I'll come up with something in a minute.

Political Pyramid

Does anyone out there remember the $50,000 Pyramid? There was a part of the game where you had to guess a category, but the person giving you hints couldn’t use certain words that would be a dead giveaway. I was thinking this should be instituted in political debates. For example, I would like to see a conservative argue against the public option without using the following words and phrases. If they use them, I want to hear a loud buzzer and see a man with a hammer smash one of their fingers. I’m also not going to allow their derivatives, socialism is on the list so socialist will get you buzzed. Here is my opening list…

“Death Panel”
“Jimmy Carter”
“Birth Certificate”

They’d be allowed to describe any of those things, which would require that they actually have to know what those words mean. It would also require that they understand their own viewpoint and be able to express it without resorting to the same tired old buzzwords.

Now, of course, it wouldn’t be a debate if I didn’t give a liberal the chance to respond, right? Well, you’ll be glad to hear I have a list for them too. I also have a man with a hammer. Like the other list, they could describe these things if they know what they actually mean, but they can’t use the actual words or phrases themselves. That list would include…

“Lied into War”
“X number of Americans who die every year”
“Glen Beck”
“Pre-existing condition”
“Corporate Masters”

I think both of those are pretty fair lists. It leaves a lot of room for open and honest debate, and even some room for prevarication if the speakers chooses to go that way. As I say, I’m not even against the speakers using the ideas I’ve made no-no’s. So long as they can prove they know and understand what those words actually mean by restating the idea using different terms. I could probably make both those lists much longer, and I probably should, but I thought a nice dozen for each would make a good start.


October 24, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment