Obama’s Lipstick on a Pig Dehumanizes Palin
A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:
Paul Krugman: Blizzard of Lies New York Times September 11, 2008
Paul Krugman’s “blizzard of lies” turns out to be a summer breeze. His article is a treatise in intellectual disingenuity. Palin never said she did not support the bridge in the beginning in a different political context-which would be a lie-but she rejected it when it was found to be a boondoggle project, which was the truth. And what politician, professor Krugman, would refuse a government “handout” or for that matter your ‘boss’ the NYT refuse an advertisement even in the case of being pro-war, when that is the reality of the ‘game’? And when you say her claim to be against “wasteful spending is a fiction” you fabricate your own fiction as the clear implication of your argument is that the funds she received for the bridge she spent on another wasted project which you don’t identify and let it stand as a fairy tale.
And you know very well that it was not an “ordinary metaphor” but a retort of Obama directly aimed at Palin’s metaphor of…pit bull…and therefore related to her (Like mine above, “summer breeze”, which is a retort to yours, “blizzard of lies.), and it was worse than a “sexist smear”, it was a dehumanizing one, if you make an in-depth analysis of Obama’s riposte you might have found it to arise unconsciously from the latter’s early origins as a Muslim for whom “pig” denotes the dehumanization of human beings.
And in your litany of McCain’s campaign of lies you don’t even provide one example of them, with the exception of sex education in kindergarden which might be a lie. So your fictional lies are covered by your own real lies about McCain and Palin. Lastly, what politician would have continuous 80% support among her electorate if she did a huckava of a job? Or do you suppose the Alaskans to be so stupid?
Over to you