October 9, 201412 yr Paul Krugman + Rolling Stone = me not reading the article. :lol2: Sorry, PP92, no offense to you but can there be more anti-Republican or Conservative than that combination?
October 9, 201412 yr Author Paul Krugman + Rolling Stone = me not reading the article. :lol2: Sorry, PP92, no offense to you but can there be more anti-Republican or Conservative than that combination? I honestly know nothing about him. I definitely got an anti-conservative vibe from him in the article but at one time he was supposedly an Obama critic at one time so I was intrigued to see what made him change his mind. Plus, you know I still love Obama so anything that defends him is A-okay in my book.
October 9, 201412 yr Very interesting perspective in that article. He isn't effusive in his praise and (IMO) correctly identifies where President Obama could have/can improve. I like that the author delves into the totality of President Obama's initiatives and doesn't single out on particular area of concentration as his point in the article.
October 9, 201412 yr From the article: Which brings us to the latest initiative. Because there's no chance of getting climate-change legislation through Congress for the foreseeable future, Obama has turned to the EPA's existing power to regulate pollution – power that the Supreme Court has affirmed extends to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. And this past summer, the EPA announced proposed rules that would require a large reduction over time in such emissions from power plants. You might say that such plants are only a piece of the problem, but they're a large piece – CO2 from coal-burning power plants is in fact a big part of the problem, so if the EPA goes through with anything like the proposed rule, it will be a major step. Again, not nearly enough, and we'll have to do a lot more soon, or face civilization-threatening disaster. But what Obama has done is far from trivial. There is the 'war on coal'. I have no issue with the wanting keep coal powered energy as clean as possible. Sulfer, other true pollutants, etc. can cause problems. But CO2 is not a pollutant. Its driver as a so called green house gas has no evidence as all the IPCC models have failed to accurately or even closely predict the supposed doomsday outcoomes now that they have had 20 years of (in)validation. But apparently there is debt due to the 'green industry'. And this administration appears ready to continue to rely on disproven theories and ignore evidence that CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change is a falsehood. But it makes for an interesting 'Obama is saving the planet' narrative for pundits like Krugman.
October 9, 201412 yr Paul Krugman + Rolling Stone = me not reading the article. :lol2: Sorry, PP92, no offense to you but can there be more anti-Republican or Conservative than that combination? Might read something you don't agree with.
October 9, 201412 yr By Paul Krugman In Defense of Obama | Rolling Stone When I saw the thread title I knew you were in deep doo-doo.
October 9, 201412 yr By Paul Krugman In Defense of Obama | Rolling Stone Paul Krugman is a one time economist who hides behind that title for his political activist career now . Krugman has backed Obama since he took the oath in office. I can't stand the man and he is a laughing stock in the economics world today. He spouts opinions as hard economic facts without any real work to back up his claims. He feels any opinion he has on the economy should be taken as Dogma because of a Nobel prize he won many moons ago. Never mind the topic he won the prize for has nothing to do with a majority of the opinions he spews today. You will never see Krugman debate another economist , he will only debate other political foes. He won't debate other people in the profession he claims because he is a mental midget with no real arguments or substance. His stances and predictions have been proven wrong by laughable margins it's hard to see how anyone takes him seriously.
October 9, 201412 yr Might read something you don't agree with. You do know what a ultra Liberal shill Krugman is don't you? It would be like you and say, rockmom, expecting to read something by Limbaugh you would agree with.
October 9, 201412 yr When I saw the thread title I knew you were in deep doo-doo.Duh! It's Paul Krugman!! :lol2:
October 9, 201412 yr You do know what a ultra Liberal shill Krugman is don't you? It would be like you and say, rockmom, expecting to read something by Limbaugh you would agree with. I DO (from time to time) read what Limbaugh writes, and actually listen from time to time. Always got to know what the "other" side is thinking. There was this one time when I actually agreed with him....but I forgot what it was about.
October 9, 201412 yr I DO (from time to time) read what Limbaugh writes, and actually listen from time to time. Always got to know what the "other" side is thinking. There was this one time when I actually agreed with him....but I forgot what it was about. This. Limiting myself to one side of a story is going through life with half a playbook.
October 9, 201412 yr I DO (from time to time) read what Limbaugh writes, and actually listen from time to time. Always got to know what the "other" side is thinking.Why? He's irrelevant, even I don't listen to him. See, this could be why you lean so heavy to the left, you're listening to the wrong people on the right. Paul Krugman is a hateful useless idiot, I refuse to kill brain cells by listening to his drivel.
October 9, 201412 yr This. Limiting myself to one side of a story is going through life with half a playbook.I do listen to the other side, just the ones that aren't complete idiots.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.