But I instantly recognized it as a depiction of someone blogging in the seeming wilderness about just how unbelievably awful the Bush Administration is.
But, now, when I look at this:
I'm beginning to think it must be a depiction of what it must be like to try to defend this unbelievably corrupt and venal Bush Administration and its Republican Kool-Aid Drinking Minions.
So I put the question to you readers:
Which is it?
(Has the tide turned?)
5 comments:
It's blogging about how God-awful the Shrubbies are. BushCo's defenders don't have to work like that. After all, how difficult is it to type "why do you hate America?", even time after time after time after.....
fair enough
Actually, it's a depiction of George Soros when he read on-line that George W Bush won the 2004 election.
No, it is not about the blogger at all. It is WaPo desperately trying to remove their blog and comments.
It was the Washington Post removing the specific blog in question that revealed more of the "Do as I say, but not as I do" happenings that the Democrats have been doing, all while accusing the Republicans of doing the same exact thing. Hypocrisy? You bet.
They removed the blog and associated comments due to the plethora of tasteless, vulgar comments the story generated. I wouldn't want to keep vulgarity posted either, either. However, perhaps you wouldn't know what the differences between good taste and bad taste are. Most liberals don't. To them, anything is in good taste as long as it reflects positively on their political agendas and motivations.
Post a Comment