Krugman makes really slimy, smelly pond scum look look good in comparison.
Utterly disgraceful article.
Good for Rumsfeld.
Why hasn’t Rush bought the NYT already and revamped it?
Cancelled subscritions are one thing…canecelled advertising is even better.
Your getting much too exercised about “Koward Krugman”. His pathetic meanderings should be ignored in much the same way as Kieth Olberman’s fulminating.
These voices are bad for your digestion, causing dispepsia or gas.
I mean if your not going to allow feedback on your own NYT birdliner bird brain rant; really what is the point? Obviously the poor man is suffering from solipsism, and can only take input from his own enfeebled mind. Koward Krugman isn’t dealing with reality; he is divorced from it.
Three cheers for “Rummy”…
Ahh, it all makes sense now, that sound I hear is coming from “FLUSHING” NEW YORK!!
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
First though: Rumsfeld had a NYT subscription? Yeah right!
On further research, apparently my first impression was correct; he didn’t have a subscription, but his office did. Which makes a lot more sense.
I wish Rush limbaugh would just go ahead and buy them so he can fire krugman’s azz on our behalf.
http://twitter.com/#!/RumsfeldOffice/status/113249858596503553
@RumsfeldOfficeDonald Rumsfeld
After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.
7 hours ago via web
Try to keep up Alex…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“Unionization means collectivization.”
America will be a better place without this fountain of lies in buisness.
Posted by: Hans at September 12, 2011 5:29 PM
*facepalm*
Ya know, with that signature of yours and your usual pointless rambling, I always figured you were a few rounds short of a full magazine … but this is pretty bad, even for you.
it might be worth it to get a subscription and cancel it the next day with the reason being Krugman…
Let’s all take special note of this comment from Watt’s Up With That?: JC says: September 12, 2011 at 11:07 am “There is no Nobel prize for economics. The prize is administered by the Nobel foundation but was established by the central bank of Sweden. It is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. It really pisses me off when people insist on calling this moron a Nobel prize winner.”
Heh.
Soccermom – well now that would be cruel. After all the NYT is very sick. Between you and me and the blogosphere, it probably isn’t long for this world.
Just watch the NY Times stock tick down, growing ever closer to zero every week. Big tick this week thanks in part to Krugman I bet.
Every print entity in the western world is getting very nervous. I’ve started seeing editorials in -car- magazines noting the circulation issues and how its getting really tough out there.
The really good mag and papers that everyone likes and that can attract advertisers are going to live and prosper, web or no web.
The NY Slimes is not going to be one of them.
I will pay ONE TRILLION Zimbabwean dollars for the NYT (pinky across bottom lip). Actually, the sad part of that statement is that half the people who work there and about 80% of the US population would think that was a great deal. And about 80% of the 20% of the Canadian population that has ever heard of the NYT would likely agree.
Krugman has been getting it on with the wretched Mallick for years obviously, nothing could be this ugly on its own,
There are known knowns.
There are known unknowns.
There are also unknown unknowns.
I think Paul could be placed in the first category unless he’s right about a fake alien invasion ending the economic slump. Then a fourth category must be added.
“Krugman’s Conjecture #2263”: I know the unknown unknowns
Has anyone seen Krugman and Robert Reich at the same time? Can there be two bearded, malignant, intellectual dwarfs?
Krugman makes really slimy, smelly pond scum look look good in comparison.
Utterly disgraceful article.
Good for Rumsfeld.
Why hasn’t Rush bought the NYT already and revamped it?
Cancelled subscritions are one thing…canecelled advertising is even better.
Your getting much too exercised about “Koward Krugman”. His pathetic meanderings should be ignored in much the same way as Kieth Olberman’s fulminating.
These voices are bad for your digestion, causing dispepsia or gas.
I mean if your not going to allow feedback on your own NYT birdliner bird brain rant; really what is the point? Obviously the poor man is suffering from solipsism, and can only take input from his own enfeebled mind. Koward Krugman isn’t dealing with reality; he is divorced from it.
Three cheers for “Rummy”…
Ahh, it all makes sense now, that sound I hear is coming from “FLUSHING” NEW YORK!!
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
First though: Rumsfeld had a NYT subscription? Yeah right!
On further research, apparently my first impression was correct; he didn’t have a subscription, but his office did. Which makes a lot more sense.
I wish Rush limbaugh would just go ahead and buy them so he can fire krugman’s azz on our behalf.
http://twitter.com/#!/RumsfeldOffice/status/113249858596503553
@RumsfeldOfficeDonald Rumsfeld
After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.
7 hours ago via web
Try to keep up Alex…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“Unionization means collectivization.”
America will be a better place without this fountain of lies in buisness.
Posted by: Hans at September 12, 2011 5:29 PM
*facepalm*
Ya know, with that signature of yours and your usual pointless rambling, I always figured you were a few rounds short of a full magazine … but this is pretty bad, even for you.
it might be worth it to get a subscription and cancel it the next day with the reason being Krugman…
Let’s all take special note of this comment from Watt’s Up With That?:
JC says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:07 am
“There is no Nobel prize for economics. The prize is administered by the Nobel foundation but was established by the central bank of Sweden. It is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. It really pisses me off when people insist on calling this moron a Nobel prize winner.”
Heh.
Soccermom – well now that would be cruel. After all the NYT is very sick. Between you and me and the blogosphere, it probably isn’t long for this world.
Just watch the NY Times stock tick down, growing ever closer to zero every week. Big tick this week thanks in part to Krugman I bet.
Every print entity in the western world is getting very nervous. I’ve started seeing editorials in -car- magazines noting the circulation issues and how its getting really tough out there.
The really good mag and papers that everyone likes and that can attract advertisers are going to live and prosper, web or no web.
The NY Slimes is not going to be one of them.
I will pay ONE TRILLION Zimbabwean dollars for the NYT (pinky across bottom lip). Actually, the sad part of that statement is that half the people who work there and about 80% of the US population would think that was a great deal. And about 80% of the 20% of the Canadian population that has ever heard of the NYT would likely agree.
Krugman has been getting it on with the wretched Mallick for years obviously, nothing could be this ugly on its own,
There are known knowns.
There are known unknowns.
There are also unknown unknowns.
I think Paul could be placed in the first category unless he’s right about a fake alien invasion ending the economic slump. Then a fourth category must be added.
“Krugman’s Conjecture #2263”: I know the unknown unknowns
Has anyone seen Krugman and Robert Reich at the same time? Can there be two bearded, malignant, intellectual dwarfs?