Today on Blogcritics
Home » Vicious Sheep

Vicious Sheep

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Print popup

The "Bush
Conservatives" – I can’t call them Republicans because that would be
a slander on a respectable party and on friends of mine – have no morals,
no ethics, no compassion – nothing matters except that they prevail.

BushCons will do anything, say anything, destroy anyone – friend or foe –
to gain and maintain power. They were pitiless in defeating John McCain with
lies and racism in the primaries for the last presidential election. They
had no compunction in using thugs to stop the vote count in Florida and take
the presidency.

In four short years, they have changed the nature
of democracy in America, while America stood passively
by.

And, incomprehensibly, they achieved this mainly by talking at us, for god’s sake.

But today I saw Osama bin Laden threatening America.

And it was clear that he is The Wolf .

While BushCons are only vicious,
nattering sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Their spin and propaganda can harm us, but it cannot
protect us.

We must make a change on Tuesday.

It may be our last chance.

 

Powered by

About Hal

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    What do we call these people who support Bush? I agree they are not like the Republicans of old, but I think they are definately NOT the conservatives of old either, so “Bush Conservatives” doesn’t seem appropriate either. Perhaps “those who have fixated on Bush and abandoned all previously held beliefs”?

    Listening to these people defend the current President for lying big time to America (WMDs in Iraq? No nation building? Attacks in Iraq a sign of our success?) when you know these people were all over Clinton about lying about consensual sex in a civil law suit.

    These people will say that Bush is a strong leader in the war on terror, while disregarding the facts that Bush RESISTED the Homeland Security department, RESISTED investigating 9-11, SHEILDED the Saudi’s by redacting parts of reports implicating their financial ties to terrorism. ALLOWED family members of Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country while 9-11 was freshly being investigated?

    (the following part is sarcastic)But hey, don’t you feel safer with Bush’s “leadership”? And now bin Laden speaks again, thank god we struck that big blow against him by attacking Irag, eh? Attacking Irag sure put a stop to the guy who attacked us on 9-11 didn’t it? We shot the coyotes of Iraq and the wolf that was bin Laden just shook his head and said, “thanks for the recruits”.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    “It may be our last chance” seems overwrought, Hal. Neither candidate’s supporters impress me much when they try to tell me our country will inevitably suffer doom and destruction if I don’t vote the way they think I should.

    The recent tape from Osama bin Laden will be subjected to endless spin by both parties throughout the weekend and beyond, but to me it proves only one thing: bin Laden has not yet been defeated.

    Nothing in that tape tells us how we ought to vote in this election.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Perhaps so, Victor.

    But if Bush is re-elected, I believe the changes to American democracy will be extended and locked in.

    Part of the problem is that Bush will be a lame-duck and will have no particular need to worry at all about the next presidential election, and can follow any agenda he wishes. He has already said that he would “move quickly on privatization of social security” – what else will he do?

    The other part is that it is likely that he will appoint at least one and as many as three Supreme Court justices, all with a particular political slant.

    Next Tuesday is our last chance to prevent both of those.

    The Osama tape is relatively incidental, although I think the Bushcons have been an utter failure – in fact, counter-productive – on security, domestically and internationally. Based on their track record, I’d say it’s unlikely they will do any better in a second Bush term.

  • Shark

    “What do we call these people who support Bush?”

    I think “Dangerous” will suffice at this point.

  • boomcrashbaby

    To add to Shark’s comment #4, and with Flanagan’s *thugs* for Kerry threads in mind, we should just add this.

  • http://punditz.journalspace.com punditz

    I see a lot of wild accusations here with absolutely nothing backing up the name calling and character assassination. Yeah, I can see how Liberals are sooooooo much better for the country. This is oh so typical of the extended whine that began when the democrats LOST the election in 2004. Rant on! LOL!

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    You miss the point, Punditz – BushCons aren’t conservatives, although there is some overlap, and they do claim to be Republicans, while trashing many of the values of both labels (since you insist on labels).

    Take a closer look at their record.

    Don’t bother asking for a list – you’d deny facts “because of the source.”

    But do take the time to review their record, starting with the 2000 primaries.

    Take your Party hat off, if you can, and put your True-Blooded American hat on.

    There’s a good chance you’ll see that the Bushcons – as contrasted to conservatives and Republicans – are anti-American.