wikipedia wrote:Krugman had been mentioned as a possible contender for a top economic policy post if John Kerry won the presidency in November, 2004.
Krugman worked on an advisory board for Enron throughout most of 1999 before resigning to take a job as a columnist. This became a source of controversy when the story of the Enron scandal broke, with critics accusing him of having a conflict of interest and the job of having been a bribe to control media coverage, charges he vehemently denies.
Mookie, all we want to hear is that using Krugman as a source is a laugher. He's inherently biased because the first paragraph I just quoted and he's a scoundrel for being involved in the Enron fiasco.
Just re-read your post. Do you even know the circumstances of Krugman's involvement with the company?
Krugman's critics charged something, but he's denying it, and so far there's no real evidence to have been proven otherwise. But you think it's true. Those cops on that bridge in Gretna were charged of something too; again, no real evidence to suggest they were racist; so you must think they're all racists I guess?
wikipedia wrote:Krugman had been mentioned as a possible contender for a top economic policy post if John Kerry won the presidency in November, 2004.
Krugman worked on an advisory board for Enron throughout most of 1999 before resigning to take a job as a columnist. This became a source of controversy when the story of the Enron scandal broke, with critics accusing him of having a conflict of interest and the job of having been a bribe to control media coverage, charges he vehemently denies.
Mookie, all we want to hear is that using Krugman as a source is a laugher. He's inherently biased because the first paragraph I just quoted and he's a scoundrel for being involved in the Enron fiasco.
Just re-read your post. Do you even know the circumstances of Krugman's involvement with the company?
Krugman's critics charged something, but he's denying it, and so far there's no real evidence to have been proven otherwise. But you think it's true. Those cops on that bridge in Gretna were charged of something too; again, no real evidence to suggest they were racist; so you must think they're all racists I guess?
What? You don't find the fact he resigned from Enron right around its collapse fishy? Regardless of whether or not he did or did not do something, how can you trust what he writes? And if Ben Stein isn't reliable because he worked with Nixon then how is Krugman if he worked with Enron?
1. This whole "liberal media" thing is ridiculous. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm does a much better job of explaining why than I could ever do. But I don't expect facts to convince most of you. Heck, you probably believe that clutch exists.
The wildly religious claim that science magazines have an anti-religion bias.
In the 60's, southern politicians accused the media of having a bias against southern white people and that they had a pro race-mixing bias.
The common denominator here, of course, is a complete lack of factual evidence by the accusers.
2. I think it's funny when republicans dismiss someone out of hand because he worked at Enron.
davidmarver wrote:Jon Stewart was funny before he got ratings and thus turned his show into his personal political agenda: ie. misquote President Bush at least three times per segment and follow it with some snide remark about vacationing. Sorry, that's not comedic. His show was funny when he was trying to attract an audience and, obviously, that is no longer the case and it hasn't been for a few years now.
wikipedia wrote:Krugman had been mentioned as a possible contender for a top economic policy post if John Kerry won the presidency in November, 2004.
Krugman worked on an advisory board for Enron throughout most of 1999 before resigning to take a job as a columnist. This became a source of controversy when the story of the Enron scandal broke, with critics accusing him of having a conflict of interest and the job of having been a bribe to control media coverage, charges he vehemently denies.
Mookie, all we want to hear is that using Krugman as a source is a laugher. He's inherently biased because the first paragraph I just quoted and he's a scoundrel for being involved in the Enron fiasco.
And I'll leave this post with a brilliant Paul Krugman quote.
Krugman wrote:Can we break the machine that is imposing right-wing radicalism on the United States? The scariest part is that the media is part of that machine.
Yeah Krugman, the media is on the right-wing.
Marver what is your problem? I have not directed a single comment at you. I quoted the Krugman article more than a week ago and since that time I have not had a single exchange with you over it.
If you want to get into it with me as you seem wont to do, that's fine. I have not put Krugman forward as an impartial reporter or even for the truth of the content of his article. The article was only put forward as an example that for every republican hack out there laying the blame at the feet of the local authorities there is a counterpart doing the same on the left.
I have always said that the entire idea of laying blame at this stage is counter productive but to say that the feds are blameless is ridiculous. Even George Bush has admitted to failures in his administration over their response to this disaster. The rebublicans on this board, your mentor wrveres chief among them, refuse to acknowledge, however, that the feds are anything but heroes in this matter. That mindless piece of cronyism that wr spammed to everyone is exhibit A. If you want my true feelings on that article why don't you ask Sluggers to PM it to you.
I don't care one wit about Krugman so when you go on about Krugman's bias I have no idea who you are arguing with but it's not me.
wrvers wrote:Oh and please, don't call me out. I really don't appreciate it.
But I thought we were on such friendly terms, with you PM'ing and all.
Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson said .. * We had no preparations * We had no radios * We had no phones. * We had no communications, * We had not spoken to the city of New Orleans prior to or during this event. * We had no water to sustain them * We had no food * We had no shelters * We had no buses * Our citizens had left the town * Our city was locked down and secured
No radios, phones, and communications? So what. These people were looking for shelter. A place to be safe.
Had not spoken to the city of New Orleans? I didn't know it was a requirement to speak with New Orleans before taking in refugees. Someone needs to show me where that is written.
Had no food and water? I didn't know there were no grocery stores in Gretna.
No shelters? I might give you this one except that the Gretna citizens left town. It's not like the place was overcrowded. Heck it was deserted.
No buses? So what. Refugees weren't asking for buses.
Lock down and secured? Well, good for the people of Gretna! However, I find it disheartening that Gretna, who had everything in order, turned their backs on american refugees seeking shelter from the worst disaster in american history.
I don't know about you, but those excuses don't convince me.
how does anything you just said have to do with racism ..
Of course your choose to ignore that now didn't you ...
oh and don't go thinking you are special cus you got a PM from me .. about 50 people got that same PM, and all I wanted you to do was pass it on to Mookie. Now whether you choose to read it, or delete words from it to make your weak arguement work, or even spin it to your liking ... I could actually care less.
again it was a joke towards the mookster ..
You were just a pawn.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by WharfRat » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:23 pm 
