UConn James Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Bush needs a new pair of shoes to keep his feet safe from pebbles. Congress, John Kerry included, gives Bush the go-ahead that he can work in more ways to do his own research and come back when he thinks he klnows what kind of shoes would work best (b/c Congress is kind of busy doing other things too). Choices include: the sandals, which are free and airy; the stalwart New Balance, a good shoe at a great price (and American made!); or the Nikes, a so-so shoe at an outrageous price. And then Bush comes back saying he REEEALLY wants the Imitation Nikes that Kerry has learned is all flash and the soles fall apart within 3 months. The Iraq funding vote "flip-flop" was tantamount to telling your kids to choose the New Balance before you give them the charge card. And telling Bush to roll back some of his tax cuts for the rich to pay for the war --- rather than send us into fiscal straits --- is tantamount to telling him if he wants the Knock-off Nikes, he needs to get his own (!) job to pay for them b/c middle class families can't eat a shoe. (Besides the fact that the Nikes didn't have nearly as much pebble-protection features as Bush said they had.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Huh? So Bush wears imitation Nikes and Kerry wears flip-flops? I guess I still pick Bush because he's still better equipped to handle someone stepping on his toes. You can nuance things all you want, but Kerry is on record with his votes and is on record with his public statements. If you can put all of those together and come up with one clear and consistent policy on Iraq then you belong right by Kerry's side with Lockhart, Carville, and Begala. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Bush needs a new pair of shoes to keep his feet safe from pebbles. Congress, John Kerry included, gives Bush the go-ahead that he can work in more ways to do his own research and come back when he thinks he klnows what kind of shoes would work best (b/c Congress is kind of busy doing other things too). Choices include: the sandals, which are free and airy; the stalwart New Balance, a good shoe at a great price (and American made!); or the Nikes, a so-so shoe at an outrageous price. And then Bush comes back saying he REEEALLY wants the Imitation Nikes that Kerry has learned is all flash and the soles fall apart within 3 months. The Iraq funding vote "flip-flop" was tantamount to telling your kids to choose the New Balance before you give them the charge card. And telling Bush to roll back some of his tax cuts for the rich to pay for the war --- rather than send us into fiscal straits --- is tantamount to telling him if he wants the Knock-off Nikes, he needs to get his own (!) job to pay for them b/c middle class families can't eat a shoe. (Besides the fact that the Nikes didn't have nearly as much pebble-protection features as Bush said they had.) 49431[/snapback] The problem isn't Kerry's vote; I think everyone understands his vote (except maybe Kerry...and Bush.) The problem is that Kerry is unable to explain it coherently. To take your analogy, Kerry would explain it as "Well, I voted to get Bush new shoes, but then voted not to when he actually wanted them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 Huh? So Bush wears imitation Nikes and Kerry wears flip-flops? I guess I still pick Bush because he's still better equipped to handle someone stepping on his toes. You can nuance things all you want, but Kerry is on record with his votes and is on record with his public statements. If you can put all of those together and come up with one clear and consistent policy on Iraq then you belong right by Kerry's side with Lockhart, Carville, and Begala. 49447[/snapback] Good God, I need to simplify this even more?! New Balance, friend. New Balance is the metaphorical Well-planned, well-designed and Cheaper war b/c not much is spent on the frills and advertising. True evidence that we read into things what we want.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 New Balance, friend. New Balance is the metaphorical Well-planned, well-designed and Cheaper war b/c not much is spent on the frills and advertising. So Kerry wears flip flops but expects Bush to buy New Balance? I still have to give Bush credit for picking a covered shoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Bump. So Kerry wears flip flops but expects Bush to buy New Balance? I still have to give Bush credit for picking a covered shoe. 49635[/snapback] Sorry it took so long; made a trek to Maine to see an uncle who isn't doing well. When did I say that Kerry "wears flipflops"?! Read the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Kerry wants the war fought more effectively and for the Iraqis to be trained faster to take care of their own damn country (something they should've done in the first $%^&ing place 20 years ago, so what makes you think sinking more money and lives will change the results?...). Does a natural belligerence get in the way of what the words say? Good debate tonight, I thought, tho I was disappointed that Kerry didn't fully explain the same thing that this thread deals with. Then again, the time limitation didn't much allow for it. God forbid the media ask and actually AIR this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I was just being a wisearse and playing stupid. Welcome back. Hope your Uncle's doing better. Kerry did more than what he needed to do tonight, quit yer splitting hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 he needs to get his own (!) job to pay for them b/c middle class families can't eat a shoe. 49431[/snapback] okay, i think i may understand what you're analogy is trying to say just not how you're trying to say it. i'm wondering if you've been eating shoes...the kind made from help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I don't get why this $87 bil is an issue. The 1st version of the senate bill had the tax cut for the wealthy repealed to pay some of the cost while the 2nd version paid for it through borrowing. The only difference was where the money was coming from. One way your rich uncle was giving you money to buy the Nikes - the other way you are pulling out your own credit card to get the Nikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I don't get why this $87 bil is an issue. The 1st version of the senate bill had the tax cut for the wealthy repealed to pay some of the cost while the 2nd version paid for it through borrowing. The only difference was where the money was coming from. One way your rich uncle was giving you money to buy the Nikes - the other way you are pulling out your own credit card to get the Nikes. 52392[/snapback] Because Kerry was dumb enough to explain it as "I voted for it before I voted against it." The bill itself isn't even the issue. Kerry's inability to coherently express his opinions of the bill is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 The problem isn't Kerry's vote; I think everyone understands his vote (except maybe Kerry...and Bush.) The problem is that Kerry is unable to explain it coherently. To take your analogy, Kerry would explain it as "Well, I voted to get Bush new shoes, but then voted not to when he actually wanted them." 49455[/snapback] Okay, that has to be one of the most tortured analogies I have heard in awhile. I am not saying I don't agree, I think I do actually, but still, I am not sure what that was about. You see this with the right alot. They take things literally and either ignore or are unable to appreciate subtext. Case in point: My sister was at the Moore thing and got in the paper when she won a 12 pack of "slacker" toilet paper in a tounge in cheek trivia contest Moore held as a gag. Moore declared himself to be a life long slacker and invited others of the persuasion up to the stage. It was a college campus so you know there were plenty of slackers in the audience. Well, a right wing-nut writes in to the paper joking that Moore insulted his audience by calling them "slackers" and they were just too stupid to realize it. She just couldn't understand or ignored the fact that this was toung-in-cheek, self deprecating humor on the part of Moore who invited the audience to participate in the gag. Idiot. They do the same thing with Kerry's vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq. They take it at face value, ignoring context and then define it to mean what they want it to mean for their own purposes. If you listen to what he said when he voted and what he has said ever since, it is perfectly consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 They do the same thing with Kerry's vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq. They take it at face value, ignoring context and then define it to mean what they want it to mean for their own purposes. If you listen to what he said when he voted and what he has said ever since, it is perfectly consistent. 52501[/snapback] Yes he has. Again, I don't fault his voting record on the topic, I fault his presentation of such. Fact is, he said "I voted for it before I voted against it", which is superficially accurate but doesn't at all reflect his consideration of the bill. I don't begrudge his vote...but if he's going to say things as dumb as that in a sound-byte driven campaign, he deserves to be roasted for it. It's not bad voting...it's bad campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Huh? So Bush wears imitation Nikes and Kerry wears flip-flops? I guess I still pick Bush because he's still better equipped to handle someone stepping on his toes. You can nuance things all you want, but Kerry is on record with his votes and is on record with his public statements. If you can put all of those together and come up with one clear and consistent policy on Iraq then you belong right by Kerry's side with Lockhart, Carville, and Begala. 49447[/snapback] A reporter for NBC last night, Chris Crawford, who is not a lefty hack, said that he went back recently and looked at the actual transcript of what Kerry said when he made the vote for the war, and it is virtually identical to what Kerry's says about it now. He hadn't flip-flopped one bit. You can look it up for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 He hadn't flip-flopped one bit. This has no legs with the American public, but if the Dems want to spend time trying to make this case then by all means have at it. It saves the RNC money -- they can get more out of the Iraq flip-flop commercial that is so effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Well, good thing someone took a war, where thousands of our loved ones are dying, and put it into a real-world scenario about tennis shoes. Thanks! now i get it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Well, good thing someone took a war, where thousands of our loved ones are dying, and put it into a real-world scenario about tennis shoes. Thanks! now i get it.... 52739[/snapback] Excuse me, but it's a way of explaining a vote, not a war. Since Kerry's explanation seems to go over everyone's heads, I wanted to help explain. Out of it I picked a shoe analogy. Both of my brothers have fought in this war, one of whom narrowly escaped death by missile and C-5 c r a s h. Don't you dare tell me I'm making a joke of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Uconn, I am sorry if you took offense to my comments. I did not claim you were making a joke about the war. I too am very passionate about this war. We trivialize so many things in our society and sometimes people fail to realize the seriousness of what is going on. I get annoyed when i hear someone mention in passing about another beheading. I get annoyed when people talk about the war as if its just a video game. It IS REAL LIFE, and that was the root of my comment. Some people view this as the ultimate reality television, and forget that with every soldier killed in war, an entire family is turned into turmoil. Again, not accusing you of anything. Since you have family participating in the war, you know full well the reality. I thank your brothers for their service, as they are much braver than I, and I pray then can come home soon and safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I am not saying I don't agree, I think I do actually, but still, I am not sure what that was about. 52501[/snapback] Yup, after reading that sentence, I can see why Kerry is your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I too am very passionate about this war. We trivialize so many things in our society and sometimes people fail to realize the seriousness of what is going on. I get annoyed when i hear someone mention in passing about another beheading. I get annoyed when people talk about the war as if its just a video game. It IS REAL LIFE, and that was the root of my comment. Some people view this as the ultimate reality television, and forget that with every soldier killed in war, an entire family is turned into turmoil. I think you summed up a major problem in our society- we enjoy so much violence- whether real or fabricated, that so many of us are completely desensitized to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Well, good thing someone took a war, where thousands of our loved ones are dying, and put it into a real-world scenario about tennis shoes. Thanks! now i get it.... 52739[/snapback] It's hard work but we won't have freedom until every man, woman and child in Iraq has a pair of Nikes on their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts