On Sunday, NY Times hack Paul Krugman gave us one of the most insipid, nasty blog posts trashing the "fake heroes" of 9/11, namely George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani, men who by near unanimous accord led America that dark day by the actions, not with cheesy speeches. Yesterday, five minutes before the 10th anniversary of the first plane hitting the north tower of the World Trade Center, Krugman lazily presented a 181-word, typo riddled incoherent screed. He then weakly refused to open the comments, surely aware he'd be met with a firestorm of outrage, which
indeed followed from the blogosphere. So in a voyage into bizarro-world this morning, Krugman takes a Times op-ed piece to task, claiming "I’m shocked by the laziness – he’s not even trying to present a coherent argument".
Project much, Professor?
Here's a man who Sunday was too lazy to even go back and fix his glaring typo, too cowardly to face the ire of his readers and who authored one of the most incoherent items in recent memory, dating back to his outrageous comments following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. So what does he do the morning after his screed? He attacks a fellow author in his own newspaper for being lazy and incoherent. He ends his attack on author Robert Barro with this:
Why did he even bother?
That's what most of America was asking about Krugman Sunday. He clearly doesn't do irony.
3 comments:
<span>Self-important Obammunist lackey… history will be serving him quite a beating for not just being wrong all the time, but more so the shameful role he has played as enabler/apologist for this heinous, clueless regime</span>
Funny, from the title I figured the Krugman article was going to be about Obama. Silly me.
Professor? Professor of what? Surely not English or (revisionist) history.
And he doesn't even have the balls to allow an intellectual debate via comments. All of the progressives must be very proud of this POS.
Post a Comment