Letters to the Editor
-
Hepstyle
You can't substantiate your claims that Hillary and Bush are on the same page in terms of Iraq policy
I've already substantiated them. You can't refute Hillary's voting record, because you refuse to look at it. You said so yourself. Your only course is to deny plain facts.
As you say "Of course none of them will convince me", so you have to avoid the facts, same as any Bushite in BushWorld, and by your own admission.
-
Hepstyle
No lying here.
Obviously untrue. Anybody can read the thread.
Are you compulsive?
-
Hepstyle
I want thomas.gov links to bills she has voted on that make her a closet republican.
No you don't. You said it yourself: "Of course none of them will convince me".
I've caught you in fourteen lies so far. Shall we review them?
-
you haven't substantiated anything
You keep saying look at her voting record but when asked for specific evidence, nothing. Show me bills. thomas.gov links. I'll read them. No op-ed's. And don't pull any of that "I'm not doing your work for you" crap. You made the claim, follow it up.
-
Hepstyle
Walter doesn't want you to vote for Hillary IF she gets the nod.
Except that I never said that. But you can lie about it if you like. I'll just make another note of another lie.
You're also changing the content of an earlier post. That's dishonest of you but doesn't actually count as a lie. That counts as squirming.
-
you have nothing.
I take the 6 back. Really, as a troll, you're only more like a 4. But thanks for the fun time! I yield the floor to you. Gotta get ready to celebrate Obama's (hopefully) huge victory in NC tonight.
If only we could convince Obama that Iran doesn't have nukes...
Have a great day!
-
Hepstyle
You keep saying look at her voting record but when asked for specific evidence, nothing.
I gave you evidence and you avoided it, saying "Of course none of them will convince me".
Keep digging.
-
Hepstyle
Gotta get ready to celebrate Obama's (hopefully) huge victory in NC tonight.
You spend two hours arguing like a neocon for Hillary - and then root for Obama.
Your duplicity appears to be bottomless. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer McCain?
-
Where is Krugman's objectivity??
I am also disappointed with Krugman. I live in San Francisco and went out of my way to go hear him at a book signing a couple of years ago. He's always been so objective, you gotta wonder, what does he have against Obama? And none of the candidates are really for single payer health care so let's not give Paul Krugman that excuse to vote support Hillary Clinton
Nancy Keiler
San Francisco
-
@ walter_map re: "Scorpio69er remembers"
Indeed I do.
It was... glorious.
:)
-
Swamp gas
I respect Mr. Krugman a LOT. And this demonstrates that "support" is properly never a 100% proposition. But do not forget: economists are not and should not be, political scientists. I was an economist (and I disavow everything I ever forecasted or concluded); give credit where it is due, and wipe off the rose-colored glasses. But with economists afoot, get the women and children inside; no one is safe!
-
It is about time Obama supporters got a clue. RE: The Anti-dem/lib MSM meme.
This article is not being fair to Krugman at all.
Krugman was very clear on how he thought Hill's program was nothing more than a shell game.
And his point about how much negative attention Hill got over the issue was actually quite gentle and forgiving of the medias anti Dem bias....
The real story in all of this is not that Krugman seemed to cut hill some slack......
It is that the media has treated Hill and Mcbush in completely contrasting ways over the very same issue.....
Hill the Dem was pilloried for it....
McBush the repub was given a wink and a nudge....
It is about time Obama supporters got a clue... The press is not about to be any fairer to the Obamas' than it has been to the Clintons' And by constantly excusing their anti- Clinton bias, you have been giving them suport ,approvel and legitiacy to the ANTI DEM/LIBERAL meme.
-
1guru1
But do not forget: economists are not and should not be, political scientists.
And yet, economists are political scientists. As I've pointed out before, you can no more discuss economics without considering the public policy implications any more than you can talk about Rosencrantz without mentioning Guildenstern. Economics is one of the very few quantitative tools available to public policy people, and like it or not they can and do use it. And abuse it.
Argue with Krugman about it if you like. You'll lose. Everything Krugman posts and everything he lectures on is public policy. It's what economists do, just as fish swim and snakes slither.
I was an economist
Sure you were.
Since you have no way to present credentials on an anonymous forum you do not actually have any credentials. You might as well claim to be Czar of All the Russias. Any such claim is disingenuous and undermines your credibility.
-
Hi scorp.
How ya been?
-
aka winston smith
Krugman was very clear on how he thought Hill's program was nothing more than a shell game.
You must have actually read the article Krugman posted.
That's hardly sporting of you. Most people post on Salon either out of ignorance or to advance an agenda. Facts, reason, and sincerity will get you nothing but resentment.