I would have put Biggest Butthurt Emitter because that is far more accurate, but here goes.
Source (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/on-the-uselessness-of-debates/)
QuoteA bit of meta on my "debate" with Ron Paul; I think it's a perfect illustration of a point I've thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.
Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there's no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said "Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!" — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don't think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.
Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.
So why did I do it? Because I'm trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don't matter unless I get enough people to read it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/s320x320/74772_10150754045488014_529888013_9659148_885286734_n.jpg)
The assmad is strong with this one.
I saw that debate, and Paul was NOT wrong. Everything he said is easily verifiable.
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 01, 2012, 05:24:31 PM
I saw that debate, and Paul was NOT wrong. Everything he said is easily verifiable.
Typical Krugman douchebaggery.
Krugman sounded like a ten year old. Ron Paul says the Government didn't need to be involved in something and Krugman's response was pretty much "does too".
yeah Krugman, go BAWWWW. BAWWWW!!