Skip to comments.Paul Krugman Calls for the Assassination of Paul Ryan
Posted on 04/17/2011 10:45:47 PM PDT by 4rcane
RedState co-founder Josh Trevino has noticed the following: back in January, Paul Krugman was one of many drooling idiot leftists devoid of any moral compass who tried to pin the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on a lack of Republican civility. Even though, by the time Krugmans column ran, it was clear that Giffords shooter was a mentally disturbed individual whose assassination plot was not motivated by coherent political theory of any stripe, Krugman was not about to let facts get in the way of a good partisan narrative:
Its true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesnt mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Yes, Krugman claimed, without any appreciable sense of shame, that a man who was seriously mentally ill was merely a symptom of - no kidding - toxic rhetoric. Well, three whole months have passed since Krugman peddled this tripe and apparently, Krugmans sense of shame hasnt become any more well-developed. Now hes got a piece out on Paul Ryans deficit reduction plan. The title - the TITLE - of this piece? Lets Not be Civil.
According to Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman has just called for the assassination of Paul Ryan.
Krugman is a contemptible piece of Shiite, as always.
Krugman is an intellectually dishonest hack
Isn’t it against the law the threaten the life of a federal official?
No worries, America is essentially becoming lawless. The Rule of Law only applies when it's convenient for libs and RINOs who, for example, support amnesty for illegal aliens.
They are pushing, pushing...they want violence.
They have Obama who WILL (repeat for you old folks, WILL) USE our troops against us, or UN troops.
Mark my words, this is orchestrated by Soros and the NWO in order to use Emergency Powers to “quell” domestic uprisings.
Obie wants to spark it, so he can use our taxpayer-paid equipment and men against us...
Call me a tinfoil hatter, I can care less.
“it was clear that Giffords shooter was a mentally disturbed individual whose assassination plot was not motivated by coherent political theory of any stripe,”
BS...Lougher was a 9/11 truther...and when giffords didnt respond as he desired...he targeted and attacked her becuase she was “part of the plot”
Truthers have been tied to at least half dozen shooter...
5 were libtard moonbat Bush haters....one was an anti-semite “jews did it” bush hater 9/11 truther...
The “no political ties” meme is pushed by the leftist media desparate to not have loughner associated with them...
paul krookman is nothing but the sound of that goonion hollering at that 14 year old kid in WI yesterday.
Krugman is a vile creature.
Not worried about the “troops”....they are our boys...liberals lement the “red state army”...
That’s why Obama wants his own personal guard in the form of the civilian defense force...
He knows the troops wont back him....
There was nothing even alluded to assasinating anyone. Ridiculous headline. Ridiculous conclusion. Whole lotta extrapolating going on with a huge dose of imagination bordering delusion. Krugman being krugsterical, yes, but hardly prison material. The comments section on the Redstate website bore out the goofiness in the headline.
“should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate. “
What about the federal _Republican_ judge he -killed-?
Why doesn’t anybody ever mention *him*?
I agree. The Krugman article is a lot of finger pointing BS but doesn’t advocate any kind of violence toward Ryan. Attack Krugman on his ideas if you will, but don’t make stuff up.
Here is a comment from a reader:
heartlander Monday, April 18th at 1:39AM EDT (link)
Much as I loathe Paul Krugman, here is the actual quote from his piece:
So lets not be civil. Instead, lets have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so and take their case to the voters.
Theres nothing in there calling for an assassination.
Krugman deserves our contempt, but we are supposed to be the side that sticks to facts.
I read the thing twice looking for something about assassination ....I cant find it
I was wondering if anybody else would notice that.
Wow - that’s quite a stretch. Did you happen to read Krugman’s piece?
I hope someone is making a list of all this violent talk from the left.
We know when another Tucson happens they and the media will again be blaming it on Republican “rhetoric”.
What are you? Sane?
You’re not suppose to use common sense and logic here, you’re suppose to pretend you’re krugman, and under his faulty logic, he certainly is calling for assassination
Yes they want violence but they want it to be violence that they can show on TV to use as propaganda . There is more than one way to skin a cat besides sticking its head in a bootjack & yanking real hard on its tail .
If the violence can’t be pinned on the Tea party’s or other non marxists this gives the Democrats problems coupled with a propaganda campaign for the conservative cause will cause the rat party no small amount of indigestion.8*)
Such an ugly little man.
Calls for “civility” from the left at the time appeared hollow. They were little more than than attempts to silence opposition. Basically, the left’s argument reduces to “shut up”.
So let’s presume that a crime was committed and lock Krugman up for doing it.
Or just impervious to sarcasm.
The headline is completely ridiculous. The author is being factitious and since most people only read the headline they think its true. You can’t take headlines at face value anymore.
What I think the article was doing was illustrate (by being absurd) the absurdity of Krugman’s original article by using his own (fractured) logic against him.
Krugman’s position: Incivility on the right led to the atmosphere that facilitated the Arizona shooting; ergo, the right is responsible for the deaths at Gifford’s rally.
And in reply in this article, the corresponding logic is: Krugman is calling for incivility, which according to him leads to politically-motivated mass murder; ergo, Krugman (by his own logic) is a calling for the murder of those he disagrees with (which would be Paul Ryan).
If one has a problem with the lameness of the argument (and one should), it’s a reflection of the lameness of Krugman’s original position.
Now let’s see Krugman argue against himself in defense.
I read the article, then clicked on the Krugman article and read the whole, dreary mess twice. There was no call for an assassination of Ryan or even anything remotely like that. What an immense waste of time. I never want to see a headline like that again.
I agree. The over-hyped sensational article headline does more to promote assassination than does the supposed source.