Ginna Gracie: 'Party game for Bush supporters'
Posted on Tuesday, December 21 @ 10:16:47 EST
By Ginna Gracie

If I learned anything studying philosophy, it is that an argument must be logical and the debaters must be intellectually honest, or at least give it a good try. This has been lacking in the national discourse, especially by Bush supporters, who oppose questioning or challenging anything put forward by the President and are satisfied with the excuse put out by the White House spin room whether it jibes with reality or previous excuses or not.

So I offer up this dinner party game for Bush supporters. Print this out, and cut each question out, put the questions in a hat, pass the hat around, each person drawing a question, then discuss the questions at length. There are plenty of questions to keep you up all night, and thinking ahead toward the next four years, there are no doubt plenty more in the offing.

Some ground rules first. You cannot blame Bill Clinton. This catch-all excuse has long passed its expiration date. Stay in the present; "Everybody does it" is not allowed. Republicans put the kibosh on this excuse over Clinton's personal no-no; "Democrats do it too", not allowed. You may submit your own game questions for Democratic dinner parties, but for this game, you have to answer the questions directly; No blaming the "liberal media." First of all, it really doesn't exist in the sense you claim it does, and secondly, shooting the messenger does not address the content of the question.



Have fun, and don't kill each other.

  • Why was Sen. Kerry "against the troops" when he voted against the $87 billion but Pres. Bush is not against the troops when they are still not given the protection they need despite Bush being granted the $87 billion?

  • Why was Sen. Kerry a war criminal, according to Bush supporters, for shooting an armed, uninjured Viet Cong insurgent, who was readying to launch a grenade at Kerry and his men, during the Vietnam War, but Bush supporters now fiercely defend the Marine who shot an unarmed, comatose Iraqi insurgent, to the point of handing out death threats to the cameraman who was merely doing his job and recording the event? Will the Marine become a war criminal if he runs for political office as a Democrat in 30 years?

  • Why are members of a bloc of voters, the right wing, who claim to be concerned about morality and Christianity, issuing death threats to cameramen?

  • Why did Bush supporters have so much concern and compassion for the Iraqi people's plight under Saddam Hussein that they supported diverting off of Osama bin Laden and al qaeda to remove Hussein (this of course became the rationale when the WMD excuse proved incorrect), but now are seemingly unconcerned with the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed, upwards of 100,000, and in fact justify it by calling them terrorists and using gross racial epithets to describe these Iraqis?

  • Why do Iraq War supporters say Hussein's reward money to Palestinian terrorists' families justify the war and constitute direct support of terrorism? In fact, this was proof, to a thinking person, that Hussein was not a threat to the US and a minor one to Israel. If Hussein had all that WMD, why was he merely paying reward money to families of suicide bombers and not actually arming terrorists with his WMD to do great damage to Israelis or using the WMD on Israel himself? If he was not doing so for fear of obliteration by Israel, how was he a threat? Did he fear Israel obliterating him but not America? And how did his paying reward money to Palestinians constitute a threat to the US?

  • Why is the party that spent $70 million dollars to investigate a private, consensual sexual affair, the same party that was opposed to investigating 9/11, the outing of a national security asset - a CIA agent - the felonious bugging of UN delegates to coerce them into voting for war while at the same time telling the American public they were hoping diplomacy would prevent war, and is incurious about all of the pre-9/11 PNAC desire to invade Iraq and President Bush's focus on Saddam Hussein instead of Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11?

  • Since the argument from Bush supporters toward those who are against the war in Iraq often is that such people support Saddam Hussein, does this mean that Pres. Bush and his supporters support Kim Jun Il, the clerics of Iran, and every other brutal dictator currently in power?

  • Why does the number of Americans who support the war in Iraq not match the number of Americans who support a draft?

  • Why is it that the party that claims to be more patriotic, is more jingoistic and nationalistic, the GOP, is also the party for which it is anathema to pay taxes toward the betterment of the country?

  • Why is the GOP more angered and upset at the thought of millionaires paying taxes during wartime, money they can afford, have plenty of, and can replenish, than they are at sending irreplaceable fathers, mothers, sons and daughters into a questionable war to be maimed and killed? Why is it the party that claims to be more Christian and compassionate, the GOP, the party that is repulsed at the thought of paying taxes to go toward helping poor people survive, indeed express intense hostility toward such people?

  • Why is it the voters who are the people paying out more taxes than they get back in federal aid (blue states) the one not complaining about Welfare?

  • Why is it the voters who receive more in federal aid than they pay out in taxes (red states) the ones complaining about Welfare?

  • Why does the party of unquestioning, blind loyalty to the Bush Administration, the party that calls it traitorous to question or disagree with this administration's policies, contain the bloc of voters who also say they need guns to protect them from the government?

  • If conservatives are moral and liberals are not, why is it conservatives who live in areas that are apparently so riddled with crime, they need an arsenal of guns to protect their families (when not using them to protect themselves from the government they will not question because it is un-American to do so)?

  • Why does the survival of conservative marriages depend on NOT allowing gays to marry?

  • Why do certain conservative judges need a stone monument or their robes emblazoned with the Ten Commandments to remind them daily of what is right and what is wrong?

  • Why do we have people in positions of judgeships who need daily reminders of what is right and what is wrong?

  • Why were conservatives demanding the firing of Dan Rather over fake documents, despite his acknowledgement and apology within a week of the discovery, but were unconcerned with media outlets that aired the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth after their lies, inconsistencies, and contrary statements came to light, media outlets that have never apologized for airing such falsehoods?

  • Will Fox News inform their viewers that they are the most uninformed of all television news viewers, according to PIPA, or will they keep them uninformed about this?

  • Why do conservatives think a president's private affairs need public airing but task forces involving public policy and war do not?

  • Why was President Clinton, according to conservatives, responsible for the apparent moral decay in conservative households but President Bush is not responsible for the failures of his administration, ie: Donald Rumsfeld, Abu Ghraib, Iraq in general, etc.?

  • Why, since there were eight years between the 1993 WTC attack and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are conservatives saying that the fact that we've had no attacks in three years is proof that Pres. Bush is succeeding in the war on terror? Where they saying in 1996 that Pres. Clinton was doing a bang-up job of fighting terrorism?

  • Why were Republicans more concerned about getting rid of Pres. Clinton in the 1990s than they were of getting rid of Osama bin Laden?

  • Why do Republicans loathe Hollywood, pro-choice people, pro-gay rights people, sexual harassers, adulterers, and wish to strictly adhere to black letter law, except for actors who have an "R" next to their names, to the point that Republicans want to amend the Constitution to allow such to run for president?

  • If liberals are responsible for the moral depravity on television, why do liberals watch PBS and conservatives watch Fox? "NOVA" versus "My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Boss." You make the call.

  • Since Pres. Bush is undoing FDR's New Deal, will he also place a plaque on his desk that reads, "The Buck Doesn't Stop Here"? It has yet to, afterall.

  • Why, if Bush gets his marching orders from God, has he gotten so much so wrong?
    •   

    Smirking Chimp Comments

    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    bush supporters are not swayed (Score: 1)
    by newyorkerintexas on Tuesday, December 21 @ 14:35:42 EST
    (User Info)

    by logic and reason for the simple fact that they do not recognize logic and reason as such.

    I asked a bush supporter what he thought of the admin not supplying troops with body armor. His reply? Body armor won't help you if a grenade or bomb blows up in your face.

    I asked a bush supporter if he thought that supporting the troops meant bringing them home and keeping them alive. His reply? One supports the troops 'in battle'. When trooops are not in battle, they are not troops and do not deserve support.

    Sorry folks. I gave up on 'reason and logic' with this crew. My only question is the above responses what talk radio touts?

    I give up.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: Ginna Gracie: 'Party game for Bush supporters' (Score: 1)
    by SimianPrez on Tuesday, December 21 @ 13:21:35 EST
    (User Info)

    Great questions, all of them. But, sad to say, most wingers are incapable of logical reasoning; if they were capable, they likely wouldn't be wingers. The modern Republican Party would not exist as such without massive denial, hypocrisy, and Doublethink. In fact, these traits are the sine qua non of membership.
    It is fun, though, to point out their howling inconsistencies to them.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: Ginna Gracie: 'Party game for Bush supporters' (Score: 1)
    by shazam on Tuesday, December 21 @ 12:35:44 EST
    (User Info)

    If Iraq is a part of the Coalition of the Willing, why aren't ING deaths reported with other coalition losses?

    [ Reply ]

    Re: Ginna Gracie: 'Party game for Bush supporters' (Score: 1)
    by ivolsky on Tuesday, December 21 @ 11:28:57 EST
    (User Info) http://www.politicalthought.net

    The latest poll WP-ABC NEWS poll is the first time a majority of Americans have admitted that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Most disapprove of Bush's Iraqi policy, Rumsfeld's job performance, and are skeptical about the future of U.S. occupation. All of these factors could serve as a turning point in public opinion and lead to a realization, within the administration, that the war cannot be maintained at its current levels. Thus, after the Jan. 30th elections (if they have an ounce of legitimacy) we may see some reduction in forces and influence.

    Public disapproval over Bush's handling in Iraq and the sense that the war is "not worth fighting" are at their highest today, after the election. This serves as yet another testament to the failure of John Kerry in shaping the Iraqi debate and using the news in Iraq to his advantage. The public realization (in great majority) that the war was not worth fighting was not enhanced by the clever catchphrases of John Kerry ("wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"). Instead, he served as a distraction from the events on the ground and the ever-increasing U.S. casualty rate.

    more: www.politicalthought.net.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: Ginna Gracie: 'Party game for Bush supporters' (Score: 1)
    by Ed_Drone on Tuesday, December 21 @ 11:12:59 EST
    (User Info)

    Q. Since Pres. Bush is undoing FDR's New Deal, will he also place a plaque on his desk that reads, "The Buck Doesn't Stop Here"?

    A. That plaque (Harry Truman's, not FDR's, by the way) has actually been replaced. It now reads, "The bucks stop here."

    ... and, indeed, how can God be so wrong, if he indeed guides George W. Bush? Personally, I think that if Christianity were outlawed, Bush and Co. would all be released for lack of evidence.


    Ed