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
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
GaryBaumgarten
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Rob St. Amant
McGarrett50
Mal Noble
Max Quillen
Salon.com
Comments
Only because life is too short and you won't have too many opportunities to search for the truth.
And what is your sinister reason for "misdefining" and introducing in this context the word canard?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?em
(Have you posted this elsewhere? I believe, generally, folks do but they usually tell their readers as a courtesy.)
haggismold, I'm also glad to see your generous words.
This is a NON issue. Period.
Even your fellow Conservative brethren (you know, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, and on and on) have said that McCain's claim is a stretch, at best.
Why are you even posting here, Aussie? I see you're a former director of SBS TV. a company long in bed with Rupert Mordoch. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
I recommend you stock up on wood. It's going to be long, cold eight years for you and your kind. Obama is going to take this thing regardless of the amount of baseless smears hurled in his direction.
Will you do me a favor? Will you take a picture of your face the moment any or all of the networks declare Obama the winner? It will be great to have something to smile and laugh at the next eight years.
I add choler to your intellectual rotteness.
Of course you failed to address the more substantive comments in my last post. Rather, you chose to address those comments that dealt with you, personally. I would say that's pretty intellectually dishonest, perhaps even rotten, most certainly narcissistic, of you.
"The bitterest of natures"? Hardly. I don't NEED to see your face, sir, I would LIKE to see your face, as was suggested by my "It would be great to have something to smile and laugh about" comment.
Choler? Well, sure I'm a bit angry about the tactics of the right to try and steer this election by creating false wedge issues which you are very much aware are COMPLETELY BASELESS.
This is an act of desperation on your part and those of your ilk who wish to win this election at all costs, regardless of how pathetic you appear in the process. You know he's losing and unlike the previous coup;e of elections your smear tactics aren't going to work this time.
So, it is not necessary to see your face when the results come in, but I would be filled with an enormous sense of self satisfaction, a smug
gleefulness in seeing your face in that moment when you realize that you have and your kind have been rendered obsolete.