<You only ASSume you know.>
You don't need to get so defensive, Buschman. After all, this is only SI. You are suppose to enjoy yourself here and share insight. Still, I know that if Bush told you that "London Bridge was falling down, you'd believe that too". You are such a good "Gullible Annie" Republican Boy, "a compendium of Conservative Fiction": Are The Commies really in Latin America? Please tell me all about Commandante Daniel Ortega and the Roman Catholic Church in El Salvador!
On the internal economic front, the challenger, Senator Kerry, promises to wage war better than President Bush. He also promises to deliver a better US economy. President Bush, of course, has the disadvantage of having incurred the real economic costs as seen by most Americans. That has not stopped him from promising an improving US economy.
The blatant real contradiction is this. When the "war" is mentioned, there is no mention of the real economic costs in that context. In the other context, when the US economy is mentioned, there is no reference to the economic costs of wars and occupations of foreign nations. As long as Americans can shift context from war to economics and back again, with neither context having any connection to the other, there are no problems.
But bring these items into one integrated context, even for a moment, and the whole "message" crashes. |
