K Hates The Daily Campus, part 7
Okay, I think Nicolas Tomboulides might be on to me, because he seems to be narrowing his sights and focusing more on alienating atheists, along with promoting the idea of censorship. So, hi Nic! I'm about to talk about you being wrong again!
The post to which I am referring to is this one: http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/krugman-s-comments-come-at-bad-time-1.2588605
Now, I don't have a clue who Paul Krugman is. Unlike myself, Nic isn't honest enough to cite the works he's referencing. But whoever he is, he seems to be pretty good at getting Nic's knickers in a bunch, so he's cool by me.
At any rate, as I alluded to before, Nic starts his article by talking about how the 10th anniversary of September 11th "was a day of harmony, not division." But every one of the items he lists as being representative of this idea is related to promoting Christianity; the quotes from Psalms, the recitation of "God Bless America"... these are not unifying practices, they specifically alienate anyone who's not Christian, as well as Christians who aren't big on shoving their religion down everyone else's throats.
So somehow even in his intro, which is usually meant to just be a bunch of truisms, Nic manages to show his overprivileged, bigoted side. Not the greatest of starts.
But then he gets into the main point of his article, which is to badmouth "depraved commentator" Paul Krugman. He accuses Krugman of "cannibaliz[ing] fellow Americans", to which I can only shake my head at in disdain. You've really got to stop with the hyperbolic insults, Nic. They're way too far out of line to be taken seriously, and so the only thing you accomplish is to highlight your own faults.
So what did Krugman say to elicit this response? Apparently he merely voiced his disdain over how certain figures who didn't really have a hand in the actual rescue operations seem to continuously spin 9-11 into a story of how awesome they themselves are, and why 9-11 means voters need to keep these dishonest figures in power. You've all seen what I'm talking about, how the media and politicians keep using this fear-mongering as a desperate and shallow attempt to stay relevant and in power.
Nicolas Tomboulides is no different. He shamelessly uses the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to demonize people whose views he disagrees with.
And if that weren't enough, he then goes off trying to defend the indefensible. "Bush has always maintained that he went to war on altruistic grounds" That statement doesn't mean Bush is a humanitarian, it means he's a liar. An altruistic war? Exactly how does that make it past the editors without someone dying of laughter at how much of an oxymoron that is?
"a CNN pundit who recently called for a massive war with space aliens in order to revive the flagging economy. This particular pundit doesn't care how many lives would be obliterated in the process; he simply favors war for the fiscal stimulus it would provide."
See, this is the problem when you don't cite your sources. I'm left thinking that Nic is completely delusional, because how else could anyone take the above seriously?
"Yes, the mystery warmonger is Paul Krugman himself. When he is not busy calling for an intergalactic holocaust, Krugman lauds the economic benefits of World War II. He has called World War II 'a lovely war' and even 'a miracle.'"
It's a good thing for the sake of my argument that Nic has already established the fact that he is completely incapable of understanding irony or satire, otherwise it might be hard for me to defend Krugman in light of the above. Actually scratch that--as I said before, Nic hasn't cited any references so as to mask the context of these quotes. With that in mind, it's actually incredibly easy to defend Krugman.
"Had Krugman made similar comments about members of the Taliban government while living in Afghanistan, it is very likely he would have been targeted for assassination."
Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are far-right terrorists in America, and Nic's hate-mongering really isn't helping Krugman to not be targeted for assassination.
"As a result of Paul Krugman's inappropriate and hypocritical grandstanding, the real heroes of 9/11 suffered. He owes them an apology."
Citation needed! I doubt very much that the real heroes of 9-11 were offended by Krugman's criticism of the people who spin 9-11 to their own benefit, and even if some somehow were, being offended doesn't really count as suffering. I mean, I'm regularly offended by Nic's articles; does that mean he owes me an apology? If you're reading this Nic, and you believe in your own logic, then please leave your apology in the comments below. You'll also have to stop writing articles--an apology is meaningless if you don't try to change yourself, after all.
The post to which I am referring to is this one: http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/krugman-s-comments-come-at-bad-time-1.2588605
Now, I don't have a clue who Paul Krugman is. Unlike myself, Nic isn't honest enough to cite the works he's referencing. But whoever he is, he seems to be pretty good at getting Nic's knickers in a bunch, so he's cool by me.
At any rate, as I alluded to before, Nic starts his article by talking about how the 10th anniversary of September 11th "was a day of harmony, not division." But every one of the items he lists as being representative of this idea is related to promoting Christianity; the quotes from Psalms, the recitation of "God Bless America"... these are not unifying practices, they specifically alienate anyone who's not Christian, as well as Christians who aren't big on shoving their religion down everyone else's throats.
So somehow even in his intro, which is usually meant to just be a bunch of truisms, Nic manages to show his overprivileged, bigoted side. Not the greatest of starts.
But then he gets into the main point of his article, which is to badmouth "depraved commentator" Paul Krugman. He accuses Krugman of "cannibaliz[ing] fellow Americans", to which I can only shake my head at in disdain. You've really got to stop with the hyperbolic insults, Nic. They're way too far out of line to be taken seriously, and so the only thing you accomplish is to highlight your own faults.
So what did Krugman say to elicit this response? Apparently he merely voiced his disdain over how certain figures who didn't really have a hand in the actual rescue operations seem to continuously spin 9-11 into a story of how awesome they themselves are, and why 9-11 means voters need to keep these dishonest figures in power. You've all seen what I'm talking about, how the media and politicians keep using this fear-mongering as a desperate and shallow attempt to stay relevant and in power.
Nicolas Tomboulides is no different. He shamelessly uses the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to demonize people whose views he disagrees with.
And if that weren't enough, he then goes off trying to defend the indefensible. "Bush has always maintained that he went to war on altruistic grounds" That statement doesn't mean Bush is a humanitarian, it means he's a liar. An altruistic war? Exactly how does that make it past the editors without someone dying of laughter at how much of an oxymoron that is?
"a CNN pundit who recently called for a massive war with space aliens in order to revive the flagging economy. This particular pundit doesn't care how many lives would be obliterated in the process; he simply favors war for the fiscal stimulus it would provide."
See, this is the problem when you don't cite your sources. I'm left thinking that Nic is completely delusional, because how else could anyone take the above seriously?
"Yes, the mystery warmonger is Paul Krugman himself. When he is not busy calling for an intergalactic holocaust, Krugman lauds the economic benefits of World War II. He has called World War II 'a lovely war' and even 'a miracle.'"
It's a good thing for the sake of my argument that Nic has already established the fact that he is completely incapable of understanding irony or satire, otherwise it might be hard for me to defend Krugman in light of the above. Actually scratch that--as I said before, Nic hasn't cited any references so as to mask the context of these quotes. With that in mind, it's actually incredibly easy to defend Krugman.
"Had Krugman made similar comments about members of the Taliban government while living in Afghanistan, it is very likely he would have been targeted for assassination."
Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are far-right terrorists in America, and Nic's hate-mongering really isn't helping Krugman to not be targeted for assassination.
"As a result of Paul Krugman's inappropriate and hypocritical grandstanding, the real heroes of 9/11 suffered. He owes them an apology."
Citation needed! I doubt very much that the real heroes of 9-11 were offended by Krugman's criticism of the people who spin 9-11 to their own benefit, and even if some somehow were, being offended doesn't really count as suffering. I mean, I'm regularly offended by Nic's articles; does that mean he owes me an apology? If you're reading this Nic, and you believe in your own logic, then please leave your apology in the comments below. You'll also have to stop writing articles--an apology is meaningless if you don't try to change yourself, after all.