Paul Krugman endorses Moore-Coulter

[ksen]

so maybe ksen was right . . . after all.

Make that your signature.

 

[wufwugy]

The left-wing has a shitload of reality distortions, arrogance, and personal attacks. Go watch TYT or read anything in r/politics or attempt to address any multitudes of credible economic opinions and data that don't march in lockstep with the liberal worldview on this very forum. I believed Moore-Coulter when I was in the bubble. Nobody wants to find out they're human or that they're not "the good guys". I don't really know what else to say.

 

[arkirk]

The left-wing has a shitload of reality distortions, arrogance, and personal attacks. Go watch TYT or read anything in r/politics or attempt to address any multitudes of credible economic opinions and data that don't march in lockstep with the liberal worldview on this very forum. I believed Moore-Coulter was when I was in the bubble. Nobody wants to find out they're human or that they're not "the good guys". I don't really know what else to say.

I got news for you....You're in a bubble. The world is flat. Dubbiya was a patriot who saved us from WMD, and I got some fine cool aide here for you. Just because you feel like going bottoms up on this, I would like to remind you that there are some actual facts, not personality differences the conservatives spend billions denying. There is such a thing as a lie. You must really be desperate to feel good. Sorry about that. It is not about good guys or bad guys. It is a matter of truthfulness. You would have us so scared to say anything about anything there could be no mobilizing to treat any of our country's ills. I don't have a problem with TYT. Our economic problems are real and are being exacerbated by right wing megaphones that don't give a shit about you or anything but their sponsors.

For some of this outright lying the right does, there is no calmly sitting still and hearing it without challenging it. It really is a matter of self preservation....and your sanity. People who do not find our current economic and social systems sustainable are regularly attacked by people like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reilly and their attacks are personal and almost always imply the victims of their attacks are insane, have hormone imbalance, are panicked dupes, communists, traitors, this is the language of the right wing. It is the language of the uncaring who imagine they are above the fray of common people.

We are all made of the same kind of flesh and blood. We all only have a certain span in which to be whatever we will become. This right wing drumbeat about this or that minority population, coupled with high praise of great men is the stuff of demagogues who harm our society's chance to even just continue to exist. I am pretty sick of left or right wing confessionals regarding some change of heart that makes us all kissie again, yet never really address any issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The left-wing has a shitload of reality distortions, arrogance, and personal attacks. Go watch TYT or read anything in r/politics or attempt to address any multitudes of credible economic opinions and data that don't march in lockstep with the liberal worldview on this very forum.

Go to Democratic Underground and you'll see some naive liberals. This isn't something in dispute. Being a liberal doesn't automatically make someone superior.

I believed Moore-Coulter when I was in the bubble.

Huh? Moore-Coulter is about what is a noticeable right-wing inability to gauge magnitudes. IE, Moore is as bad as Coulter. Moore-Coulter in no way suggests there are no wrong liberal stances or that particular liberals aren't capable of mind numbing stupidity.

However, what Moore-Coulter does do is notice that right-wingers will complain about how liberals like head start is somehow equivalent to thinking Obama isn't an American. See, both sides are just as bad.

 

[wufwugy]

However, what Moore-Coulter does do is notice that right-wingers will complain about how liberals like head start is somehow equivalent to thinking Obama isn't an American. See, both sides are just as bad.

I wouldn't say this is terribly common. Regardless, people who are wrong themselves tend to say wrong things about others

From the middle, however, each side really does look just as bad. I'm almost ashamed to say it because I didn't used to believe it. The three examples I gave are fantastic and representative of the left-wing

 

[maxparrish]

Go to Democratic Underground and you'll see some naive liberals. This isn't something in dispute. Being a liberal doesn't automatically make someone superior.
Huh? Moore-Coulter is about what is a noticeable right-wing inability to gauge magnitudes. IE, Moore is as bad as Coulter. Moore-Coulter in no way suggests there are no wrong liberal stances or that particular liberals aren't capable of mind numbing stupidity.

However, what Moore-Coulter does do is notice that right-wingers will complain about how liberals like head start is somehow equivalent to thinking Obama isn't an American. See, both sides are just as bad.

I hope your postulate does not depend on a single issue, largely gone after Obama finally produced what was asked of him repeatedly for the prior four years?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wouldn't say this is terribly common.

Moore-Coulter didn't magically get its name because the claim wasn't common.

Regardless, people who are wrong themselves tend to say wrong things about others

I hear that every time I listen to AM Radio.

From the middle, however, each side really does look just as bad.

That isn't from the middle. It is a false equivalence, flat out.

I'm almost ashamed to say it because I didn't used to believe it. The three examples I gave are fantastic and representative of the left-wing

So comparing TYT's influence with Fox News are we? Seriously?! There is a reason Air America failed. NPR.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope your postulate does not depend on a single issue,

You can feel free and discredit it, if you'd like.

largely gone after Obama finally produced what was asked of him repeatedly for the prior four years?

It isn't gone. It is still out there. Someone faked a video of his mother allegedly in a Kenyan hospital!

 

[travc]

There is a reason Air America failed. NPR.

Somewhat tangentially....
I don't think competition from NPR is the main reason Air America failed. IMO, Air America failed because people with authoritarian tendencies tend to also have 'conserative' political views. The market for that style of talk-radio is heavily skewed to the right. Which does bring us back to Moore-Coulter in a way... there is real deep asymmetry here.

 

[maxparrish]

Go to Democratic Underground and you'll see some naive liberals. This isn't something in dispute. Being a liberal doesn't automatically make someone superior.

Huh? Moore-Coulter is about what is a noticeable right-wing inability to gauge magnitudes. IE, Moore is as bad as Coulter. Moore-Coulter in no way suggests there are no wrong liberal stances or that particular liberals aren't capable of mind numbing stupidity.

However, what Moore-Coulter does do is notice that right-wingers will complain about how liberals like head start is somehow equivalent to thinking Obama isn't an American. See, both sides are just as bad.

Given the vagary of your "Moore-Coulter" postulate, I hesitate to say much about it. "Moore is as bad as Coulter" is, of course, untrue if it means that Moore's propaganda is equal to Coulter's for substantive accuracy, logic, or honesty. Such comparisons are difficult because Moore conveys most of his venom through film documentaries and periodic public drive-by comments while Coulter does so through weekly writings, articles, frequent media appearances, and books. Word for word, I am am sure Coulter's output is many times greater than that of Moore, but Moore's impact is as great (or greater) due to the use of film for the 10s of millions of adoring and loyal partisan left (including Hollywood's).

In any event, my take is that Moore is much, much worse using the criteria I mentioned. Coulter's major points (unlike Moore's) are usually well supported or at least supportable, while Moore's are often daffy and built on blatant and intentional falsehoods.

Still, I'd rather discuss Krugman's point because it is clearer...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the vagary of your "Moore-Coulter" postulate, I hesitate to say much about it. "Moore is as bad as Coulter" is, of course, untrue if it means that Moore's propaganda is equal to Coulter's for substantive accuracy, logic, or honesty. Such comparisons are difficult because Moore conveys most of his venom through film documentaries and periodic public drive-by comments while Coulter does so through weekly writings, articles, frequent media appearances, and books. Word for word, I am am sure Coulter's output is many times greater than that of Moore, but Moore's impact is as great (or greater) due to the use of film for the 10s of millions of adoring and loyal partisan left (including Hollywood's).

In any event, my take is that Moore is much, much worse using the criteria I mentioned. Coulter's major points (unlike Moore's) are usually well supported or at least supportable, while Moore's are often daffy and built on blatant and intentional falsehoods.

Wow. That is illuminating about your viewpoint. Ann Coulter, being more substantive and less attacking than Moore?

 

[maxparrish]

Wow. That is illuminating about your viewpoint. Ann Coulter, being more substantive and less attacking than Moore?

I realize that most everyone here (and at FRDB) think even less of Coulter than they do Limbaugh, but I am mildly surprised that most folks don't know my admiration and appreciation of Coulter (as well as Limbaugh, Levin, etc.)...only Beck turns me off, while Hannity leaves me ambivalent.

 

[PyramidHead]

I realize that most everyone here (and at FRDB) think even less of Coulter than they do Limbaugh, but I am mildly surprised that most folks don't know my admiration and appreciation of Coulter (as well as Limbaugh, Levin, etc.)...only Beck turns me off, while Hannity leaves me ambivalent.

I am not surprised. I would wager that your admiration of Coulter stems primarily from the reactions she provokes among those you disagree with, and not from anything intrinsically admirable about her.

 

[maxparrish]

I am not surprised. I would wager that your admiration of Coulter stems primarily from the reactions she provokes among those you disagree with, and not from anything intrinsically admirable about her.

No doubt her ability to get so many rank and file left partisans enraged his part of the reason. Her wit and tongue in cheek outrageousness is another. And finally, there is a great deal of truth in her comments, no matter how you take her lurid comments.

 

[Underseer]

Yes, yes, and YES.
That was easy

I'm not expressing an opinion because I have not made a study of the subject and have not tried tabulating any numbers, but think about how many anti-GMO laws have been passed in modern industrialized nations all over the world. Think about how many "alternative medicine" quacks are actually getting money from the British health care system.

Are conservolibertarians worse than liberals when it comes to being anti-science? Again, I don't know and I don't even know where to get the facts to settle that matter empirically, but it's pretty bad on both sides. Surely we can agree to that.

- - - Updated - - -

I realize that most everyone here (and at FRDB) think even less of Coulter than they do Limbaugh, but I am mildly surprised that most folks don't know my admiration and appreciation of Coulter (as well as Limbaugh, Levin, etc.)...only Beck turns me off, while Hannity leaves me ambivalent.

Maybe it's because you thnk Coulter offers more intellectual and carefully-considered arguments than Hannity? Or is it because Coulter and Limbaugh sound slightly crazier?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No doubt her ability to get so many rank and file left partisans enraged his part of the reason. Her wit and tongue in cheek outrageousness is another.

Wit? Mel Brooks has wit. Ann Coulter is just a good heel.

And finally, there is a great deal of truth in her comments, no matter how you take her lurid comments.

Queen of the red herring. Indeed.

 

[+or-1]

Bush is a war criminal!!!!

Bush is an idiot. Dick Cheney is definitely and demonstrably a war criminal.

 

[+or-1]

largely gone after Obama finally produced what was asked of him repeatedly for the prior four years?

It isn't gone. It is still out there. Someone faked a video of his mother allegedly in a Kenyan hospital!

Plus, he actually produced his birth certificate in June of 2008. Of course, everyone who was horrified by the darkie presidential candidate said it wasn't good enough but it would have held up in a court of law. The one he produced in 2011 was the long form birth certificate and he only bothered with it to shut up the whining. Which was, as Jimmy points out, a waste of time and which fully supports his assertions. ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[maxparrish]

I'm not expressing an opinion because I have not made a study of the subject and have not tried tabulating any numbers, but think about how many anti-GMO laws have been passed in modern industrialized nations all over the world. Think about how many "alternative medicine" quacks are actually getting money from the British health care system.

Are conservolibertarians worse than liberals when it comes to being anti-science? Again, I don't know and I don't even know where to get the facts to settle that matter empirically, but it's pretty bad on both sides. Surely we can agree to that.

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe it's because you thnk Coulter offers more intellectual and carefully-considered arguments than Hannity? Or is it because Coulter and Limbaugh sound slightly crazier?

Hannity is just relentless attacking and hyper outrage, and he gets tiresome. Limbaugh and Coulter, in their own manners, have a sense of humor. Limbaugh in particular, is often cheeky for effect...as when he talks about never being wrong. Coulter uses vivid metaphors and skewers hypocrisy.

Krugman, on the other hand, says outrageous stuff without a shrewd of humor or tongue in cheek banter. When he is not grumpy and dismissive, he is humorless and arrogant.

 

[Underseer]

Hannity is just relentless attacking and hyper outrage, and he gets tiresome. Limbaugh and Coulter, in their own manners, have a sense of humor. Limbaugh in particular, is often cheeky for effect...as when he talks about never being wrong. Coulter uses vivid metaphors and skewers hypocrisy.

Krugman, on the other hand, says outrageous stuff without a shrewd of humor or tongue in cheek banter. When he is not grumpy and dismissive, he is humorless and arrogant.

Sure, but the brilliant arguments and good quality information of Coulter and Limbaugh also influence your decision to like them, right? I mean, how could anyone possibly argue against the zingers they offer, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Bush is an idiot. Dick Cheney is definitely and demonstrably a war criminal.

Why do you hate America? [/rightist]

 

[fromderinside]

... Regardless, people who are wrong themselves tend to say wrong things about others

...

Well there's a nice operating principle. I know he was wrong so all he says is wrong too.

.... and the world ended when Specialist First Class Johnny believing the president was wrong decided the president's order to not launch a counter-strike meant he should actually push the launch button.

I really think people should use things they can verify by test when the sky is falling.