Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Hypothetically Speaking

I've heard this suggested a lot of late in similar forms, but I think it's worth passing on with perhaps some value added....

When a Bush supporter tells you that the president is justified and correct in repeatedly breaking explicit laws and flouting the Constitution in his domestic spying activities, under the pretexts of "We're at war" and "I'm keeping Americans safe", ask this: It's now February, 2009 and President Hillary Clinton has just taken office. Do you want her to have the same unchecked powers that you're now glibly assigning to Bush?

(a) If he answers "Yes" or "There's no way that bitch is gonna be elected president", you can be assured with 99% confidence ±2σ that either he's lying or is just being supremely arrogant and overconfident as only a 21st century style Republican apologist can be. He won't ever admit to either, so tell him so and just let him stew in his own poisoned juices. Move on.

(b) If he answers "No" or remains mum, you'll know that you humbled him into admitting that he's wrong. Perhaps there's hope for him. Treat with care.

(c) If he answers "I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question", tell him "Listen here, McClellan.... you're already on record proclaiming that we should allow Bush to do whatever he hypothetically damn well pleases whenever he hypothetically damn well pleases. Now answer the damn question." Follow (a) or (b), or repeat (c) as appropriate.

No comments: