The Incredible Shrinking Integrity of Democrats ... Part One... Stay Tuned for Part Two

Every Barrel Has Some Bad Apples, but the Democrat Barrel is Really Starting to Stink

By Rond Drew, published Jan 14, 2007
Published Content: 6  Total Views: 12,267  Favorited By: 5 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 3.3 of 5
"If You Stand for Nothing, You'll Fall for Anything."

A wise man once said that the easiest thing in the world to be is a liberal, because they stand for nothing. Take a look at some of these inconsistencies.

Drunk!

George W. Bush admits to being an alcoholic who quit drinking in 1986. In a feeble October surprise attempt before the 2000 election, it was revealed that, in 1976, Bush was arrested for drunk driving. The truth also came out that when he was stopped, he was completely cooperative with the officer, and then dealt with his self-confessed drinking problem. And by the 2000 election he had been sober for 14 years.

Barak Obama, the new Messiah of the Democrat party, anointed by Oprah Winfrey and hoisted on the shoulders of Democrats as the presidential hopeful for 2008, openly admits that he is was once a pot smoker and cocaine user, and that's all okey dokey with the Dems. Looking at their history, it appears that, as long as you're a Democrat (and a favored one at that) it doesn't matter what you drank, smoke, ingested, or that you have no self-control when it comes to sex.

Too Slim a Majority!

Not long ago a Clinton devotee blogger (let's call him Willard) made an incredible statement. He said that Bush may have won the 2004 election, but because he only got 51% of the vote... well... that just wasn't enough of a margin for Willard to actually consider Bush the real president.

I asked Willard if he considered Clinton the "real president" from 1993-2000 while BJ occupied the White House. Willard answered that he did... that he loved Clinton and wished he could've run for a third term. I pointed out that Clinton won neither election by a majority vote. He won the first by 43% and the second one by 49%, both thanks to Ross Perot's third party run. Willard didn't answer after that. I thought his silence was pretty telling, but at least he was mature enough to not throw food, slash tires, or call his opponents Hitler.

We Lost? Time to Throw the System Out!

The Incredible Shrinking Integrity of Democrats ... Part One... Stay Tuned for Part Two

There are bad apples in every group, men and women, Christians and non-believers, majorities and minorities, liberals and conservatives... you name it. But I'm tellin' you... the Democrat barrel is really starting to stink.

Credit: jamesgroup

Copyright: StockXpert

Takeaways
  • Why is it forgivable to be a former cocaine user, and not a recovering alcoholic with over 20 years of sobriety?
  • Why do Dems not care that Gore's father got him a short tour of Vietnam, with a BODYGUARD and no combat?
  • Why do Dems turn a blind eye to Berger's theft of confidential papers, when the theft alone should scare all Americans?
Did You Know?
"When you hear somebody [criticizing the federal government], you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down." speech by Bill Clinton, June 1, 1995, in Billings Montana. But only when Dems are in charge?
Resources
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 54
Next >>
 
The article you posted doesn't disprove what I said--that if ALL the ballots in Florida were counted statewide, Gore would have won. That includes the overvotes, in which voters voted for a candidate and also wrote that candidates name in. The only way Bush wins in a recount is if the disputed ballots are discarded.

Posted on 01/30/2008 at 8:01:09 AM

 
To Paul Angelo who claimly, incorrectly, that Gore's recounts showed he won. Note Paul, this is your beloved ultra-liberal hippy dippy CNN. But why quibble with facts when you can just make up your own? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Posted on 05/28/2007 at 12:05:00 PM

 
By the wat Rond, you wrote, "by every recount Bush still won the electoral vote" in 2000. I'd just like to say that is just not true. The truth is almost exactly the opposite, and if it weren't for the Supreme Court stopping the counting Gore would have won. A consortium of news organizations brought together by the Natl Opinion Research Ctr of the Univ of Chicago determined that Gore would have won if all ballots were counted in a FULL, STATWIDE recount. Bush only comes out ahead under the limited recount, in which many ballots were discarded. In fact, the overvotes would most likely have been counted in Florida if the Supreme Court had not stopped the counting, and under those circumstances alone Gore would have won.

Posted on 01/26/2007 at 5:01:00 AM

 
And thank you libs who wrote in to bash me and Bush and the military efforts etc., for proving my point about Democrat integrity. And have a nice day!

Posted on 01/25/2007 at 9:01:00 AM

 
What strikes me about most of the comments from liberals is how much more important it is to them to be "hip" than it is to ensure our national security. Hip means bad-mouthing Bush, Iraq, the troop efforts, Christians, Wal-mart. Read the comments from libs...they don't deny the things written in this article. Instead they say "oh yeah, well Bush did this..." That says to me that they have no evidence. When you refute a point, use facts, not accusations that you believe but have no basis for. Saying "Bush is an idiot" without backing it up with verifiable facts (not what some dork liberal wrote in some dork opinion book or said on CNN or MSNBC) that we can all look at. Otherwise you show your own lack of integrity.

Posted on 01/25/2007 at 9:01:00 AM

 
Xavier--Unfortunately, the "conservatives" in this discussion only look at things in a my team vs your team kind of frame. That is why their default rebuttal is to bring up Clinton, as if it is a given that whoever disagrees with them must certainly be a Democrat who loves Clinton and all his policies. They don't really wish to debate the issues at all it seems--only to try and uncover hypocrisy from the other side which will vindicate similar behavior by their side and to muddy the water--so to speak. This is the case with almost all of them on this site, with just a couple of exceptions.

Posted on 01/20/2007 at 8:01:00 PM

 
To Paul Anglefire, Rond Drew, and Everyone Else as Well........: The reality of our Two-Party system is that when one group is wrong, the other is not automatically right. Before you vilify your enemies, take a step back and decide if your own Party and it's politicians are worth supporting. See through their smoke screen of shallow diatribe and rhetoric and realize that our country is what matters, not the politicians that control it! Remember, this is AMERICA! Where they get away with BS only as long as we let them!.....Sincerely, The Good Doctor Green

Posted on 01/20/2007 at 11:01:00 AM

 
Paul, So True, I don't know Anything about ya'll beyond this screen. I do know that the circular, repetitive nature of this ongoing Political Argument is Not going to get us to Utopia. A society's intial goal is to focus on survival, once that is achieved, and Civilization has stablized then the movement is towards a Utopian society. Maybe we're just spinning our wheels because our society is being stablized Artifically?

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 12:01:00 PM

 
Xavier--you're being a little unfair. How would you know what actions people have personally taken in furthering their cause? But I do think, for the most part, that these discussions are useful to a certain extent.

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 12:01:00 PM

 
Well Angelfire, your defense of war profiteering is very admirable--You certainly are a fine American. Eisenhower would be proud.

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 12:01:00 PM

 
God Bless Ya'll, upholding what our country was built on! The Rich doing exactly what they want, while everyone else just fights amongst themselves. If your agenda is actually positive then their are better ways to spend your engergy then arguing/defending the actions of those that are untouchable. Quit complaining and Do Something!

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 11:01:00 AM

 
Oliver--I got your sarcasm , and I was pretty much poking fun as well. Although, I honestly do think that Angelfire is sort of childish, more concerned with my team vs your team type discussion

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 8:01:00 AM

 
Angelfire--Whether or not Clinton gave no-bid contracts makes no difference. If Clinton did it, it would be wrong as well. When are you guys going to realize that the "Clinton did..." argument is ineffective in trying to defend the crimes of your beloved Bush. The "he did it first" defense only flies in 3rd grade, and even then it is weak.

Posted on 01/19/2007 at 8:01:00 AM

 
Ohh, lighten up... i think you misread my *sarcastic* comment because i should have clarified by addressing "angelfire" not "paul", my bad.... anyhew, if you want to debate what is considered "useful contributions" then frankly, I rarely think you have anything useful to contribute, at least nothing I can't read for myself on "moveon.org". Never-the-less I certainly support your right to say it and if by some miracle you say something that sounds intelligent then HOO-RAY for you! When angelfire says "wah wah wah" i tend to agree with him. May not seem useful to you, but it expresses his feelings that liberals tend to whine. You do want people to express their feeeeelings, right Paul? Anyway, i'm exaggerating to make a point. (it's called *sarcasm* and it's light, fluffy, and cute) Let him have his say, because Lord knows we all let you!

Posted on 01/18/2007 at 10:01:00 AM

 
So Oliver, I guess you think that commenting, "wah, wah, wah!". not once, but twice, is a useful contribution to a discussion?Maybe you are right--we should all make room for, and keep an "open mind" to the "wah, wah, wah", as well as the "nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya!" schools of philosophy.

Posted on 01/18/2007 at 8:01:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 54
Next >>
Most Commented On