fishin wrote:Thomas wrote: Likewise, in a two party system in which one party vehemently opposes universal heathcare in ignorance of clear evidence that it works, introducing any universal healthcare is inevitably a very partisan thing to do.
So does this justify his countinuing use of incorrect and misleading information when he promotes universial healthcare? The opposing party doesn't like the programs I like so it's ok to lie to readers because "it's the partisan thing to do"??
Assuming that you're referring to Krugman's take on the Republicans, my response is: "Trick question!" The premise of your question is false as best I can tell, so I can't answer yes or no to the question itself. The correct premise is that it's the Bush administration who lied about their tax cuts and their rationales, who lied about the case for war in Iraq, and who systematically bullied and humiliated European allies like France and Germany, who didn't buy into the lies. It was Paul Krugman (and a few others) who corrected those lies.
That was an extremely partisan thing of Krugman to do, considering that the ruling party in Congress was too gung-ho about tax cuts and war to criticize the liar in chief. In the case of the war, it was extra partisan because about half the Democratic party -- Hillary Clinton included, but not Barack Obama -- let the Bush administration bully them into going along. But yes, it was the right thing of Krugman to do. I used to have Krugman in my avatar before he became fashionable, and I don't have the slightest regrets that I did.
I am, as always, responsive to evidence. If you wish to demonstrate to me that Paul Krugman is a liar, feel free to start a thread about him and present your case. I can't promise I'll answer promptly, for I'm busy in Germany this week, barking commands at logistics company secretaries and furniture carriers. But I do promise I will answer.
