1
   

I Agree With Me

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 09:29 pm
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
Not so ridiculous.

Bill Kristol, chairman of PNAC. Reasonable?
Paul Gigot: "Meanwhile, Democrats swoon before Mr. Clinton like the French before de Gaulle in 1944". Reasonable?
I don't have a problem with Brooks.
What have you got against Guardian, Finn? Or do you think all news that doesn't emanate from America must be biased?


So merely being the chairman of the PNAC makes someone and their opinions unreasonable?

If you can't see the difference between Gigot's statement and the one's I've quoted above, I can't help you suzy.

The Guardian and it's affiliated publications are blatantly anti-American.

Of course all news that doesn't emanate from America must be biased. What a ridiculous statement, and based on absolutely nothing that I have posted.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 09:42 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Finn,

I do not know how one would "pander" to 9/11 except perhaps to invoke it and by my estimation Bush evoked it just about as much as any wise political team would.

My guess is that Krugman's saying that 9/11 gave Bush a lot of political capital and that Bush put every last ounce of it to use (this administration manages said advantages very well). Which I'd agree is not surprising.

Oh, 'cept because they used it in manners disagreeable to him nearly without exception (something nearly true of myself as well) he makes it sound ominous.

Well, to someone diametrically opposed to each move it can be scary.

Truth to tell I've never had use for any columnist. Krugman's a better economist than political scientist IMO.

The only time I remember paying attention to a columnist is when they break something. Like when Thomas Friedman broke the Saud Proposal.

He's an interesting one insofar as columnists go though.


I think you're being overly indulgent of Krugman.

Saying that Bush utilized the political capital he gained from leading the country through 9/11 is hardly an "extraordinary charge" or a particularly "harsh thing to say." Every successful war time leader has attempted to use his political capital to advance his agenda. Krugman (and perhaps you if I read your paranthetical comment correctly) is contending that Bush has evoked 9/11 with each domestic and foreign policy he has put forth.

I would be interested in seeing Bush quotes that even resembled:

"The brave men and women who were brutally murdered on 9/11 would never want gay men and lesbian women to marry and so to honor their memories we need a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between man and woman only!"

or

"This economy needs to be strong to fight the evil-doers who attacked us on 9/11, and the best way to make it strong and to deal the evil-doers responsible for 9/11 a blow, is to pass my tax cuts!"

or

"The victims of 9/11 were killed by anti-modernist evil-doers. So that their deaths were not in vain, we need to pursue the most modern of adventures and send a manned mission to Mars!"

That Krugman actually believes this nonsense doesn't make his claim reasonable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I Agree With Me
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 05:14:21