From Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman - The Big Dither

Southern Man said:
Again, where have I claimed that he was unbiased? It looks like you are the one who is owned. :)
Click to expand...

I repeat, you'd absolutely HAVE to be a moron to believe Krugman was "ripped" by a disgraced clown with no credibility on anything who fumbled, stuttered, and was completely absent of facts.

You probably heard Krugman "got ripped" by the clown on Limbaugh's show or some other factless maniac and thought to repeat it here without ever watching that bullshit.

That would be the best case scenario .. because if you actually watched it before spouting that nonsense, then you'd absolutely HAVE to be a moron.

You've been busted dude .. give it up.
 
Southern Man said:
Was he supposed to have the book memorized page by page? Nice trick, and apparently you fell for it.

Check out time 6:05 where Krugman admits his source: mediamatters. I thought Krugman was going to cry. :)
Click to expand...

Of course he was.

Are you a child .. completely unaware of how to debate?

If you're going to reference a passage in a book as evidence of your claim, then you'd damn well better remember where in the book one can find what you're claiming.

Surely any dummy knows this.

Additionally .. and this demonstrates your partisan lunacy .. WHAT O'REILLY CLAIMED KRUGMAN SAID IS NOT IN THE BOOK BECAUSE KRUGMAN NEVER SAID IT.

Here's your opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual prowess .. take all the time you need and let's see you find the comments in the book that O'Reilly claimed was there.

If you can't do it .. you are a moron.
 
blackascoal said:
I repeat, you'd absolutely HAVE to be a moron to believe Krugman was "ripped" by a disgraced clown with no credibility on anything who fumbled, stuttered, and was completely absent of facts.

You probably heard Krugman "got ripped" by the clown on Limbaugh's show or some other factless maniac and thought to repeat it here without ever watching that bullshit.

That would be the best case scenario .. because if you actually watched it before spouting that nonsense, then you'd absolutely HAVE to be a moron.

You've been busted dude .. give it up.
Click to expand...
Your argument boils down to this: in your opinion Krugman wasn't ripped, therefore anyone who doesn't agree is a moron. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Your argument boils down to this: in your opinion Krugman wasn't ripped, therefore anyone who doesn't agree is a moron. :)
Click to expand...

WRONG sir.

My argument boils down to this ...

WHAT O'REILLY CLAIMED KRUGMAN SAID IS NOT IN THE BOOK BECAUSE KRUGMAN NEVER SAID IT.

Here's your opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual prowess .. take all the time you need and let's see you find the comments in the book that O'Reilly claimed was there.

If you can't do it .. you are a moron.
 
Southern Man said:
So now you admit that Krugman was about to cry, which is clear evidence that he got ripped. Make up your mind dude.
Click to expand...

Now I see the problem .. you ain't too bright dude.

"Of course he was" answered the only question you asked in the post I responded to .. this question ..

Was he supposed to have the book memorized page by page?

Of course he was .. and I went on to explain why he was .. which you left out of your childish evasion.

It's pretty clear that you're overmatched here .. by everybody.
 
blackascoal said:
Now I see the problem .. you ain't too bright dude.

"Of course he was" answered the only question you asked in the post I responded to .. this question ..

Was he supposed to have the book memorized page by page?

Of course he was .. and I went on to explain why he was .. which you left out of your childish evasion.

It's pretty clear that you're overmatched here .. by everybody.
Click to expand...

I must be over matched if you can memorize every page of Krugman's book. Wow you must be really smart. :rolleyes: :lmao:
 
blackascoal said:
WRONG sir.

My argument boils down to this ...

WHAT O'REILLY CLAIMED KRUGMAN SAID IS NOT IN THE BOOK BECAUSE KRUGMAN NEVER SAID IT.

Here's your opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual prowess .. take all the time you need and let's see you find the comments in the book that O'Reilly claimed was there.

If you can't do it .. you are a moron.
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue comes down to this:

Krugman said "Tax cuts are not effective in creating jobs". And O'Reilly claims that meant that tax cuts would not help the economy. O'Reilly assumed that Krugman would be smart enough to realize that jobs would be created with a strong economy.

Correct or no?
 
Southern Man said:
I must be over matched if you can memorize every page of Krugman's book. Wow you must be really smart. :rolleyes: :lmao:
Click to expand...

Again, the language of children.

I ignored your really silly notion that he had to read every page of the book because it's just too stupid to waste time commenting on.

A grown-up and intelligent person would know he only had to remember where to find the reference in the book he claimed was there. Takes no genius for that.

The mere fact that you persist on this line of completely moronic thought that he had to read every page in the book takes away from the joy I get from spanking your ass. You sir are a moron and there is no joy in beating up on a moron.

Additionally .. sickening that there even is an additionally .. you demonstrated your cowardly ignorance to all on this board. I challenged you SEVERAL TIMES to go find what O'Reilly claimed in Krugman's book and everytime you've punked out and looked for something else to whine about .. just as O'Reilly did.

Stop being a pussy. If you're not smart enough to engage in debate you should keep your ass out of the kitchen.

You don't have to go buy Krugman's book, you don't have to read every page .. but if what O'Reilly claimed was in the book, you can easily find out.

Do I have to teach you how .. do I have to make your fucking lame ass argument for you?

This was just one of the lies and distortions O'Reilly said in that debate .. all of which are as easily contridicted as this one.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Actually, the issue comes down to this:

Krugman said "Tax cuts are not effective in creating jobs". And O'Reilly claims that meant that tax cuts would not help the economy. O'Reilly assumed that Krugman would be smart enough to realize that jobs would be created with a strong economy.

Correct or no?
Click to expand...

Wrong again sir.

O'Reilly claimed that Krugman was "absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession."

Krugman made no such claim .. and corrected him by telling him that what he said was the Bush tax cuts "were ineffective at job creation" .. which is what Bush claimed. Krugman's point is that large tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy are relatively "ineffective at job creation" on their own.

If you'd like to argue that the Bush tax cuts were successful in creating the jobs Bush claimed they would, I'll be more than happy to engage in that conversation anytime.

What it boils down to is exactly what I said many posts ago to you. O'Reilly has NO credibility on anything, especially the economy, and he was over-matched by Krugman who has been right about just about everything he's said about the economy .. including the ineffectiveness of the Bush tax cuts.
 
blackascoal said:
...

O'Reilly claimed that Krugman was "absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession."

Krugman made no such claim .. and corrected him by telling him that what he said was the Bush tax cuts "were ineffective at job creation" .. which is what Bush claimed. Krugman's point is that large tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy are relatively "ineffective at job creation" on their own......
Click to expand...
O'Reilly assumed that Krugman was smart enough to realize that flattening the progressive tax rate would strengthen the economy, which would then yield job creation, which of course is simple, straight forward and correct. Krugman was being obtuse.
 
Southern Man said:
Sarcasm requires the :rolleyes: emoton to make your point clear. :)
Click to expand...

Given our history of conversations, if you didn't see that I was being sarcastic you are far moire dense than I thought.

The smilies may help you understand what people mean, but I see them as just decorations.
 
Solitary said:
Given our history of conversations, if you didn't see that I was being sarcastic you are far moire dense than I thought.

The smilies may help you understand what people mean, but I see them as just decorations.
Click to expand...
Given our history of conversations, you must be dense not to be perfectly clear. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Given our history of conversations, you must be dense not to be perfectly clear. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I have not changed the way I debate. And will not do so because you cannot comprehend sarcasm without having a smilie face to label it.
 
Southern Man said:
O'Reilly assumed that Krugman was smart enough to realize that flattening the progressive tax rate would strengthen the economy, which would then yield job creation, which of course is simple, straight forward and correct. Krugman was being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Too silly.

O'Reilly .. lecturing Krugman on economics?

Too fucking silly.

Did the Bush tax cuts stimulate job creation as Bush said they would?

Why waste time .. Hell to the no, they didn't.

Krugman was right .. AGAIN.

End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top