Over/under on lies in tonight's State of the Union address
 

Last year we had three. What do you guys have for this year?

I'll say two ... Bush will watch closely his speculations this time around.

You like to say the word "lies" but then again the same infomation that Bush spoke about was te same information everyone else had. He's the only one being called a "liar" for speaking about the information that was on hand at the time.

I think he'll cover up those lies with more lies. And then when those lies get exposed he'll just lie about those and then lie about those lies. Hehehe.

I think the whole thing was one long lie. And this one will be, too.

I don't recall Bush ever showing any proof of chemical weapons, but he certainly talked about them a lot.

I don't recall anyone else showing proof either, but like I said, Bush is the only one held accountable for the statement.

Not by me. I blame him, his entire cabinet, and every other Republican war mongerer in power. And every Democrat war mongerer, for that matter.

he's being called a "liar" because he took the speculative information he had and turned it into fact, and systematically excerpted and reworded intelligence reports to misrepresent the threat...

but you know that. let's have 5 pages of argument about things people already know, guys!

No, Congress started a war. Only Congress can (and did) declare war.

Way to not mention that the Prez has the power to deploy troops.

Actually the left would have just played it off as "we knew it and that's why we voted for war in Congress." The left played whatever side was convenient. Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards - all voted for war.

Yup.

he's being held accountable b/c the media is liberal

happy nimrod?


of course, that's not the whole truth but thanks for the false dichotomy attempt...great republican ploy

in fact, he did lie and he's being held accountable b/c he's the president of the united states and he tacitly implied that the things he was saying were true and were the bases for the war in iraq

I didn't once mention the media. It's mainly the left (who are then shown saying these things in the media) running their mouths about it even though they're huge hypocrites. Remember when the economy was going smoothly and Clinton got all of the credit because he was president at the time? Yeah, that wasn't right either, since Congress had a lot to do with that too.

The SOTU Drinking Game
 

EVENT
# of Drinks

Every time he says....

“The state of our union is strong…”
1

“men and women in/of our armed forces”
1
(*** if phrase begins with “brave”)

Iraq
small 1

Terror (however it’s pronounced)
small 1

Libya or Qaddafi
2

Saddam Hussein or Saddam
1

Weapons of Mass Destruction
2

“nukular”
1

Afghanistan or Hamid Karzai (or Pres. Karzai)
1

Loya Jirga 3
multilateral or multilateralism
Group shot

unilateral or unilateralism
Choose one person to drink

Any United Nations reference (United Nations, Security Council, resolution, etc.)
1

Any reference to the stock market
1

Any reference to the average family of 4
2

accountability or accountable
1

Any _______ Security (i.e. Homeland, Social, Economic, Job, etc.)
1

immigration
1

aliens (as reference to immigrants)
1

aliens (as reference to extraterrestrials)
Look wistfully towards the heavens; then finish your drink

Anything in Spanish -- Cualquier cosa en español
1 Tequila shot or 1 Cerveza

bipartisan or bipartisanship
2

“Republicans and Democrats”
1

Any mention of the deficit
3

seniors or senior citizens
1

Medicare
1

reform, in the context of health care
1

prescription drugs
2

*bipartisan or bipartisanship, in the context of the prescription drug bill
+2

Announces a new program
2

* If the program will be massively expensive (use your judgement)
2

“Leave no child behind”
3

college or university or higher education
1

Mars or space
1

“foreign oil”
1

he uses a Bushism (i.e. says something that's not really a word, other than “nukular”)
2

**Any word of 5 syllables or more
2 (bonus *** if he stumbles through it)

"Don't mess with Texas!"
Locate the nearest Texan; mess with him/her; then drink

Every time....

applause last more than 10 seconds (excluding the first and last minutes)
1

he introduces a special guest
1

he praises a Democrat by name
2

they show the First Lady
1

they show either Bush daughter
2

they show an announced Democratic presidential candidate
1

they show a former member of the Bush Administration (i.e. Paul O’Neill, etc.)
3

he gets a standing ovation from HALF of Congress
2

they show a military official in uniform who looks asleep
2

Other

if he wears a blue tie (he has for the past two years)
1

if the speech is under an hour
Finish your drink and have another beer

DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE BONUS GAME

"unilateral"
1

Iraq
1

some reference to something the President hasn’t found (i.e. WMD, Osama, etc.)
2

“alienating our allies”
2

if you’ve never heard of the Democrats delivering the response
1

“Liar, liar, pants on fire”
Light your pants on fire

The creator of this forgot 9/11.

No, I remember being stuck in NYC for a week after that. Nice try, though. Sept. 11, last I checked, wasn't done by Iraqi insurgents or Saddam's henchmen. But, hey, keep trying there buddy.

Not to defend the troll, buut I think he meant the creator of the drinking game...

I sure did coffee spoons, you racist fuck.

You still think I'm coffee spoons, huh?

Interesting.

They're the elected moderate, corporate 'left.' A significant portion of the liberal population was unequivocally opposed to war. With a few exceptions, this wasn't what we saw with our pansy-ass Democratic electees. You're absolutely right that there were many members of Congress who shifted their stances as the opinion polls changed. If they can't adhere to a set of principles, and want to run back and forth between patting Bush on the back and playing his diametric opposition based on what they think will get them another term, they should be ousted.

There's a difference between supporting the war then and supporting the way we're running it now. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, since for all intents and purposes it's true, but to provide a personal example: I thought going into Iraq was a good idea, but I disagreed with the way in which we went about it, and I definitely disagree with the way in which we're dealing with the aftermath right now. Given the intelligence politicians had at the time, I might have voted for the resolution myself (though I doubt it), but I certainly wouldn't have voted for the $87M spending bill. When people try to draw correlations between the two as if one logically follows the other, as you're doing here, it's a bit against the facts.

No they didn't. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII. All this shit... is a 'conflict,' and the President has power over it, including the power to deploy troops. So there goes your "Congress started a war, not Bush" thing.

someone told me he was going to speak out about gay marriage tonight.

is this true?!

i wish i had a tv that worked. :(

and propose or suggest a constitutional amendment banning it.

oh well.

i'll just read the transcript later.

He basically took a "DONT MAKE ME DO IT!" stance on a constitutional amendment, saying that the sanctity of marrigae or whatever the fuck they call it needed to be protected.

And Nimrod, the president gets the praise or the heat, it goes both ways, how is that surprising or unfair? Bush got a boost when Saddam was caught, but he didnt fish him out of the hole himself did he?

Which is not to say the criticism is unfounded, since as had been said, he wasnt just stating the "evidence" as it was then, he was using it as a justification for war. I dont think its illogical for people to expect that evidence to have been credible and true, which it doesnt seem to be playing out that way.

And the way he stated it today. Was he refering to the drawings found on paper? Was that the evidence that Saddam was starting up again? A drawing.

You guys are missing the important part.

Abstinence is the only 100% certain gosh-gol-darn-ding-it way to avoid sexually transmitted disease.

And what about steroids? We can't just leave this issue unaddressed, goddammit.