. Now the fact that his columns are political hit pieces instead of good economics

is what makes him wrong

[MercutioATC]

114. You're dealing with two separate issues here and trying to logically connect them.

1) Krugman said "mean things" about Obama in the past (actually, I think they were accurate, and they were about some Obama supporters, not Obama himself).

2) Krugman now disagrees with Obama's economic recovery plan.


Even IF Krugman had some vendetta against Obama (and I don't believe he does...even IF Krugman wanted to be able to say "I told you so"...that still doesn't make his criticisms of Obama's economic policy decisions wrong.

Look, I think Obama has done a pretty damn good job on everything else, but he's royally screwing up this recovery plan. I think Krugman is a lot closer to an accurate view of the situation than Obama is.

THAT'S why I read Krugman.

[MoonRiver]

115. Well, your argument,which mainly seems to be an irrational rant against a guy who is probably ,

at least, twice as smart and knowledgeable as you, is clearly falling flat. Proud to be a DUer today! :patriot:

[Djinn]

232. you've presented NOTHING

except the repeated assertion that he's a "bitter PUMA" and linked to an OLD article he wrote where he correctly identified the lunacy of certain Obama supporters who seem to think the friggin man is a saint rather than a free market capitalist supporter of Empire just like ANY American politician.

Yet you have the gall to say the position of anyone else is lacking in intellectual content - hilarious

[Clear Blue Sky]

34. Krugman has been one of Obama's biggest fans.

[NJmaverick]

38. LOL!!!!!!

:rofl:

[cali]

42. um. no.

not trashing Krugman, but that's a patently false statement.

[cadmium]

45. I must have missed that. During the primaries

Krugman thrashed Obama constantly --especiallly on health policy. This generally sounds like it would make sense but he consistently thrashed him on relatively fine points that represented minimal policy differences between candidates. Krugman is a smart guy -- he knows what he was doing--carrying water for Anybody but Obama. Just being a smart economist doesnt mean you cant also be a political hitman.

[Hansel]

165. Amen. Your post sums it up perfectly.

Krugman is in a unilateral pissing war with Obama and the wind is blowing at him. Obama is going to come out of this dry and smelling fine.

[TankLV]

47. You are grossly mistaken and misinformed...

from you OP, I conclude that your reading comprehension skills are vastly underutilized or non existant...

Thank god for the NOBEL LAUREAT Paul Krugman - who has been ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct on everything so far...

I'll take this EXPERT over you in a nanosecond...

[NJmaverick]

72. You couldn't be further afield from the truth if you tried

Krugman is nothing but a bitter PUMA with an column to use to grind his ax. Here is a nice article by the hero you blindly worship and follow

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

Since I doubt you bother to read much, I will give you the point. He compares Obama supporters to Nixon's people.

[TankLV]

200. You've already proven you can't WRITE, so we already know you can't comprehend, either...

We've all already proved you know NOTHING...

nice try wailing against the TRUTH...

it is entertaining...in a weird and sad way...

[MercutioATC]

48. Because Krugman is right?

My only problem with Krugman is that he doesn't go far enough.

Krugman isn't alone. Many people believe that this administration is headed down the wrong financial path.

[NJmaverick]

53. Krugman is a PUMA with a NYT colunm, that's why

From a column where he compares Obama supporters to Nixon's people

<<Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[MercutioATC]

65. He made a valid point. The same issue applies to any charismatic figure.

I believe that Obama was the best choice. I voted for him.

That doesn't change the fact that there was (and, to some degree, still is) a "cult of personality" issue with him.

[NJmaverick]

67. What that column betrays is Krugman's true motives

[MercutioATC]

73. Which are?

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

81. His motives are to try and bring Obama down

so he can proclaim that he was right and tout his genious for supporting Hillary instead of Obama.

[MercutioATC]

85. Even IF that was true....it doesn't make him wrong in his criticism of Obama's decisions.

I don't attribute the same motives that you do...but regardless of motive, Krugman is still right.

[NJmaverick]

89. His criticisms are self serving and not based on logic, reason or sound

economic theory

[MercutioATC]

93. So you're saying that Krugman's criticisms of Obama's economic decisions are wrong?

...or are you just bitching about the motive that you've attributed to those criticisms?

[ArchieStone1]

147. Don't you know he can read Krugman's mind?

Trust him.

[BzaDem]

190. Edit

[cadmium]

62. People buy it. I think you are right to smell a rat

Krugman is a smart economist. He certainly is not the only one that was critical of the Bush economy and supply side economics. I think the relentless posting using Krugman as a club to bash Obama comes from a combination of things. Peer Pressure---like invoking Krugman's name is evidence of being a Super-Progressive. Similarly, it can be just plain old hero worship. Some coordinated trollattacks are always a possibility. Funny how Robert Reich sees the economic struggle similarly to Krugman, but sees this as a reason to support Obama despite differences.

I think you did a good job of smelling a rat when the attacks are so numerous and similar.

[NJmaverick]

64. He is a PUMA with a NYT's column

he once compared Obama supporters to Nixon's people

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[cadmium]

76. Yes that was obvious to me toward the end

of primary season. Just because you are a smart economist - doesnt mean you cant also be a political hack. I saw him debate Robert Reich (ostensibly surrogate for Obama) on one of the news shows. It was a weird debate because they didnt disagree on much policy. Krugman's stance was simply anti-Obama couched in fine points of his policies that were a little different than Hillary Clinton's. A really pointless distinction was adult mandatory health insurance purchase (euphemistically labeled "universal health care" in the primary debate}. The reason I consider this a contrived attack point is because health care policy is never decided in a primary debate and Krugman is smart enough to know that.

I am glad one other person can see through this noise.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. He endorsed Obama for president.

[Hansel]

168. I think coordinated troll attacks are more than a possibility.

Tom Hartman mentioned on his show the other day that one of the righties who used to call his show all of the time join the military. Before he left for Iraq, he called Tom and told him he had been paid by wealthy people supporting Republicans to call his show and post on Progressive blogs to create chaos and promote divisions. I'm sure DU is large enough that they see it as worth putting their money into.

I'm sure some of it is from these paid trolls who have figured out this pushes buttons here, causes divisions, and generates a tremendous amount of anti-Obama's presidency rhetoric. The hyperbole and dichotomy of thought seem to be clues. Right wingers have a certain way of viewing the world that predisposes them to lean right. It's not too difficult to spot those with that thought process. Of course some of them could be ex-Republicans who support Obama now. I doubt there are many of them though.

At this particular time when public emotion is so raw is the best time for these folks to be on the boards. This is an extremely important moment in time and Obama is about to take a sharp turn from the way Republicans have done things. If the trolls can erode support for him, the chances of that happening dwindle. There is too much at stake for them not to be doing this.

[rucky]

66. Maybe it's to get people to actually read him and address his points

before the name-calling.

[NJmaverick]

69. Krugman called Obama supporters Nixon people, so I don't think he has points

worth reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

[rucky]

99. well at least I know where you're coming from, now.

Alot of folks were caught up in the Hillary vs. Obama flap a year ago. The conclusion I get from this is that Krugman should stick to writing about economics.

[cadmium]

105. Amen. He probably also resents other

economists like Robert Reich who share his views but support Obama

[NJmaverick]

109. Krugman is still caught up in this flap. He uses his economic credentials as cover

for his continued attacks on Obama.

[Djinn]

233. and Obama praised Reagan

so I don't think HE has points*

*I don't actually think this at all but it seems to be reason enough for the OP (my lack of support for Obama hinges on policy positions that apply to all Democrats - and before anyone goes running off to the mods about the evil non Democrat on board they'd be well aware by now of my views)

[cadmium]

79. People read him. Most of us

have been reading him for years. I read the Great Undoing and the Conscience of a Liberal. That isnt the point of this thread. What I gather from the OP is questioning his motivation and the motivation of zealots peppering DU with attacks -- using Krugman's criticism as a rallying cry.

[Lasher]

80. He is a self-described liberal.

He refers to the trickle down theory as economic snake oil. He is a defender of the welfare state, calling it the most decent social arrangement yet devised. He opposes farm subsidy increases and ethanol mandates. He has repeatedly expressed his view that Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the two people most responsible for causing the crisis. As early as 2005 Krugman was critical of Greenspan's reluctance to regulate the mortgage and related financial markets.

Please consider these redeeming values before you condemn him for his Freeper bull crap.

[NJmaverick]

84. He is a PUMA that compared Obama's supporters to Nixon's people

ironic that he, a master snake oil salesman, would be trying to call anyone else that.

here read this for youself, and see where this guy is coming from

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx

[camera obscura]

210. timeswatch.org: "Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times"

Ooookay then...

[cadmium]

101. Most of us agree with these values -- the OP is

not about the content of his economic philosophy----it is about how he rhetoric is being used. Robert Reich has the same positions. Ravi Batra held the same positions. My take home point from the OP is that there is more to this narrative than being correct on the specifics of the issues and that something about the repetitive use of the Krugman club doesnt smell right.

Freeper crap doesnt refer to Krugman but to the freeper style use of Krugman as a rallying point to attack Obama. This stuff occurs on a different level not just on the merits of policy.

If I was a right-winger trying to sow dissension right now Krugman would be my favorite tool.

[NJmaverick]

Very well said, I wish I had you to write my main OP

:hi:

[DrDan]

110. that would be a wise move - he is more hated around here than any of the

previous administration, current repugs or our true enemies.

Funny how a notable lack of hero-worship can create such strong resentment and hostility.

[Telly Savalas]

104. Could you be any more fucking whiny?

[NJmaverick]

106. Could you be any more lacking in intelligence????

[cadmium]

111. what do you mean? I think it makes sense to

question the nature of the attacks when they start to get so numerous and stereotyped.

[Enrique]

113. is this a parody?

did you forget the sarcasm smiley?

[mix]

116. know your enemies

obviously, you don't...if you think Krugman's a "freeper" you're delusional

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. Krugman is not a freeper

Just because someone disagrees with the president, that doesn't make them a freeper.

Good grief.

[acmavm]

130. What are you credentials? Who are you? What have you accomplished?

And of course, who appointed you boss?

[donheld]

131. Equating Krugman with Freepers is just plain idiotic

[AZ Criminal JD]

132. The most idiotic OP of the day

[AlCzervik]

133. it's right up there with "Frank Rich spent the last eight years cheerleading for Bush"

yes indeed.

[camera obscura]

134. oh man... I think I'm glad I missed this one, I might have had a head-explosion

:rofl:

[AlCzervik]

135. yeah that's really something isn't it?

[burythehatchet]

180. The day is not over.

[Reterr]

139. Krugman's "Freeper bull crap"

Good God, can the world not be seen in anything but black and white and can you see past those long gone primaries, that everyone (except people who spend way too much time on message boards) let go off in the real world long back?

[iamthebandfanman]

141. i dont like any economyths.

period.

[progressoid]

143. ...

:boring:

[smoogatz]

144. Krugman was right about the housing meltdown. He was right about

the economy tanking. He has so far been spot-on in his analysis of the banking crisis (i.e., it's not a liquidity problem, and throwing trillions of dollars down a rat-hole won't fix it). Other economists who have also been right about pretty much everything to do with the current melt-down agree with him--Roubini, for instance. I'm convinced by these guys and others that Obama/Geithner's approach to the AIG/banking issue is unlikely to succeed as planned, and that we should instead move quickly to put insolvent banks and insurers like AIG into receivership. Geithner's trying to protect stockholders at all costs, and we should, instead, be protecting taxpayers IMO.

[inthebrain]

148. First people like Union Buster Arnold and no Krugman is a Freeper

This board has certainly jumped the shark.

[Vanje]

195. You got that right

The shark has been truly jumped.

[joeybee12]

149. This is the most insane post in a long time...

...you really meant to put the sarcasm emoticon there didn't you?

[rvablue]

151. Oh, boy...now Krugman = Freeper. This is becoming hysterical. n/t

[inna]

154. i CAN'T BELIEVE this thread got 5 recs.

:thumbsdown:

:thumbsdown:


calling Krugman a lying freeper is one of the most ludicrous and ignorant things i've ever read on the DU.

[Vanje]

196. The recs are for the thread's comedic value

Betcha

[Zuiderelle]

156. LOL! You should write for the Onion.

Oh wait, no you shouldn't, because it isn't funny.

[Sebastian Doyle]

157. If opposing the FUCKED UP CRIMINAL ECONOMIC SUICIDE of the last 28 years makes you a "Freeper"

Then somebody tell RimJob I need some porta-potties.

Oh... and i gues i bettur start speling like one to.

!!1!!!!!!!11!!!!!!11

GOD BLES AMERIKA !!!111111!

[Jim Lane]

158. NJmaverick's lies about Krugman and Enron

NJmaverick has accused Krugman of "writing glowing articles for Enron, while he was their paid consultant." That accusation appears to me to be completely false.

For further detail, here's a passage from :

Krugman was one of many economists to serve as a consultant for an advisory board for Enron; he did this in 1999, being paid $37,500<55> before New York Times rules required him to resign when he accepted an offer to be an op-ed columnist in the fall of 1999. He stated later the consulting was to offer "Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues," and that it had required him to "spend four days in Houston."<55>

When the story of Enron's corporate scandals broke, critics accused him of having a conflict of interest and the job of having been a bribe to control media coverage, charges he denies forcefully, referring to it as "a game of gotcha" and "tabloid journalism." He states that the payment from Enron did not "cause me to write anything I would not have written otherwise." For one thing, he says, he was not a journalist at the time: "when Enron approached me there was no hint that a Times connection lay in my future. As soon as I shook hands with the Times, I resigned from that board." Further, his "normal fee for a one-hour business speech in Boston or New York was $20,000 - more if the speech involved long-distance travel. The Enron board required that I spend 4 days in Houston"; thus the sum involved was not large, in his view. He says that in columns written before and after the scandal, he disclosed his past Enron relationship when he wrote about the company.<55><56> He was critical of the company: he was one of the first writers to argue that deregulation of the California energy market had led to market-manipulation by energy companies (in a column in the New York Times on December 10, 2000 called "California Screaming"); Enron was the largest in this market - "I have been criticizing Enron since January 2001, long before everyone else started bashing the company."<57>

In that quotation, each bracketed number represents a footnote, with a link you can follow. I won't bother copying the links here; I don't think it's worth the effort because I don't think many DUers take NJmaverick seriously. Click through to Wikipedia if you want the links.

In response to NJmaverick's smear, Bjorn Against asked (in #153 above) for a link to a Krugman column praising Enron. Tellingly, NJmaverick has not provided such a link.

This is not the first thread in which NJmaverick has blazed away at Krugman with invective rather than logic or facts. In all my years at DU, I've never put anyone on Ignore, preferring to be able to consider all points of view -- but NJmaverick is making me rethink that policy.

[inna]

159. no, it is YOU, NJm, who is constantly spamming this board....

... with completely ludicrous, baseless and ignorant Krugman bashing.

[burythehatchet]

176. NIXON'S PEOPLE...THEY'RE EVERYWHERE

[Inspired]

160. Krugman is no freeper. Stop trying to be so mavericky. It isn't working.

[Two Americas]

161. Krugman is a freeper!!!

Thanks for the laugh.

I would say that the persistent spreading of authoritarian and libertarian ideas around here, by a small but bullying and domineering minority, is what just might be helping the right wingers and their cause.

I will take a leftist who is not particularly in love with Obama over a zealous Obama lover who spends all of their time promoting libertarian and authoritarian ideas in a heart beat. Trust me, the first group is a much greater threat to the right wing then the second group is.

Politics is about ideas, not personalities, and it is about power and economics, not personal preferences or team loyalty.

Rah rah team! Anyone who disagrees is a freeper!

You are expressing the same demands for loyalty and the suppression of dissent that we have been getting from the Republicans for the last 8 years - "if you criticize Bush you are tearing down America!!' The suppressive and authoritarian effect is the same, but at least the right wingers are defending country, rather than party or a personality. I have more respect for that - which is not saying much - then I do for this "Democratic" version of it we are seeing here.


...

[gmudem]

162. Utter nonsense.

Krugman's stuff is not for freepers. He wants Obama to be more activist and liberal, and he wants what is best for the people and he is a Nobel Prize winning economist so his opinions count for something. Just because he criticizes Obama does not make him a freeper. Grow up.

[w4rma]

163. Krugman is right. You are wrong. Quit being a Wall Street shill. Start supporting Main Street. (nt)

[Mithreal]

164. This op makes me seriously question whether some folks on DU

have lost their minds.

[Baikonour]

166. Now Krugman is a "freeper"?

[nichomachus]

167. Of course he is

don't you realize that this is now known as the "Obamarama Fan Club" instead of Democratic Underground? No criticism or discussion is allowed that hasn't been cleared by the Obamarama Fan Club Committee.

[obiwan]

217. Har Har Har.

"don't you realize that this is now known as the "Obamarama Fan Club" instead of Democratic Underground? "

By who? Free Pepublic, or The Drudge Report?

Har har har.

[flvegan]

169. LOUD NOISES!!!

[Political Heretic]

174. I think Jean-Luc Picard sums it up best:

[burythehatchet]

175. ...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

...but but but NIXON'S PEOPLE!!!!!!

[AlCzervik]

183. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[inna]

184. LOL! stealing the image.

and this thread.... *TOTALLY* sucks!

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

177. Kicked and Reommended for Pure Comedy Gold

[cadmium]

181. Your a brave poster. Someone had to call him on it. Maybe the

word Freeper was over the top, but it should be obvious to anyone who has really been reading the columns that Krugman has been on Obama's ass as soon as it became apparent that he was getting momentum. If Obama had picked Robert Reich instead of Geitner Krugman would be on his ass. This has little to do with the relative merits of economic policies.

[Political Heretic]

188. So far no one has offered an economics based critique of Krugman's points.

They've only bitched and cried that he must hate Obama.

I'd be more moved by a rational deconstruction of Krugman's arguments and a demonstration as to why they are misguided.

But that's not going to happen, as we all know...

[AlCzervik]

189. don't forget, he just doesn't hate him "He wants to destroy him" "He's a freeper"

"Frank Rich spent the last eight years cheerleading for Bush"

this place has turned into a giant cesspool.

[cadmium]

197. You are missing the point. This OP is not about

criticism of Krugman's point or for that matter similar points by Stiglitz, Reich or even Ravi Batra. The point is to question Krugman's intentions. Krugman's vendetta appears personal since has been on Obama's ass month's before he even got well into primary season.

[Political Heretic]

245. Fuck his intentions. I care about whether he's right or wrong.

I don't give a shit why he's right or wrong, only whether or not he is.

[cadmium]

247. That's fine for you. I do care about his attitude and intentions . I know

what the content is.

[Political Heretic]

250. Why? The truth told by the devil is still the truth?

[cadmium]

251. Well I think attitude and intentions are part of the truth

To draw an admittedly hyperbolic parallel Aryan Nation was totally against the Iraq invasion but I think their attitude and intentions suck. Anyway I think it is totally fair to be annoyed by attitude.

[Political Heretic]

252. But they still had the right position, regardless of whether they suck or not.

Their "suckiness" didn't change the correct-ness of their stance on that issue.

Maybe Krugman is a dick - it doesn't make him more wrong or less right... if he is, which is debateable. But that's what we should be debating, in my view.

[cadmium]

253. So we are not disagreeing then really. The OP on this thread

was not about him being right or wrong.

[backscatter712]

187. Are you fucking high?

You accused me of being a troll after mentioning one of his articles, so you can kindly go fuck yourself.

Asshole.

[BzaDem]

191. The SECOND I read a poster comapring Krugman to PUMAs

they immediately and forever lose all credibility. I might continue reading if I'm looking for entertainment (or something to laugh at), but not actual information. Anyone who ignores how Krugman predicted this crisis, predicted the housing bubble, and predicted a lot of the specific economic fallout of the Bush policies, just because Krugman didn't give his seal of approval to their chosen candidate in the primaries, has more problems than could possibly be resolved with a conversation on a message board.

[BzaDem]

192. Let's see. Who agrees with the Freepers and the Republican party about Krugman?

Maybe before posting such transparent garbage you should take a look in the mirror. Just saying.

[GeorgeGist]

193. Obama's no maverick ...

and neither is Krugman.

[nolabels]

202. Yea, one is trying do a job and the other is trying to earn a paycheck.

and to that extent, I will leave everybody to their own to figure out which character is doing which :shrug:

[ljm2002]

201. Thank you !!!

Best laugh I've had all day !!!

Oh, and just so there's no confusion: laughing *at* you, not *with* you.

Carry on...

[amborin]

203. you call a left of center economist a freeper? K has bashed rethug policies for decade

s

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

204. Krugman isn't a Freeper...

he's just wrong (in this particular case).

[truebluedemz]

206. Kruger? Simple Answer???

The Democrats aren't afraid to hear views other than their own. The Dems don't walk in lockstep with one another, the Dems are free thinkers and we're not paranoid...so let the Anti-Obama, Anti-Democrat, and Anti-Americans spam all they want...they are desperate and it's all they have. They are a dead or dying breed and their time has come to just stop breathing.

[Bjorn Against]

207. Anti-Americans? That sounds a bit too much like something that we would hear from the other side.

[inna]

212. "Anti-Americans"??

[inna]

213. and who is "Kruger", btw?? NT

[Robeson]

240. Hardy Kruger? German actor

[Seen the light]

209. Freeper?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[chill_wind]

214. LOL :-)

[Better Believe It]

211. Freeper? If so that must mean that Noriel Roubini is nothing less than a Fascist!

[ShortnFiery]

215. Krugman is a highly intelligent meglomaniac who can't play well with others - jut PREACH.

IMO, Krugman's dysfunctional personality mirrors many academic PhD.s who get along famously ONLY with those of equal intelligence and like minds to "the master." He's constantly playing one-ups-man-ship with certain personalities. It's all very nauseating to tolerate unless you're into idol worship. :(

[cadmium]

224. BINGO---Robert Reich seems to drive him crazy when

they appear together on talking head shows. It would be typical academic Ego driven rivalry.

Krugman has written good economic tracts (books are better than columns). I never read any of his academic works.

He is not a God.

[obiwan]

216. Paul Krugman is not a Freeper.

Read "The Great Unraveling" and tell me he's a Freeper.

People thought well enough about him to give him a Nobel prize.

He is one of America's leading economists. And a regular editorial writer in the New York Times.

Right now he disagrees with President Obama. He's not the only one.

He's not God, and he probably knows that.

[IndianaGreen]

218. Careful, your ignorance is showing!

But then, there are those that chose to live in ignorance, preferring their idolatrous idols instead.

[girl gone mad]

219. What I want to know is why all of the Krugman critics are in NJ..

also, my virus software found a trojan on this page.

[cliffordu]

238. That condom? I wondered where i left that....

:rofl:

[waiting for hope]

254. Mine too -

:tinfoilhat:

[HughMoran]

221. From one extreme to the other

Very little sensible discussion is occurring on DU. Sometimes when this happens, I think that the politician (Obama in this case) has found the best happy medium possible. Nah, just joking - there can be no compromising :D

[Skittles]

222. you poor thing

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

226. Bump

I wanted to get in on the action.

[endarkenment]

235. What is the worst post ever to make it to the greatest page?

[cliffordu]

237. BEST FUCKING POST OF THE DAY!!!!

THROW YOUR LEFT!!! THE LEFT!!!! UPPERCUT!!!!


:rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

239. What a load of crap.

What Krugman had to say during the past eight years has been pretty much spot on.

Now that Obama is President, he is suddenly a hack with an agenda??

When Jon Stewart or Keith or any of those who we -- Democratic Underground -- have listened to and respected the past eight years, starts to go on about Obama's judgement/policies (which will happen eventually) are you going to call them "freepers" too? :eyes:

Good lord, if anything, shrilly attacking legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies/actions is genuinely "freeperish".

[Thrill]

241. Because people up here, take his word as Gospel

[DemocratSinceBirth]

242. You Should Post This At Free Republic And "Compare Notes"

~

[CAcyclist]

243. Funny how some people are so scared of Krugman

If you don't like him, don't read him.

He happens to be one of my favorite economic voices.
Somehow, I don't think the GOP would agree with his ideas to nationalize the banks, which I'm in favor of.
Krugman also had good things to say about Obama's budget proposal, hardly an item the GOP is fond of.

Maybe the problem with some of the people here is that they don't understand how true progressives and liberals work. We may have disagreements and different levels of comfort with change, but we are working to understand the truth and find the workable solution.

That requires a depth of understanding of the problems, not a knee-jerk reaction to following a leader. There are no ditto-heads here, there are merely people seeking knowledge and debating solutions. Once you get used to how differently we operate, I think you won't worry so much.

[PM Martin]

246. Krugman is right. You are wrong. Quit being a Wall Street shill. Start supporting Main Street.

[johan helge]

248. This is like accusing Bush of being a Democrat. Hello? (nt)

[tigereye]

249. oh, for god's sake....

:eyes: Yeah, he's a freeper.