State of the Union Address drinking game

Exactly what it says on the tin

Moderators: Caballero, Zoot

State of the Union Address drinking game

Postby Carter O'Brien » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:18 pm

The George W Bush 2005 State of the Union drinking game
White guy in suit looks to extend winning streak

What you will need:

# Four taxpayers: including 1 white guy wearing a suit, 2 people wearing normal clothes (one wearing a blue shirt, the other in a red shirt) and 1 dressed as an old person. (Note: shawls are nice)

# A shot glass per person. Everybody brings one, group them on table. White guy in suit gets first choice, red shirt picks second and blue shirt gets third choice.

# Bowl each of guacamole and chips.

# 5 bucks. Everybody antes.

# Much beer. Senior citizen gets cheapest crap you can find, like Old Milwaukee Lite: white guy in suit drinks import of choice and everyone else chips in to buy it; the other two fight it out over Bud and Miller Lite.

Rules of the game:

1. Whenever President Bush uses the words: "tax relief," "mandate" or "bipartisan," drink a shot of beer.

2. Whenever George W mispronounces "Allawi," "nuclear" or "terrorism," last person to knock on wood drinks two shots of beer.

3. If he mispronounces "shiite": first person to stop laughing exempt from drinking three shots.

4. If the President says the word "Texas," last person to give the longhorn sign and yell "Yeehah!" has to drink two shots of beer.

5. Whenever George W talks about saving social security, senior citizen takes a shot of beer. First time the President uses the word "personalization," take two shots. Add another shot for each additional "personalization."

6. If Vice President Dick Cheney is caught napping on camera, white guy in suit has to drink a whole beer.

7. Whenever George W Bush talks about the evils of abortion or the sanctity of marriage, last person to fall to their knees drinks two shots of beer.

8. Whenever George W mentions the liberty or freedom of the Iraqi people, stand up, salute with your right hand and drink a shot of beer with your left hand. If he's talking about the liberty or freedom of the American people, stand up, salute with your left hand and drink a shot of beer with your right hand. First person to mess up has to drink two more shots. White guy in suit is exempt from mistakes.

9. The first time George Bush uses the phrases "activist judges," and "trial lawyers," first person to stand up and yell, "I'm out of order? You're out of order," is exempt from having to drink three shots of beer.

10. If only half of televised audience gives George W a standing ovation, red shirt and white guy in suit have to drink shots of beer for duration of applause. If either Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry are shown not standing, blue shirt and senior citizen take over till Bush resumes speaking. Double time if Senators are not applauding.

11. If George W Bush mentions "Halliburton," "exit strategy" or his inability to find Weapons of Mass Destruction or Osama bin Laden, white guy in suit has to drink a shot of everybody else's beer out of their shot glass, and they get to wipe their glass clean on his jacket.

12. Whenever George W mentions the phrase "prescription drug plan," take a shot of beer. The first time this happens, last person to finish has to drink two more shots of beer and take out the trash during the Democratic Response. White guy in suit and red shirt need not recycle.

Extras:

1. Everybody gets to kick the crap out of white guy in suit for 15 seconds, only if Karl Rove's transmission link breaks and Bush begins to mumble excerpts from Hugo Weaving's soliloquy on how humans smell in the first "Matrix."

2. White guy in suit gets to kick the old person if George W uses a heartfelt story of a senior citizen's grace under pressure to illustrate a point. Twice if cat food is mentioned. The elder gets 15 seconds to kick white guy in suit only if Bush reveals the anecdotal senior is in the audience and sitting next to an astronaut. 30 seconds if the adjacent seat holds a member of the Bush family. 1 full minute if it's Jenna.

3. Remaining guacamole goes home with senior citizen who also gets to keep Tupperware container.

4. White guy in suit wins pot.

Political comic Will Durst will be playing this game with friends. Needs a red shirt.
Carter O'Brien
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: Chi-town

Postby Teddy Dupont » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:29 pm

How is it that although all you Americans on this forum seem to hate Bush, he got the biggest vote in the history of the universe? :?
User avatar
Teddy Dupont
Moderator
 
Posts: 2036
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Dupont Towers

Postby JoeyD'Amato » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:27 am

because they're hipsters. ;)
boomchickboomchick
boomchickboomchick
boomchickboomchick
JoeyD'Amato
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:10 am

Postby FSUGypsyJazz » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:16 am

hahahaha :lol: Great reply. i myself have been accussed of being a Hipster Jazz snob on a few occasions although I don't really think it is true (although working for a college radio station is pretty hip is you ask me)
Keep Swingin!
Caleb
User avatar
FSUGypsyJazz
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby nwilkins » Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:42 pm

To be fair to our American friends, I don't think 51% is the biggest vote in the history of the universe, and I am sure that most of the people who

1)like things like music and the arts
2)don't sleep with a gun under their pillow
3) don't think gay marriage will bring God's wrath crashing down upon the country

voted against Bush. I think it's weird how in American cities Kerry won the vote, but the rural areas are big enough that they carried the election. The government of the most powerful country in the world was elected based on the wishes (largely) of xenophobic/homophobic god-fearin' country folk.

Apologies to all the jazz loving, artsy, liberal-minded Republicans out there who voted for Bush not because of his policies but because of blind adherence to their party :wink:

But in all seriousness, it blows my mind that such a powerful country has only TWO viable political parties - that is just insane! And what's with the electoral college? If a state has 20 seats, and someone wins 75% of that state, they should get 15 seats and the other person should get 5. Wouldn't that make it more representative of the wishes of the voters? Right now a person could get 51% of that state and win all 20 seats. I don't get it....
User avatar
nwilkins
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:02 am

Postby Carter O'Brien » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:43 pm

And what's with the electoral college?


it's our hangover from the party known as the American Revolution - it was a way to make sure Rhode Island didn't get too badly bullied around, I don't think anyone foresaw a bunch of tumbleweeds in Utah getting equal senatorial representation with New York!

and yeah, the urban / rural divide is really the explanation, that and the fact Bush's brother Jeb is governor of Florida, where they've had sketchy election results for the past 2 presidential elections.

of course, being from Chicago, my howls about voting fraud quite often are met with much laugh!ter
Carter O'Brien
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: Chi-town

Postby fandjango » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:22 pm

Reform of the electoral college system (and hence, the constitution) has been discussed on numerous occasions over the past century, but it ain't gonna change anytime soon. Republicans will never change a system that allows a massively disproportionate share of the vote from the mid-West to get them in office (given that Bush did win the popular vote this time).

Regardless of which party you support (if any), an election victory in the US now and in future will be based primarily on who can spew the most persuasive fear-mongering rhetoric, as well as (frequently in the same breath) espouse the strongest attachments to 'christian' values...and a superpower based on fear and religious fundamentalism can't be a good thing for the rest of the world.

A good teacher who can help kids to think critically is probably our best bet for a safer, happier future. Either that or an escalating body count in Iraq might force people to think again (just like Vietnam).
User avatar
fandjango
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby FSUGypsyJazz » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:23 pm

Living in Florida we see this very evident. It is funny Florida is a little microcosm of the country where I live in the capital city we are a pretty democartic stronghold (probably because have two universities and the second largest comunity college in the state) but travel for 30 minuetes west or east and you are in the sticks seriously. To answer Teddy question Nick is right 51% is no giant Margin or mandate no matter what Fox news or Ann Coulter would have you believe :wink:
Keep Swingin!
Caleb
User avatar
FSUGypsyJazz
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby justjack » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:29 pm

Don't I remember hearing that those hurricanes that pounded Florida this season all hit the counties where fraud was rampant in the 2000 election? Maybe God does vote!
User avatar
justjack
Mad For It
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:40 pm
Location: Western Mass

Postby Plowboy » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:54 am

Teddy Dupont wrote:How is it that although all you Americans on this forum seem to hate Bush, he got the biggest vote in the history of the universe? :?


Teddy is correct, of course--(as always :roll: ). By the biggest vote in history it is meant as in sheer numbers--not percentage of the voters. This is because of the increase in voting age population and the huge voter turnout for this election. (Thanks Michael Moore, Moveon.org, et al)

Speaking as a card-carring Libertarian who has voted as such since 1980 (no, I never voted for Reagan), who lives in flyover country, loves guns almost as much as guitars, wants homosexuals to be able to marry if they want to, is agnostic bordering on atheistic, and thinks music and the arts are just spiffy--as long as they are self-supporting, I am personally glad that G-Dub won. Why? Lesser of two evils--yes--but, also, just a sorta in-your-face thing for the arrogant horse's patoots who look down their noses at us hayseeds in the hustings and refer to us with such contemptible terms as--what was it again, Carter? --bunch of tumbleweeds? And you blame voting irregularities for the Dems loss? PUH-LEASE.

As for the electoral college, it was and is a work of genius--to keep the little tail from wagging the big dog so to speak. But then I am sure that those of you from the "little tail " are so much more intelligent than our founding fathers.

Stop and think a minute: the south used to be refered to as the solid south--solid Democrat--part of the five-party coalition that the Dems needed to be elected. The other four being labor (unions), large cities, blacks, and northeastern liberals. If the Dems want to win again, take a hint--NASCAR-not windsurfing--country music-not classical guitar--a moderate southerner or midwesterner-not a northeastern libereral.

Having said all that, both the Democrats and Republicans are morphing into an indistinguishable blob. Vote Libertarian.
Your own muck is good muck!
User avatar
Plowboy
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:23 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby nwilkins » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:51 pm

Plowboy,

I don't understand what you mean about the electoral college - why wouldn't it make sense to have the seats from each state given out to those who got the votes? ie if states are split, the votes are split, if states are won by 75% then that winner gets 75% of the seats. It seems that that change would go considerably further in preventing the small tail (eg 51% of the vote) to wag the big dog (eg all the seats for that state).

I am interested in Libertarianism - are guns the biggest priority for libertarians? On your list it seems that everything you believe in (religion, gay marriage, etc) would be more in line with democrats except the gun thing, yet you claim that Bush is the lesser of two evils. And given that the election of Bush means the deaths of more American soldiers and more innocent civilians in the next four years, whatever makes Bush the lesser of two evils must rate REALLY high on your priority list.
User avatar
nwilkins
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:02 am

Postby nwilkins » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:57 pm

I have another question too - how did the myth about the infallibility of the founding fathers and the constitution get started? Why wouldn't the experience of many years and seeing how things work elsewhere give us a different and potentially more insightful perspective? I mean, the constitution has tons of amendments, so at one point it was clearly not seen as written in stone.
User avatar
nwilkins
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:02 am

Postby Teddy Dupont » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:47 pm

Plowboy wrote:Teddy is correct, of course--(as always :roll: ).

I have nothing to add having stirred you all up appropriately. I just wanted to see that in print again. :oops:
User avatar
Teddy Dupont
Moderator
 
Posts: 2036
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Dupont Towers

Postby Plowboy » Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:02 pm

Nick,
You are absolutely correct that the founding fathers were not infallible and I think, as you pointed out, the many amendments to the constitution stand as stark testimony to that fact. And their stand on slavery even better illustrates your point. But when it came to creating a system of government that would best represent the diverse peoples of a large nation, their end product is a work of genius.
What you are proposing is nothing more than an indirect popular election of the president. While this sounds very democratic, we were set up as a representative republic--not a democracy. And while the Electoral College may seem antiquated, it still serves to ensure that ALL the people of the country are given consideration in how we are governed.
Just look at a map of the breakdown of the last election by county instead of by states. All you will see in blue are specks here and there around the big cities for the most part. If the president were elected by popular vote, all a candidate need do to get elected is concentrate his campaign efforts in those areas while ignoring the rest of us. All he need do to remain in office is to pander to those areas at our expense. Thus my little tail/big dog analogy.

By lesser of two evils, I guess I was referring to the now disproven belief that the Republicans are more closely aligned with Libertarians on matters of fiscal responsibilty and smaller government. In a way, I kinda wished Kerry would have won and the Republicans retained control of Congress thus resulting in gridlock. Gridlock is good. Just think back to the halcyon days of the Clinton administration.
So my desires that Bush win was more of an in-your-face thing, I guess. The Dems and the urban, northern libs can arrogantly continue to write off the south at their own political expense.

While I was opposed to the war at the onset, we're there now and Bush has more political incentive to see it through to ultimate victory. No more half-stepping, like in Vietnam. Kick-ass, take names and collect dog-tags!

Ohh--the basic premise of the Libertarian Party is individual rights and freedoms, limited government, personal responsibility, blah, blah. Check out their website if you are interested. I think it is www.lp.org .
They have a thing called the world's smallest political quiz. Fun. Try it.
Your own muck is good muck!
User avatar
Plowboy
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:23 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby nwilkins » Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:05 pm

Plowboy,

I'm still not quite sure I understand the electoral college thing - I'm not proposing that much changes - states would still have seats, it's just that the number of seats each candidate receives would be in line with how everyone voted. Any given state would have just as much say in who became president as it does now, it's just that the wishes of all voters would be met instead of simply the majority. I don't think it would give more power to cities (eg I think Bush still would have won under the system I am outlining). It is true that my proposition would make your country more democratic - I just thought that that was what everyone wanted according to Bush's rhetoric. I just don't think it would be less representative given that the current system could THEORETICALLY allow one president to win every electoral college seat while garnering only 51% of total votes - that seems pretty lacking in representation to me :)

Libertarianism sounds interesting, although I would have to disagree about the virtues of "Kicking-ass, taking names and collecting dog tags" for the fairly obvious (for me) reason that national pride is less important than futile and senseless loss of human life.
User avatar
nwilkins
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:02 am

Next

Return to Taking the piss etc...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests