Krugman on Romney on Obama
Cool NYT column from Paul Krugman on Mitt Romney’s apparent strategy of just making stuff up about Barack Obama: The Post-Truth Campaign.
38 Responses to “Krugman on Romney on Obama”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 25th, 2011 at 9:23 am
what crazy? Taking over whole industries, coal and health care for instance is what it takes to save the world, stand up for what you believe!
Obama really, really believed the prople wanted him to tax coal fired plants into bankruptcy, that is why he said what he said, damage control took over from there with the clean coal explination, but I’m sure Obama was quite proud of what he said when he said it, then someone with a more level head explained it to him.
December 25th, 2011 at 11:23 am
I’ll look at your Obama reference once you provide references back to source for your other two assertions. Assuming the Obama quote is valid (a big assumption on my part) you score only 33% so far because you have not backed up #2 and #3 – better than 0% but still a FAIL.
December 25th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Smith,
It’s hard to compete with shcb, the conspiracy theories run deep with him.
Happy festivus!
December 25th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Last I looked, you don’t write me a paycheck so I’m not really obliged to do what you ask. I gave you one of the two sources you are requesting, go back and look at the conversation I had with JBC, I think it is the thread you went into 911, but if it isn’t there are only a couple in the last few weeks where JBC and I have had any back and forth. I wouldn’t want you to think I was taking JBC out of context:). If you don’t want to look at Obama saying he would bankrupt the coal plants I don’t care. I can’t make you watch it, I don’t write you a paycheck either.
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Right wing fucktard? How so? You want to take money from the producers and give it to people that haven’t contributed to the advancement of society for nothing in return, that is socialism, pure and simple. Now if you think that is justified, fine. I don’t, if the third world wants my money let them develop the next new technology and we’ll buy it.
JBC said every country needed to be on board for this to work, the new technology doesn’t exist so we are going to have to use expensive old methods wind and solar. Now not every country is going to get on board if they would Kyoto would be law now. So you are going to have some global force to “persuade” the lawbreakers to damage their economies, so it will be a global, socialist government. Embrace it if that is what you want, i don’t, and not many do. People will say they want to help until they see what it is actually to take to fulfill those goals.
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:56 pm
One other thing, you we have produced the “problem” because we have used the technology to save lives by burning oil, fair enough. But tthe “problem” of global warming is, well, global, so why are they impacted more than us?
January 4th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Ok, now I get it.
You actually don’t comprehend the problem at all. Now that I see that you don’t understand things like sea levels and geography and stuff like that all the jibber-jabber you’ve been spewing over the years makes perfect sense.
I just had a major epiphany.
January 4th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Yeah, I’m pretty dumb that way. So we’re only going to give the money to poor countries at certain elevations? Help a dumb ole farm kid out here, splain to me what this money we “owe” these folks is gonna be used fer.
Also, since the money we owe these people is based on the amount we spend on defense if we just stop buying tanks and ships we owe them nothing, that sounds like a good way to get out of it to me.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Entire populations will have to be relocated, mitigation stratigies will have to be implemented.
But let’s back up for a moment and start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
January 5th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Let’s see, we don’t need to give them money for mitigation since they aren’t doing anything to contribute to the “problem”. If we are going to have to relocate whole populations (which we aren’t) then aren’t we going to have to relocate our populations as well? Here’s a novel idea, we’ll relocate our people and they can relocate theirs.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
That post doesn’t make any sense at all.
January 6th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Yeah, it’s pretty difficult to have a conversation with some one who doesn’t even understand the Greenhouse Effect, and that some poor countries are located on islands/coastlines and are extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels.
I suppose I could use an analogy about a neighbour dumping toxins into ground which would then force folks living near by to relocate or take mitigation measures. Who should be most responsible for those costs – the person who caused the problems or the people who were just going about living their lives? But I won’t. ;-)
If there’s one thing the Germans have proved over the years it’s that they’re very ambitious and they are very focused. I have no doubt that they will meet their 2050 goal and that their economy will be one of the strongest on planet because of it.
January 6th, 2012 at 9:08 am
I noticed the wwnj chat bot vomited forth “The oceans are going to rise 60 feet all over the world”. Really? No one in this thread at lies.com seems to have made that claim. Except wwnj pulling fakts from his hindquarters.
The German economy beat their projected emissions and energy mix goals the last time by a fair bit iirc (cough wikipedia cough). Let me try my new English to Wingnutoverse translation widget (coming soon to iOS and Android devices – just in time for the 2012 election!) This next sentence will be in wwnj gibberish, so apologies to anyone who uses more then three braincells at a time. Ah spose them gol durn sociamalists in Natzi Germany is gonna sell them mud hut folks thet thar clean energy stuff, ‘ceptin th few bits wut China don’ sell em! grrrr!
January 10th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Well, those are just facts of physics. I don’t expect you to understand, you’re not stupid, you understand the physics, you understand the variables, the problem with an alpha intellectual is they tend to ignore the link between the two if an educated expert says something that is at odds with the common sense links.
You also rarely understand my point, or you choose to ignore it. The point is according to experts the oceans have risen about 6 to 12 inches in the last century, the reasonable prediction of course isn’t 192 feet, or 60 or even the 20 feet AlGore predicted but somewhere in the 8 to 20 inch range. So we adapted to the last century’s rise, we’ll adapt to this new ocean rise. If, and it’s a big if, if the seas continue to rise because we continue to warm. The point is socialism on a large scale only works in an emergency, to achieve the goal of world wide socialism there must be a crisis, dealing with a problem as we have already done in the normal course of our lives without disrupting our lives just isn’t an emergency, so one must be created, hence 20, 60, 192 feet.