Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[DaShi]

Sour grapes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Says the **** who couldn't figure out the purpose of unions without an appeal to authority (KH).

Likewise the appeal to an unimpeachable authority figure in Krugman.

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.

--- Daniel Okrent - Ombudsmen - NYT - May 22, 2005

Tell me do you even hold an original thought? Stirke that, would settle for a mere thought.

[DaShi]

Are you talking to me or KH? Part of the problem is that you don't write clearly.

As for me defending Krugman. I was merely stating that he didn't lie in that instance and that Rah's simply throwing out that he's a liar in this case was inappropriate. For some reason, you took that to believe it was an "appeal to authority." You're chasing ghosts, my friend. Or you're far more stupid than I have been pointing out lately.

But it is amusing that you need to seek to an appeal to authority yourself for these imaginary arguments (short of Dowd, who hasn't come here, your guy hasn't provided any facts on Krugs).

[DaShi]

Seriously Ogie, you're in over your head here.

Also, it's cute that you're still butt sore over it.

"ogie buttsore" only gives 23,000 results. What could that MEAN??!!

[rah]

Dashi, quit taking my comment out of context, When you said he didn't lie this time, I agreed with you. My actual comment was "NOT THIS TIME" Learn to read.

[DaShi]

I really didn't care enough to go back and get a quote. But, as I said before, ""not this time" implies that he is a habitual liar. I guess you couldn't read that, huh.

[DaShi]

rah, since you decided to chime in. Why are you brining up the fact that Daniel Okrant is a liar? Afterall, everybody lies. It's not fair just to single out poor Krugs for it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Are you talking to me or KH? Part of the problem is that you don't write clearly.

A person with the merest set of reading skills could figure out that a preceding post is the implied subject. An assumption I will rectify in the future given your nonexistent reading skills.

Further the reference to KH was simply to indicate the object of your affection. Not an indictment of his thesis. A thesis which for all intents and purposes should have been blindingly obvious. But again I presume too much intellect on your part.

As for me defending Krugman. I was merely stating that he didn't lie in that instance and that Rah's simply throwing out that he's a liar in this case was inappropriate. For some reason, you took that to believe it was an "appeal to authority." You're chasing ghosts, my friend. Or you're far more stupid than I have been pointing out lately.

Why do you lie so much? Really? It is distracting away from your other charms of idiocy and retardation.

You never mentioned "in this instance" in fact you further the arguement to include such things as habitually lying. Thus laying the groundwork for the obvious conclusion of your infatuation with Krugman and the mortal wounding you felt when Krugman credibility is questioned. For shame. I'm sure you will find his seed tastes the same regardless of his truthiness.

[DaShi]

A person with the merest set of reading skills could figure out that a preceding post is the implied subject. An assumption I will rectify in the future given your nonexistent reading skills.

Further the reference to KH was simply to indicate the object of your affection. Not an indictment of his thesis. A thesis which for all intents and purposes should have been blindingly obvious. But again I presume too much intellect on your part.

No, I only assumed you may have had a point. I guess not.

But it's nice to see you agree with KH analysis which was blindingly obvious to you now. Hey, I'm wondering why people get so worked up about Einstein's ideas. I mean, duh, of course there's relativity.

You are hilarious, Ogie.

Why do you lie so much? Really? It is distracting away from your other charms of idiocy and retardation.

You never mentioned "in this instance" in fact you further the arguement to include such things as habitually lying. Thus laying the groundwork for the obvious conclusion of your infatuation with Krugman and the mortal wounding you felt when Krugman credibility is questioned. For shame. I'm sure you will find his seed tastes the same regardless of his truthiness.

Wow. You are delusional. I never said Krugman has never lied. In fact, I made it quite clear that he likely has. However, I merely pointed out that it is unfair to call him a habitual liar without providing some evidence. Apparently, you think that means I want to marry him. :crazy:

The problem here is that you had nothing to do with the conversation, but still felt the need to jump in with desperate anti-Krugman rhetoric going so far as to try and link google hits with credibility. I merely pointed out the silliness of the whole thing and you hit the roof!

[rah]

Why are you brining up the fact that Daniel Okrant is a liar?

I didn't. More proof that you can't read. (even though you probably meant something different so it's probably just proof that you can't write)

Krugs is not what I would call non-biased. (and before you say that everyone is biased, there are many different degrees and Krugs in more biased than most) I would never use a source as biased as him as my only backup in an argument.

[DaShi]

That's a typo. It should say "Why aren't you..."

Krug's bias here is irrelevant. You called him a liar with no supporting evidence.

[MOBIUS]

*Points and laughs at America.

Most yanks are clearly too dumb to realise that their country is already ****ed. Start learning Chinese - it's your only hope!

[Dinner]

Great. Another poster that doesn't accept the legitimacy of elections but offers no alternative. Govern by polls from now on Oerdin? Head count at rallies?

Democrats are showing themselves to be incredibly undemocratic.

I accept the legitimacy of elections. I just also except the legitimacy of refusing to fill a quorum and thus preventing the majority from riding rough shod over the minority. It's in Robert's Rules of Order so it is fair game and no worse then a filibuster in my mind.

[Wezil]

Yes, I'm sure the founders considered fleeing the jurisdiction a reasonable way to filibuster.

I haven't seen such a desperate argument as this in quite a while.

[Dinner]

If failure to fill a quorum wasn't valid then it wouldn't be in Robert's Rules of Order now would it?