I see that the effort of actually posting something which Krugman has said and proving that statement is a lie has been too much for you.
Sorry. That's still a zero. But then you bat for the team which denies science and promotes lying so no one is all that surprised.
yrs,
rubato
Ryan's double-speak..
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
All you're doing is showing that you can't understand the words sitting right in front of you. (and now apparently can't click a link either.) And your repeated insistence that you can't see what anyone else can easily see is making you look like you're either high as a kite or a mental case.
But apparently you'd rather look like you're stoned out of your gord or flat out deranged than admit that you just literally cannot understand what was written. I guess that's so painful for you, you'd rather look like a loony tune.
[ETA: Of course you always had the third option of simply ignoring the post all together and going on to something else; why you didn't do that when you first realized you didn't understand the article, is beyond me...]
Maybe this would be a good time for you to slither away from this thread just like you did the one where you completely screwed the pooch with simple math. That would certainly be in your best interest....
But like I said, I'm enjoying this, it always pleases me when an abusive hate-filled blowhard goes into self destruct mode, so by all means please continue....
But apparently you'd rather look like you're stoned out of your gord or flat out deranged than admit that you just literally cannot understand what was written. I guess that's so painful for you, you'd rather look like a loony tune.
[ETA: Of course you always had the third option of simply ignoring the post all together and going on to something else; why you didn't do that when you first realized you didn't understand the article, is beyond me...]
Maybe this would be a good time for you to slither away from this thread just like you did the one where you completely screwed the pooch with simple math. That would certainly be in your best interest....
But like I said, I'm enjoying this, it always pleases me when an abusive hate-filled blowhard goes into self destruct mode, so by all means please continue....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
All you have to do is what I have shown many times now.
You cannot? Then you have nothing. As I said.
yrs,
rubato
You cannot? Then you have nothing. As I said.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Read the article.
If you can...
Follow the link to Krugman's piece and read that. (If you don't believe the author has quoted Krugman correctly.)
If you can...
Then try to refute the argument and the evidence provided for Krugman's dishonesty in the article. (They are impossible to miss, even for someone with even merely adequate reading comprehension skills.)
Which you can't....
If you can...
Follow the link to Krugman's piece and read that. (If you don't believe the author has quoted Krugman correctly.)
If you can...
Then try to refute the argument and the evidence provided for Krugman's dishonesty in the article. (They are impossible to miss, even for someone with even merely adequate reading comprehension skills.)
Which you can't....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Still waiting for you to do as I have done many times already.
What did Krugman write which was a lie?
What is your evidence that this is so?
Not difficult. If you can.
yrs,
rubato
What did Krugman write which was a lie?
What is your evidence that this is so?
Not difficult. If you can.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
LMAOWhat did Krugman write which was a lie?
What is your evidence that this is so?
Once again...
Read the article Quadbato.....
If you can...
Follow the link to Krugman's piece and read that. (If you don't believe the author has quoted Krugman correctly.)
If you can...
Then try to refute the argument and the evidence provided for Krugman's dishonesty in the article. (They are impossible to miss, even for someone with even merely adequate reading comprehension skills.)
Which you can't....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
"... This is surely the first time one of our major parties has run a campaign so completely fraudulent, making claims so at odds with the reality of its policy proposals. ... "
_________________________
Paul Krugman on Paul "Marathon Man" Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opini ... .html?_r=2
Rosie Ruiz Republicans
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 2, 2012 281 Comments
Remember Rosie Ruiz? In 1980 she was the first woman to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon — except it turned out that she hadn’t actually run most of the race, that she sneaked onto the course around a mile from the end. Ever since, she has symbolized a particular kind of fraud, in which people claim credit for achieving things they have not, in fact, achieved.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
And these days Paul Ryan is the Rosie Ruiz of American politics.
This would have been an apt comparison even before the curious story of Mr. Ryan’s own marathon came to light. Still, that’s quite a story, so let’s talk about it first.
It started when Hugh Hewitt, a right-wing talk-radio host, interviewed Mr. Ryan. In that interview, the vice-presidential candidate boasted about his fitness, declaring that he had once run a marathon in less than three hours.
This claim piqued the interest of Runner’s World magazine, which noted that marathon times are recorded — and that it was unable to find any evidence of Mr. Ryan’s accomplishment. It eventually transpired that Mr. Ryan had indeed once run a marathon, but that his time was actually more than four hours.
In a statement issued by a spokesman, Mr. Ryan tried to laugh the whole thing off as a simple error. But serious runners find that implausible: the difference between sub-three and over-four is the difference between extraordinary and perfectly ordinary, and it’s not something a runner could get wrong, unless he’s a fabulist who imagines his own reality. And does suggesting that Mr. Ryan is delusional rather than dishonest actually make the situation any better?
Which brings us back to the real issues of this presidential campaign.
Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona, which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t accomplished.
..... (see link)
So what is this election about? To be sure, it’s about different visions of society — about Medicare versus Vouchercare, about preserving the safety net versus destroying it. But it’s also a test of how far politicians can bend the truth. This is surely the first time one of our major parties has run a campaign so completely fraudulent, making claims so at odds with the reality of its policy proposals. But if the Romney/Ryan ticket wins, it won’t be the last.
_________________________
Paul Krugman on Paul "Marathon Man" Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opini ... .html?_r=2
Rosie Ruiz Republicans
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 2, 2012 281 Comments
Remember Rosie Ruiz? In 1980 she was the first woman to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon — except it turned out that she hadn’t actually run most of the race, that she sneaked onto the course around a mile from the end. Ever since, she has symbolized a particular kind of fraud, in which people claim credit for achieving things they have not, in fact, achieved.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
And these days Paul Ryan is the Rosie Ruiz of American politics.
This would have been an apt comparison even before the curious story of Mr. Ryan’s own marathon came to light. Still, that’s quite a story, so let’s talk about it first.
It started when Hugh Hewitt, a right-wing talk-radio host, interviewed Mr. Ryan. In that interview, the vice-presidential candidate boasted about his fitness, declaring that he had once run a marathon in less than three hours.
This claim piqued the interest of Runner’s World magazine, which noted that marathon times are recorded — and that it was unable to find any evidence of Mr. Ryan’s accomplishment. It eventually transpired that Mr. Ryan had indeed once run a marathon, but that his time was actually more than four hours.
In a statement issued by a spokesman, Mr. Ryan tried to laugh the whole thing off as a simple error. But serious runners find that implausible: the difference between sub-three and over-four is the difference between extraordinary and perfectly ordinary, and it’s not something a runner could get wrong, unless he’s a fabulist who imagines his own reality. And does suggesting that Mr. Ryan is delusional rather than dishonest actually make the situation any better?
Which brings us back to the real issues of this presidential campaign.
Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona, which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t accomplished.
..... (see link)
So what is this election about? To be sure, it’s about different visions of society — about Medicare versus Vouchercare, about preserving the safety net versus destroying it. But it’s also a test of how far politicians can bend the truth. This is surely the first time one of our major parties has run a campaign so completely fraudulent, making claims so at odds with the reality of its policy proposals. But if the Romney/Ryan ticket wins, it won’t be the last.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
US vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has admitted exaggerating the time he achieved in a marathon. But is it possible to forget the time you clocked in such a gruelling event?
Quizzed by radio host Hugh Hewitt on his marathon personal best (PB), Ryan replied: "Under three, I think, you know, high twos... a two hour and fifty-something."
Hewitt responded with "holy smokes" to which Ryan shot back: "I was fast when I was younger, yeah."
This sort of time - representing sub-seven minute miles - puts Ryan in the top tier of club runners. There will be many who do repeated marathons and train hard who never come near.
US magazine Runner's World was intrigued by the claim. Its report noted: "If Ryan has broken 3:00, he'd be the fastest marathoner to be on a national ticket. John Edwards has run 3:30; George W Bush has run 3:44."
But it transpires that Ryan only ran 4:01:25 in a race in 1990.
Ryan later responded: "The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin - who ran Boston last year - reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three.
"If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight."
The magazine noted that Ryan's PB is behind Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008, who has run 3:59.
But does a slip-up like this matter? It does to runners.
As some amateur runners have noted, most people have their marathon PB indelibly etched in their brain. Even if it was one marathon, 20 years ago. [mine, 3:29:31 Cardiff Marathon 1985. The first and only time I broke 3 1/2 hours]
There is no shame in 4:01:25. Even a four-hour marathon is a gruelling, extraordinary feat. Most people's marathon PB is: "I'm yet to run a marathon."
Political commentator and former MP Matthew Parris - whose marathon PB of 2:32:57 is still a House of Commons record - is not sure anybody could let their PB slip their mind.
"You can't possibly forget a marathon time. You go through so much training and so much pain."
Runners are allowed some leeway.
"I've been known to say I did my marathon in two-and-a-half hours but that is about the extent of my approximation," says Parris.
"To anybody running seriously, the breaking of the three-hour barrier is a tremendous feat."
David Castle, editor of Running Fitness magazine with a marathon PB of 2:53:47, concurs.
"Marathon runners are very protective of their PB. Anyone running under three hours will have put in a fair amount of training. Model Nell McAndrew [who reduced her personal best by 14 minutes to clock 2:54 in this year's London Marathon] is virtually training like a professional athlete.
"You will certainly be doing up to 40 or 50 miles a week, running five times a week."
Each time barrier is hugely significant. A sub 1:30 half marathon or a sub-40 10k is hugely important for amateur runners. You can tell by the way runners so often refer to seconds, even in a PB for a long race.
If your half marathon personal best is 1:39:38, you never round to 1:40. You tore yourself apart for those 22 seconds. Those were the 22 seconds that nearly broke you.
"When we talk about runners becoming proper runners, [it might be] under 3:30 [for a marathon]," suggests Castle.
But it's hard to imagine that Ryan's "misspeak" was a calculated lie, suggests Parris.
"That is exactly the kind of thing you know journalists are going to check. I don't think he was lying. He may genuinely have forgotten."
But there is always the temptation caused by "bravado", Castle says.
"Who wants to say they ran four hours? It's an OK time but not a runner's time.
"To finish any marathon is an achievement. In his position, he was just over-egging the pudding. He is not the first and he certainly won't be the last."
It's too early to tell if the episode will have any effect on the amateur running vote. The four-hour runners may have found a kindred spirit.
"To do a slower marathon requires a great deal more guts than a 2:50 one. You suffer for a great deal longer," jokes Parris.
And Ryan can always console himself with one thing. Runner's World noted that Al Gore only managed 4:58.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
Beer Sponge
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:31 pm
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
My friends and I, while discussing (and mocking) US politics, have dubbed Paul Ryan lyin' Ryan. Not much that is true has come forth from lyin' Ryans lips lately. Were I American, having lyin' Ryan on the Republican ticket would push me over to Obama. Fortunately, I was born in a civilized country!!! 
Personally, I don’t believe in bros before hoes, or hoes before bros. There needs to be a balance. A homie-hoe-stasis, if you will.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
A high tolerance for lying defines Republican voters.
When you don't care what the facts are you never have to change your mind.
yrs,
rubato
When you don't care what the facts are you never have to change your mind.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
To what link do you refer?Lord Jim wrote:Try that link I provided ....
In your posting quoting an article accusing Krugman of lying, I do not find a link to the Krugman article claimed to be false.
But as you know, I make no claim to be techno-savvy.
I would appreciate a link to the Krugman article which is claimed to be false, so that I can assess for myself the merits of the various claims.
Thanks in advance.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
I put it in a subsequent post. Here's what I said to rube at the time:
I see you didn't have any problem finding an accusation of a lie in that article; (I'm sure no one else who read it did either) only rube seems to lack the reading skills to have accomplished that rather unremarkable feat. (Something about which he is evidently proud, since he kept posting over and over to remind everyone that he couldn't understand the article.)If you had been able to read even the first sentence, and copy and pasted this into google:
"Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts"
You would have immediately come up with this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=0
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Okay. I missed that link; it somehow sailed past me. My bad. Thanks.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
But I am still a bit mystified.
If -- if -- I am following this correctly:
(1) The first article quoted by rubato is an article by Steve Benen, and that article, whatever its merits -- as to which I intimate no view -- has nothing to do with the is-Krugman-a-liar? issue.
(2) The second article quoted by rubato is an article by Paul Krugman dated 30 August 2012 (his link to Economist's View is to a reprint dated 31 August 2012, but the link in that reprint is to the original New York Times op-ed dated 30 August 2012).
(3) The article quoted by Lord Jim is an undated article by Richard Baehr. That article refers to an article by Krugman dated -- as shown by the subsequently provided link -- 22 August 2012. It does not refer to the Krugman article quoted by rubato.
The Krugman article dated 30 August 2012 principally concerns Krugman's claim that the Romney-Ryan plan would effectively kill Medicare by turning it into a voucher program. (It also addresses the claimed incongruity of "posing as a deficit hawk" while "propos[ing] $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade versus only about $1.7 trillion in specific spending cuts".) The Krugman article dated 30 August 2012 does not appear to mention the Bush tax cuts (unless I missed it, which has happened before).
The Baehr article principally concerns the Bush tax cuts. I have not yet had time to compare the Baehr article to the Krugman article which the Baehr article criticizes. (Besides the tabs of those articles and two tabs on this thread, I also have going a tab on the Founders' views of religious freedom and a couple of tabs about Indian recipes for stuffed eggplant.)
But it seems to me that a so-called dispute about (a) on one hand, the Romney-Ryan approach to Medicare and (b) on the other hand, the Bush tax cuts is not really a dispute at all. It strikes me as two people talking past each other, each one trying to score points at the other's expense, and neither one trying to address the points that the other is making.
But maybe that's just me ....
If -- if -- I am following this correctly:
(1) The first article quoted by rubato is an article by Steve Benen, and that article, whatever its merits -- as to which I intimate no view -- has nothing to do with the is-Krugman-a-liar? issue.
(2) The second article quoted by rubato is an article by Paul Krugman dated 30 August 2012 (his link to Economist's View is to a reprint dated 31 August 2012, but the link in that reprint is to the original New York Times op-ed dated 30 August 2012).
(3) The article quoted by Lord Jim is an undated article by Richard Baehr. That article refers to an article by Krugman dated -- as shown by the subsequently provided link -- 22 August 2012. It does not refer to the Krugman article quoted by rubato.
The Krugman article dated 30 August 2012 principally concerns Krugman's claim that the Romney-Ryan plan would effectively kill Medicare by turning it into a voucher program. (It also addresses the claimed incongruity of "posing as a deficit hawk" while "propos[ing] $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade versus only about $1.7 trillion in specific spending cuts".) The Krugman article dated 30 August 2012 does not appear to mention the Bush tax cuts (unless I missed it, which has happened before).
The Baehr article principally concerns the Bush tax cuts. I have not yet had time to compare the Baehr article to the Krugman article which the Baehr article criticizes. (Besides the tabs of those articles and two tabs on this thread, I also have going a tab on the Founders' views of religious freedom and a couple of tabs about Indian recipes for stuffed eggplant.)
But it seems to me that a so-called dispute about (a) on one hand, the Romney-Ryan approach to Medicare and (b) on the other hand, the Bush tax cuts is not really a dispute at all. It strikes me as two people talking past each other, each one trying to score points at the other's expense, and neither one trying to address the points that the other is making.
But maybe that's just me ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Well that's not exactly correct....(But that's understandable, since you weren't here for the start of this, and rube has done his best to bury it)It strikes me as two people talking past each other,
Rube posted a challenge to me to come up with an example of Krugman lying....
I did so. (That's the Baehr article)
Rube has never responded to the charge in that article . He has posted numerous diversions to avoid doing so, (including the second Krugman article) he has even bizarrely attempted to claim that he can't find an accusation of a lie in the Baehr article.
Since he also claimed he couldn't find the original Krugman piece that the Baehr article is about (even though as I told him a very simple search of the first few words in the first sentence would produce it.) I also posted that for him.
So no, we have not been "talking past each other"....
Rube made a challenge, I answered it, and then rather than deal with what I presented, rube has tossed out a bunch of irrelevant stuff, (he can put up posts about Coulter and Limbaugh lying till the cows come home; I've never claimed they didn't so it doesn't fall to me to defend them.) in an effort to confuse and blow smoke....
And in addition to the irrelevant crappola, he has over and over made the surreal claim that he can't see any accusation of of lying on Krugman's part in the Baehr article. (Which, since it's quite obvious, means either that rube is lying yet again or he's got some sort of reading disability.)
What he has not done, is compare Baehr's charge, (and his source) to the Krugman piece referenced in that article and dispute the charge.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
We know he's been given to exaggeration, but a overstatement of almost 3000%?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
FFS, the man has Palin to follow, not an easy act to outstupid!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Mr. Ryan has decided to double down on his lies by not admitting that he made any false statements.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Everyone else appears able to post the lies.
Not LJ.
What did Krugman say which was a lie? <<silence>>
Where is the proof << silence >>
If you cannot write it down and show us the source you have nothing. Copy and paste the exact statement you are claiming is a lie, if you prefer.
Everyone else appears able to do this.
yrs,
rubato
Not LJ.
What did Krugman say which was a lie? <<silence>>
Where is the proof << silence >>
If you cannot write it down and show us the source you have nothing. Copy and paste the exact statement you are claiming is a lie, if you prefer.
Everyone else appears able to do this.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
LMAO
Un-fucking-believable....
Rube, I am beginning to think that you are attempting to make amends to me for the reprehensible things you have said by providing me with an endless source of amusement....
If that's the case, it's not necessary; a simple apology would do....
Y'know, if anyone else were doing this, I'd assume that they were being sarcastic and just trying to jerk my chain a bit....
But in your case, I'm pretty much convinced that you simply do not understand the article, and haven't even the wit to grasp the fact that you don't understand it....
Your decision to return yet again to this bewilders me; even by your standards...
Are you concerned that there might be someone left here that still doesn't get the fact that you don't understand the article, and you want to make certain they know it too?
Here again is the link to Krugman's original NY Times Op ed piece which is the subject of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=1
And here again, is the link to the article I posted, (which includes the quote..which appears in an additional quote box in the middle of the article...that the author asserts represents the lie Krugman told)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7205&p=89096&hilit=krugman#p89096
Now, if the lie and the argument supporting that he lied, were hidden in some way in that article....
If it was written in code, or if it was a palindrome, or buried in a single sentence in four pages of text....
I might feel the need to provide you with more help sorting it out...
But you don't really need an Enigma machine to find it...
In reviewing that article, I believe it's about 13 paragraphs long and at least nine of those paragraphs (beginning with the very first sentence) deal directly with the alleged lie, and the supporting evidence to back the allegation up....
Rube, I am about this far away from starting a thread with a poll asking the question, "Can you see an allegation of a lie in this article?" (whether you think the allegation is true or not) just to demonstrate to you how far away from rocket surgery this is....
Of course if I did that, you would no doubt claim that the only reason everyone could see the allegation is because all the respondents are "rubato-hater" drunks who can't read a complete book....
*(Edited to fix the link to the Krugman piece)
Un-fucking-believable....
Rube, I am beginning to think that you are attempting to make amends to me for the reprehensible things you have said by providing me with an endless source of amusement....
If that's the case, it's not necessary; a simple apology would do....
Y'know, if anyone else were doing this, I'd assume that they were being sarcastic and just trying to jerk my chain a bit....
But in your case, I'm pretty much convinced that you simply do not understand the article, and haven't even the wit to grasp the fact that you don't understand it....
Your decision to return yet again to this bewilders me; even by your standards...
Are you concerned that there might be someone left here that still doesn't get the fact that you don't understand the article, and you want to make certain they know it too?
Here again is the link to Krugman's original NY Times Op ed piece which is the subject of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=1
And here again, is the link to the article I posted, (which includes the quote..which appears in an additional quote box in the middle of the article...that the author asserts represents the lie Krugman told)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7205&p=89096&hilit=krugman#p89096
Now, if the lie and the argument supporting that he lied, were hidden in some way in that article....
If it was written in code, or if it was a palindrome, or buried in a single sentence in four pages of text....
I might feel the need to provide you with more help sorting it out...
But you don't really need an Enigma machine to find it...
In reviewing that article, I believe it's about 13 paragraphs long and at least nine of those paragraphs (beginning with the very first sentence) deal directly with the alleged lie, and the supporting evidence to back the allegation up....
Rube, I am about this far away from starting a thread with a poll asking the question, "Can you see an allegation of a lie in this article?" (whether you think the allegation is true or not) just to demonstrate to you how far away from rocket surgery this is....
Of course if I did that, you would no doubt claim that the only reason everyone could see the allegation is because all the respondents are "rubato-hater" drunks who can't read a complete book....
*(Edited to fix the link to the Krugman piece)