On 1/3/2012 5:48 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Doug wrote:

On 1/2/2012 9:55 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Doug wrote:


a

And Arafat won his for Peace. Is your point that Krugman knows as much
about economics as Arafat knows about peace? I won't dispute that.

Krugman is right and Cheney agreed with him.

Krugman is FOS, and Dick Cheney agreeing with him is hardly confirmation
that he knows what he's talking about.


My guess is that this is probably the first time the Poster has ever
brought Cheney up in a positive light.

I noticed you snipped the link I posted showing Krugman contradicting
himself.

Which had nothing to do with the point I was making so why on earth
would I have left it?

While it obviously has nothing to do with your attempt to change the
subject, it has equally obviously has *everything* to do with your
*original* point.

And why would YOU decide that an irrelevant link
was so important as to bring it up.

It's not irrelevant at all: it clearly shows that Krugman's article is
politically motivated, and not based in economics at all.

Now, if you had sent along a link to
Google Groups listing of all the nice things you had said about Cheney
and I had cut that you, MIGHT have an argument. Otherwise, it seems like
obfuscation.

The obfuscation is entirely on your part.

Bye now.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


While it obviously has nothing to do with your attempt to change the
subject, it has equally obviously has *everything* to do with your
*original* point.

Which I had moved on from to the Cheney thing. Do try to keep up.


And why would YOU decide that an irrelevant link
was so important as to bring it up.

It's not irrelevant at all: it clearly shows that Krugman's article is
politically motivated, and not based in economics at all.

Which I agreed with. Krugman has done as much for the credibility of the
Econ Prize as Arafat and Kissinger did for the Peace.

Now, if you had sent along a link to
Google Groups listing of all the nice things you had said about Cheney
and I had cut that you, MIGHT have an argument. Otherwise, it seems like
obfuscation.

The obfuscation is entirely on your part.

Bye now.
Oh that we should be so lucky

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jan 3, 1:06*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:



While it obviously has nothing to do with your attempt to change the
subject, it has equally obviously has *everything* to do with your
*original* point.

* *Which I had moved on from to the Cheney thing. Do try to keep up.



And why would YOU decide that an irrelevant link
was so important as to bring it up.

It's not irrelevant at all: it clearly shows that Krugman's article is
politically motivated, and not based in economics at all.

Which I agreed with. Krugman has done as much for the credibility of the
Econ Prize as Arafat and Kissinger did for the Peace.

Now, if you had sent along a link to
Google Groups listing of all the nice things you had said about Cheney
and I had cut that you, MIGHT have an argument. Otherwise, it seems like
obfuscation.

The obfuscation is entirely on your part.

Bye now.

* * *Oh that we should be so lucky

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Been a while since I saw two guys that are apparently
on the same side of things arguing with each other so
much.....

Krugman is a total left wing loon. As Doug pointed out,
he was harping big time on deficits during the Bush
years that were an order of magnitude smaller than
those today. Yet now deficits don't matter because
we owe the money to ourselves? Besides the fact
that a lot of US debt is not owned by US citizens, it's
just crazy that anyone, let alone an economist, would
say that it's OK to spend recklessly today and rack up
debt as long as you just borrow it domestically.
Ultimately those debts become a serious drag on
the economy as they are paid back, or else they
are not paid back, either through default or inflation.