[Chicos_Bail_Bonds]

Krugman, if the facts are on your side as you constantly imply, then why the need to lie?

[trubluolyguy]

I saw this on an earlier thread and called BS on it then too.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Krugman can't be lying. he has a Nobel Prize in economics. He's an honorable guy, right?

[jw777]

Filthy libs never stop lying.

[nopardons]

bttt

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"Krugman, if the facts are on your side as you constantly imply, then why the need to lie?"

He's a liberal. Dishonesty is, by definition, part of his being.

[msnimje]

Krugman has probably lied all his life and doesn't know anything different. Now that he gets busted almost everyday you would think he would stop writing altogether.

[rocksblues]

These liberals cannot stop crying over 2000. Yet if you had asked them on 09/14/01 if they were glad that Bush won and Gore lost, 90% would of said yes.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I remember one newspaper count having Gore win by exactly 3 votes using, ironically, a method of counting the Bush campaign wanted. Every other count I saw had Bush winning.

[MNJohnnie]

Man, it is getting to the point it would be easier to point out when this moron tells the truth since he seems to have adopted the Clinton "lie all the time" strategy.

[Lancey Howard]

Old scumbags like Krugman must constantly slap themselves in the head like Homer Simpson every time they get caught brazenly lying in their old-media newpaper columns: "D'oh! Stupid new media!"

[nuconvert]

Liar Bump

[rawhide]

I wish Rush Limbaugh would do something he did in years past on his radio program. Telephone this guy, while live on the radio, and ask him how he can state such lies. Put the guy into a corner and let him defend himself, and let him show everyone for the liar that he is.

[Phlap]

By running for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.

We aren't going to rerun the last three elections.

Both paragraphs are lies. But that is a good thing. The fact they continue to rerun their failures is stunning. They cling to the illusion that Clinton won his presidency. He actualy gained it by default.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

They just can't get over it.

[ozzymandus]

He's a leftist, a "professor", and he works for the NYT. Of course he thinks he can lie and get away with it.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Its not just Krugman. Countless lefties have referenced this stuff for years. They care nothing if it is false.

[popdonnelly]

Can't wait to see his retraction.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

If there was ever one man who best fit the definition of a pusilanimous pipsqueak.........it's Kruggy.

[dufekin]

Converting Liberal-ese to English requires changing "won" to "lost." Remember, liberals love the United States Senate, where whichever party [Democrats] embraces the philosophy of the stop sign and the agenda of the roadblock can win automatically if their opponents [Republicans] advance their ideas on all issues (domestic and foreign) but fail to carry more than 60% of the electorate (including registered nonvoters).

[Shqipo]

Krugman is the President of the Liberal dweeb club, but you can't blame him too much for trying. The three private recounts of the 2000 election was the most underreported story in world history. Even the papers conducted them did not state the results on page 1.