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 Krugman’s 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:
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t 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, Krugman’s sense of shame hasn’t become any more well-developed. Now he’s got a piece out on Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan. The title - the TITLE - of this piece? Let’s Not be Civil.
According to Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman has just called for the assassination of Paul Ryan.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.