I don’t consume alcohol, so I thought I’d come up with a healthier version of the drinking game:
I will bicycle 25 miles for every mention of “Osama bin Laden” by either Vice President Cheney or President Bush in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention.
Better go pump up those tires.
Feel free to set your own personal challenge. And tune in as our leaders recite their efforts in bringing the head 9/11 perpetrator to justice.
UPDATE: I’ve searched Cheney’s speech and no Osama. Guess Cheney was too busy going after America’s real enemy–John Kerry. But, not to worry. I’m sure our wartime president will level with us tonight and offer a candid update on his pledge to located Osama “wanted dead or alive” bin Laden.
UPDATE 2: Alas, it’s 0 for 2 in the speeches. But I suppose I can do a nice long ride anyway.
Back in October 2001, who would have imagined that in his re-election convention speech President Bush would place a much greater emphasis on Iraqi elections than on Osama bin Laden?
Sheesh! Leave the tires flat. I don’t think they’re allowed to say the “O” word anymore. I know their press arm, F** News?, isn’t. We’ll see.
Well, I would be willing to consume double in that drinking game, if you’ll let me sub for you. However, I must agree, there’s not much hope that even the first drink will be consumed. Talk about on the wagon!!
But to make this into an interesting drinking (or biking) game, we should come up with something. I suggest the number of times “values” or “steady leadership” is mentioned. But I think the real fun bunch will be those drinking to any RNC excuse announced for Jenna and notJenna’s performance, or even Arnold’s remarks about admiring Nixon.
I’m guessing that you are probably safe to say that you will drink 1 beer for every mention of Osama bin Laden and remain a non-drinker.
I will run a marathon when John Kerry finally decides how he feels about the war with Iraq. He added even more “nuances” today. Will it ever end?
What are the inconsistencies, CJ? Kerry voted to authorize the pres. to make the call on Iraq, not to invade Iraq. Again: The vote was not on whether to invade, only whether the pres. should have the power to decide. He has been consistent that had he been pres., he (Kerry) would NOT have used the authorization the same way (to invade Iraq like Bush foolishly did). I guess this is too “nuanced” (i.e., deep) for you freepers to understand.
“Will it ever end?” Bush just flip-flopped (again) on whether his “War on Terror” is winable. Will the Bush nightmare (and campaign lies) ever end?
Well.. during the race for the nomination, Kerry said he was an “anti-war candidate”. Now he’s saying he would have voted for the war even knowing there are no stockpiles of WMD’s.
Nah… no inconsistency there…
I could go on and on and on… but you don’t really want to listen.
Like most of your type, CJ, you too obviously can’t read. Kerry is NOT saying he would have voted for the war. He would have voted TO GIVE THE PRESIENDENT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER TO GO TO WAR. That’s not the same thing.
Tell you what: Go into a quiet room and read my two posts a few times. Think about it real hard. It’s not that difficult to understand. You can do it, CJ!
Sheesh.
P.S. CJ, why do you support preznit who can’t even keep his story straight on whether we can win his war? You can’t get any more flip-floppy than that.
Hey CJ,
Just this year, W said he was a “war president” and then he said he was a “peace president”. which is he? I’m having a hard time understanding what he is: war or peace?
Easier-to-read synopsis of Kerry on the war: “I gave the President the authority, but he went and fucked it up.”
Linking Fool Friday
Lots of fodder for a change, what with some sort of Republican hootenanny going on in New York this week. Everybody has been linking to William Saletan’s piece on election 2004 as a referendum on democracy itself. Money quote: In…