Recompense For Sandy

[rubato]

Cowards always travel in groups.

But none of them have posted the mythical Krugman lie?

Weak.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

It's a fascinating phenomena, when we experience people, and retard is not the first*, whose self esteem and self image are so fundamentally fragile and based on so little of value, that they find it totally impossible to be honest and put their hand up and say; "I was wrong."

Yes, it is indeed a fascinating phenomena, and when I think about it, it has been the core problem of many of those over the years on these boards who succeeded in discrediting themselves as serious participants, (rube, Quad, Steve, BSG, Gwen....)

In this case we see a particularly virulent example, as rube keeps bizarrely reminding everyone of something else he fucked up, in order to try and divert attention from his latest fuck up....Anything but admit to his fuck ups, no matter how stupid and.or crazy his refusal to do makes him look....

[Lord Jim]

Cowards always travel in groups.

But none of them have posted the mythical Krugman lie?

Weak.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ. I have noticed an amazing propensity on your part to post in twos. Are you by any chance really Major Major?

[Lord Jim]

Why no General, I'm not....

[Lord Jim]

Are you by any chance really Adrian Monk?

[dgs49]

For what it's worth, there is a cottage industry of economists and journalists who regularly write columns about Krugman's absurd writings and errors. Krugman is intelligent enough in most cases to couch his observations and recommendations in forms that cannot be pinned down, and thus they are not "lies," or errors. I have several times written here mocking Krugman for first recommending economic stimulus, then when confronted with the utter failure of the stimuli to do anything other than create more government teat-suckers (mainly public sector employees and government contractors), he said that the stimulus was insufficient. Rather like the general Democrat position that all we have to do to improve educational outputs in this country is simply to spend "enough" money (defined as "more than you can imagine"). Two trillion dollars: Insufficient. No, he wasn't lying, and maybe one could say he didn't make an "error in judgment," but he was, and remains full of shit.

He is a political flack whose constant idiocies are tolerated and in some circles exalted because of a Nobel committee mistake. Odd, what?

For anyone who cares to read some specific criticism (one speck of an avalanche of same), the following link may be instructive. If fyou read closely you might even see evidence of a Krugmen "lie." Horrors!

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/08 ... yans-lies/

[Lord Jim]

Krugman is intelligent enough in most cases to couch his observations and recommendations in forms that cannot be pinned down, and thus they are not "lies,"

He wasn't on this occasion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7205&p=89096&hilit= ... iar#p89096

[Sean]

Cowards always travel in groups.

But none of them have posted the mythical Krugman lie?

Weak.

yrs,
rubato

I'm confused... What has Krugman got to do with the Royal Navy?

[dales]

[Econoline]

I'm confused... What has Krugman got to do with the Royal Navy?

Haven't you noticed? This thread has nothing to do with the Royal Navy (or with Hurricane Sandy, or with Paul Krugman for that matter).

It's just yet another installment of the Jim and rubey Show.

Move along.

[Lord Jim]

Econo, if you are attempting to draw some sort of facile, bogus "equivalence" between myself and rube, you are cordially invited to kiss my ass...

Though I suppose this should come as no surprise coming as it does from a person who repeatedly attempted to defend rube as some sort of innocent victim, (though to your credit, you do seem to have finally woken up about that) and who bent himself into a linguistic pretzel trying to find some justification for rube's idiotic "the defining characteristic of affluence is free time" claim....

In this particular discussion, rube began (as he often does) by making a totally unprovoked, insulting and breathtakingly ignorant claim, and then,( in typical rube style) went on to sneeringly dare anyone to prove him wrong....

I did so....and then challenged him to be man enough to admit it.

If those look like equivalent things to you, I really can't help you....

(BTW just to let you know, it was you and BSG who convinced me to abandon my previous policy of only commenting on rube's posts and behavior when it was quoted by others and return again to reading his posts...I decided that if there were folks who could get the wrong end of the stick as badly as you two had about rube, he was getting too much of a free ride)


As I have pointed out to rube, asshole and ignoramus is a terrible personalty combination...but it's the way he's decided to roll...

An asshole gives people (certainly more than just me in rube's case... the guy has been an asshole to all but a tiny number of people here) plenty of just cause to want to give them their comeuppance, while an ignoramus provides people with plenty of opportunity to give them that comeuppance...(If you're going to be an asshole, you should at least know what you're talking about; if you're going to be an ignoramus you should at least not be insulting about it)

[Econoline]

Oh, no, no, no equivalence intended; just commenting on the fact that "The Ignorance and Assholery of rubato" tends to become the topic of so many threads around here, regardless of the original topic.

(BTW just to let you know, it was you and BSG who convinced me to abandon my previous policy of only commenting on rube's posts and behavior when it was quoted by others and return again to reading his posts...I decided that if there were folks who could get the wrong end of the stick as badly as you two had about rube, he was getting too much of a free ride)

I have to say that (though it's obviously led to more aggravation and more work for you) I think this has actually improved the level of discourse at least a little bit; I'm not sure why, maybe it's just the fact that he knows you're reading and ready to pounce, maybe it spreads out the abuse so that "dogpiling" happens less often, maybe both of you are becoming a little tired of the sport, or maybe it's just my imagination.

I did so....and then challenged him to be man enough to admit it.

Ever the hopey dreamy pollyanna, eh Jim?

[Lord Jim]

Ever the hopey dreamy pollyanna, eh Jim?

What can I say Econo, I'm just an indefatigable optimist...

[Gob]

Oh, no, no, no equivalence intended; just commenting on the fact that "The Ignorance and Assholery of rubato" tends to become the topic of so many threads around here, regardless of the original topic.

Well only one person tends to bring "The Ignorance and Assholery of rubato" to so many threads.

[rubato]

Still no one able to quote "Krugman's lie" and then show the evidence.

Weak.

Failure.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Here you go, rube, one more time, just for you, Sparky...

(I was only going to post a portion of it, but in re-reading the post, it fits so perfectly today, I thought I would re-post it in it's entirety)

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)

Addendum:

Just so you;ll know rube, I've now saved that post in a word document so I can easily repost it without looking it up the next time you try to use it as a diversion to extract yourself from your latest self inflicted cluster fuck....

No need to thank me snookums, glad to do it....

I'm still at a loss to understand why a person would keep bringing up one of their own previous fuck ups to attempt to divert attention from their most current fuck up, (you'd think a halfway rational person would want to divert attention from their most recent fuck up by drawing attention to somebody else's fuck up, right?) but I confess that what passes for a "mental process" for rube contains many mysteries for me....

[Jarlaxle]

I'm still at a loss to understand why a person would keep bringing up one of their own previous fuck ups to attempt to divert attention from their most current fuck up, (you'd think a halfway rational person would want to divert attention from their most recent fuck up by drawing attention to somebody else's fuck up, right?) but I confess that what passes for a "mental process" for rube contains many mysteries for me....

Ethanol?

[dales]

Methanol.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nice try econo.