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

Advertisements

~ by kotzabasis on September 20, 2008.

2 Responses to “Obama’s Lipstick on a Pig Dehumanizes Palin”

  1. McCain used the same metaphor. Its a term used commonly in the US, meaning “To dress up the undressable” Like mutton dressed as lamb etc.

    It may not be a litany of lies, but something like – “if you say it often enough, people will believe it to be so!” All of this guff about Obama being a muslim – and this somehow having something to do with his comments. The terms “reaching” and “ridiculous” come to mind. Have you considered going to work for Fox News?

  2. cadwallon, as you might well know metaphors are not “agnostic” of their context or their person. It’s in what context one uses them that counts. Indeed McCain used the metaphor but in a different context. Obama specifically used it in the context of Palin’s use of it in the Republican Convention and ergo in direct reference to her.

    I am not regurgitating the “often enough” garbage about “Obama being a Muslim”, but of the psychological possibility that he might have used it SUBLIMINALLY as an outcome of his early origins as a Muslim. One would have expected you as an intelligent person that you would have seen this distinction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: