ADVERTISEMENT

Hillary the Right-Wing Authoritarian

Nov 28, 2010
87,535
42,352
113
Maryland
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

us2016.png

Shows just how laughable it is when a few (not all) of our libertarians single out Bernie as the "collectivist" authoritarian type. And think Hillary is next worst.

Clearly Bernie is the only centrist on the board. Center-left, to be sure, but not that far left.

This also nicely illustrates why it's hard for some of us Bernie supporters to consider voting for Clinton: she's closer to the GOP contenders than she is to Bernie.
 
Compare that graph with this one from 2004.

USelection2004.gif


Amusing to notice that Nader is more libertarian than the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik. Even the Green candidate, Cobb, is slightly more libertarian.

If you didn't know and couldn't guess, Walt Brown was the Socialist candidate.
 
Compare that graph with this one from 2004.

USelection2004.gif


Amusing to notice that Nader is more libertarian than the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik. Even the Green candidate, Cobb, is slightly more libertarian.

If you didn't know and couldn't guess, Walt Brown was the Socialist candidate.
Not putting a lot of faith in that. I take it the candidates didn't actually do the quiz themselves and it was guesstimated by someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
Just because s0me graph catetgorizes left and right incorrectly and wrongly identifies authoritarianism- we are to change our minds?
 
More reasons why I have become a Bernie fan.

Eight years(if he lives that long) of nothing being accomplished due to grid-lock.

More seats in congress and state's governors going to the Right in the 18' mid-term.

Shuffle the deck and deal again in '24.
 
I suppose he is a collectivist authoritarian.

He rightly sees student loan debt as an issue, yet he wants to flood the market with even more worthless college degrees by making public colleges “free”, ignoring the existing Federal loan subsidies and their market distortions. He rightly sees Wall Street and bank bailouts as a symptom of cronyism, yet flip-flopped away from supporting a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. He rightly sees unemployment as an issue, yet he is crusading for a $15 minimum wage which would create mandatory unemployment for perhaps millions of unskilled workers. He rightly calls out Big Pharma, insisting they have also fallen victim to the regulatory capture of Washington lobbyists, yet offers the solution of…even more regulations.

Bernie Sanders is the type of man who can point out specific grants of government privilege to private companies, then turn around and say “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people” without a hint of irony. All too often the “cure” to any given issue is to intensify the disease. After fifty years and $20,000,000,000,000 spent waging the War on Poverty without any appreciable alleviation of poverty, Bernie’s solution is riveting: spend more money on the same old programs.

Unsurprisingly, Bernie has made it exceedingly apparent that he does not understand even the most basic economic concepts, immortalized in his quote, “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.” Due to his inability to understand how humans acting freely produce wealth, he views the individuals who make up the economy as an entity that should (and can) be nationalized and managed like a business, mercantilism and all.

Foreign policy is supposed to be one of Bernie’s saving points, clearly holding an edge over his main (read: bloodthirsty) competition. Although he often boasts that he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he forgets to mention that he voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and more recently supported a $1 billion aid package to the Ukrainian rebels as well as air raids in Syria. Oh, and he also said he would continue drone policies similar to Obama’s and has repeatedly supported Israeli occupation and bombing of Palestine.

On other issues, he is troublingly conservative. He would not pardon Edward Snowden and instead thinks he should face trial. He is staunchly closed border, calling open borders a “Koch brothers proposal”. He wants to legalize pot but voted to illegalize Internet gambling, demonstrating a lack of commitment to personal freedoms. He even has a “serious problem” with Uber and presumably the broader peer-to-peer economy. Perhaps nothing sums up Bernie’s view of government and economics more than his support for Vermont’s F-35 fighter jet contract, the world’s most expensive weapons program at $1,400,000,000,000, simply because it was to be manufactured in his home state. More of that “unfettered capitalism”.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/will-tippens/bernie-sanders-another-phony/
 
  • Like
Reactions: arrrrrghhhh!
I suppose he is a collectivist authoritarian.

He rightly sees student loan debt as an issue, yet he wants to flood the market with even more worthless college degrees by making public colleges “free”, ignoring the existing Federal loan subsidies and their market distortions. He rightly sees Wall Street and bank bailouts as a symptom of cronyism, yet flip-flopped away from supporting a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. He rightly sees unemployment as an issue, yet he is crusading for a $15 minimum wage which would create mandatory unemployment for perhaps millions of unskilled workers. He rightly calls out Big Pharma, insisting they have also fallen victim to the regulatory capture of Washington lobbyists, yet offers the solution of…even more regulations.

Bernie Sanders is the type of man who can point out specific grants of government privilege to private companies, then turn around and say “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people” without a hint of irony. All too often the “cure” to any given issue is to intensify the disease. After fifty years and $20,000,000,000,000 spent waging the War on Poverty without any appreciable alleviation of poverty, Bernie’s solution is riveting: spend more money on the same old programs.

Unsurprisingly, Bernie has made it exceedingly apparent that he does not understand even the most basic economic concepts, immortalized in his quote, “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.” Due to his inability to understand how humans acting freely produce wealth, he views the individuals who make up the economy as an entity that should (and can) be nationalized and managed like a business, mercantilism and all.

Foreign policy is supposed to be one of Bernie’s saving points, clearly holding an edge over his main (read: bloodthirsty) competition. Although he often boasts that he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he forgets to mention that he voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and more recently supported a $1 billion aid package to the Ukrainian rebels as well as air raids in Syria. Oh, and he also said he would continue drone policies similar to Obama’s and has repeatedly supported Israeli occupation and bombing of Palestine.

On other issues, he is troublingly conservative. He would not pardon Edward Snowden and instead thinks he should face trial. He is staunchly closed border, calling open borders a “Koch brothers proposal”. He wants to legalize pot but voted to illegalize Internet gambling, demonstrating a lack of commitment to personal freedoms. He even has a “serious problem” with Uber and presumably the broader peer-to-peer economy. Perhaps nothing sums up Bernie’s view of government and economics more than his support for Vermont’s F-35 fighter jet contract, the world’s most expensive weapons program at $1,400,000,000,000, simply because it was to be manufactured in his home state. More of that “unfettered capitalism”.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/will-tippens/bernie-sanders-another-phony/
Oh please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Bernie Sanders Says He Has "Serious Problems" With Uber Because It's "Unregulated"
The socialist senator takes on the ride-sharing company.


Peter Suderman|Aug. 7, 2015 2:04 pm

bernie-sanders-428_flickr-brookingsinst.jpg
flickr-brookingsinstSen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination, says he has "serious problems" with car service company Uber because it's "unregulated."

Sanders made the remark in an interview with Bloomberg News. There doesn't appear to be any additional context to the quote. But for Sanders, there probbaly doesn't need to be. The fact that Uber is big, successful—it was recently valued at $51 billion—and relatively innovative is problem enough. The only way to solve that problem with regulation.

Or, perhaps, more regulation. Sanders seems to be wrong to say that Uber is unregulated. A spokesperson for the company told The Hill that 54 different jurisdictions already have regulations for ride-hailing services in place. That's just what's in place already. Cities like New York and states like California have proposed and debated a slew of additional regulations over the last year or so. Uber, in other words, is already regulated—and, sadly, likely to grow more regulated over time.

here, here, and here.



https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/07/bernie-sanders-says-he-has-serious-probl
 
Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment


27

By Silla Brush - 05/07/10 02:43 AM EDT

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Thursday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) "sold out" on a measure to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders agreed to modify the measure in a way that requires audits of the Fed during the financial crisis but not of the bank's monetary policy.

On his Facebook page, Paul lashed out at Sanders. Paul is a longtime critic of the Fed, and pushed audit legislation in the House that drew more than 300 cosponsors.

"Bernie Sanders has sold out and sided with [Sen.] Chris Dodd to gut Audit the Fed in the Senate. His 'compromise' is what the administration and banking interests want," Paul wrote on Facebook.

Paul said transparency of the Fed's interest rate decisions are important.

The Federal Reserve and Obama administration had strongly opposed earlier drafts of the Senate amendment.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96587-ron-paul-says-bernie-sanders-qsold-outq-on-fed-amendment
 

Bernie Sanders is ‘radical’ on economic policy but a pussycat for Israel
US Politics
Philip Weiss on September 20, 2015 67 Comments

Picture_3_400x400.png

Bernie Sanders




Yesterday on CSPAN I watched Bernie Sanders give a rousing speech in New Hampshirewhere he endorsed a “political revolution.” He called for “radical” changes to take on the corporations and the billionaires, including the government moving in to dismantle big Wall Street financial institutions. Sanders has long supported such action.



But if Bernie Sanders is a radical on economic changes in the United States, he is a pussycat when it comes to changes in Israel and Palestine. Five days ago, he gave an interview to Little Village, an alternative publication in Iowa, and endorsed continuing U.S. military aid to Israel and more economic aid to Palestinians. He did not condemn the Israeli occupation, but blamed actors on both sides of the conflict; and while rejecting Benjamin Netanyahu declined to endorse any of the leftwing programs re Israel, notably BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions. Here are some of his words:

I think what the United States needs is to have an evenhanded policy toward Israel and toward the Palestinians. What we need to guarantee and make certain is that Irael can exist in peace and security and that the Palestinians have their own independent state and an economy to allow their people to have a decent standard of living.

[Sanders notes that he boycotted Netanyahu’s speech last March to Congress because it was “a campaign ploy” and because he disagreed with “many of the policies he’s advocating.”]

What you need for that region, and god knows this conflict has been a horrendous conflict, it has gone on decade after decade after decade. I don’t know that anyone has any magical answer, but I think the role that the United States can play is to bring people together and develop a fair and evenhanded proposal toward both sides.

[Q. How do you approach the policy?]

Well look, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I have a magical solution that has eluded every president. This is tough stuff. And you have forces on both sides in terms of the Israel-Palestinian conflict who have been counterproductive, no question about it. I think that the best that we can do over a period of time is to try to bring the sides together.

Our goal should be to see more economic assistance to the people in that region rather than just military assistance. Right now the United States provides substantial amounts of military aid to both Israel and Egypt. I would hope that in years to come the amount of military aid could be reduced and in fact could be substituted with economic aide. There is a lot of economic misery within the Palestinian community. The recent war in Gaza made a terrible situation even worse. They need help and I would hope that we could move in that direction.

These answers are mealy-mouthed and deeply conservative. He never condemns Israeli actions, even the slaughter of 500 children a year ago. The answers tell me that Sanders really believes in a Jewish state and cuts Israel a giant break. He obviously looks on Palestinian resistance as terrorism. A far cry from his revolutionary ideas about the economy. Sanders would never say that income inequality is “tough stuff” and he doesn’t have a magic solution. He’s got the solution!

Sanders’s wishy-washiness on this issue underlines the importance of the Israel lobby theory. Here is a former radical who because he is a Zionist Jew in his 70s who as a young man moved to Israel before he moved to Vermont supports Israel in powerful arenas. This wildeyed socialist is part of the Israel lobby; and not because he wants to advance the US colonial empire or the military-industrial-complex, the default analysis of our Middle East policy on the left. No; he’s supporting Israel out of an emotional attachment, his belief in the Jewish state and its necessity in the 20th century. The materialist left would surely argue that people like Sanders aren’t important to American foreign policy, because that policy is being driven by corporate interests. But as a leftist with a socio-cultural-religious bent, I say that Sanders and his (and my) cohort, outsider Jews who entered fully into American privilege in the last 40 years, have had a sizable influence over blue state political culture. How do you explain the decision by a Berkeley city council member to fire a human welfare commissioner who has called for divestment from Israel? We’re talking abut the People’s Republic of Berkeley, not Halliburton or Washington DC. A city that has surely endorsed every leftwing idea of economic and environmental reform. But it’s rightwing on the Israel issue. Why? Because Zionists are inside the leftwing political culture even there. The Israel lobby is embedded on the left because Jews of a certain age who believe in Israel as a place of deliverance for a persecuted people are a critical component of the left.

In his speech yesterday Sanders spoke of voting against the Iraq war, and god bless him. He calls it Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld’s war. But he doesn’t call out the neoconservative braintrust that fomented that war. The U.S. lib/left will not come to terms with U.S. militarism until it confronts the neoconservative branch of the Israel lobby head on, and American Jews won’t come to terms with the warmakers in our midst, including Bernie Sanders’s support for the Gaza war, till it deals with the issue of Zionism. In the end, both conversations are about one real thing: unending U.S. support for Jim Crow in Palestine.

This is all going to break loose in 2016. Because young Democrats (women, people of color especially) have turned on Israel, and they will demand a voice.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/sanders-economic-pussycat/#sthash.7WmRSTNb.dpuf
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawktimusPrime
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

us2016.png

Shows just how laughable it is when a few (not all) of our libertarians single out Bernie as the "collectivist" authoritarian type. And think Hillary is next worst.

Clearly Bernie is the only centrist on the board. Center-left, to be sure, but not that far left.

This also nicely illustrates why it's hard for some of us Bernie supporters to consider voting for Clinton: she's closer to the GOP contenders than she is to Bernie.
Which Libertarians?
 
That's it? I cite you chapter and verse that blows your silly spoon fed propaganda to shreds and you come back with 2 words?

tumblr_mzeonckVsL1ql5yr7o1_400.gif
I've spent entirely too much time pointing out what's wrong with either your Lew Rockwell cut and pastes, or your perspective on these matters.

The problem this time is not only does the screed go off the deep end, it simply isn't responsive to the point of the thread.

Moreover, pretty much every one of the other candidates is as bad or worse on the points you made, but your free market zealotry is so blinding that you have nothing to say about them.

Is there, for example, ANY candidate in the OP chart who isn't MORE of a sell-out to Israel than Bernie?

Take Snowden for another example. Is there any other candidate - D or R - who has a more reasonable position on Snowden.

As usual, you and the Lew Rockwell cabal are blind to the real problems, the real war-mongers, the real corrupt politicians. They get a pass.

You could have made a MUCH BETTER case against every one of the candidates shown in the OP chart, but you chose to smear the best one.

You and I agree on a number of things. But it's hard to deal with you when you get into your knee-jerk wingnut mode like this where your priorities are blinded by dogma.
 
Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment


27

By Silla Brush - 05/07/10 02:43 AM EDT

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Thursday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) "sold out" on a measure to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders agreed to modify the measure in a way that requires audits of the Fed during the financial crisis but not of the bank's monetary policy.

On his Facebook page, Paul lashed out at Sanders. Paul is a longtime critic of the Fed, and pushed audit legislation in the House that drew more than 300 cosponsors.

"Bernie Sanders has sold out and sided with [Sen.] Chris Dodd to gut Audit the Fed in the Senate. His 'compromise' is what the administration and banking interests want," Paul wrote on Facebook.

Paul said transparency of the Fed's interest rate decisions are important.

The Federal Reserve and Obama administration had strongly opposed earlier drafts of the Senate amendment.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96587-ron-paul-says-bernie-sanders-qsold-outq-on-fed-amendment
The facts here are simple. Ron Paul and Bernie joined together to call for a Fed audit.

Bernie compromised because - let's be clear about this - it never would have passed without that compromise.

As a result, we got the first Fed audit - EVER!

I agree that the audit was watered down from what we need. But it moved us closer to that goal.

So here, once again, you are spending all your powder attacking the 2nd best person on this while giving a free pass to all the Rs and Ds who are much much worse.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees your gross distortion of priorities.
 
Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment


27

By Silla Brush - 05/07/10 02:43 AM EDT

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Thursday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) "sold out" on a measure to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders agreed to modify the measure in a way that requires audits of the Fed during the financial crisis but not of the bank's monetary policy.

On his Facebook page, Paul lashed out at Sanders. Paul is a longtime critic of the Fed, and pushed audit legislation in the House that drew more than 300 cosponsors.

"Bernie Sanders has sold out and sided with [Sen.] Chris Dodd to gut Audit the Fed in the Senate. His 'compromise' is what the administration and banking interests want," Paul wrote on Facebook.

Paul said transparency of the Fed's interest rate decisions are important.

The Federal Reserve and Obama administration had strongly opposed earlier drafts of the Senate amendment.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96587-ron-paul-says-bernie-sanders-qsold-outq-on-fed-amendment

Well, that just destroys his, "I'm going to take down the banks" diatribe.
 
The facts here are simple. Ron Paul and Bernie joined together to call for a Fed audit.

Bernie compromised because - let's be clear about this - it never would have passed without that compromise.

As a result, we got the first Fed audit - EVER!

I agree that the audit was watered down from what we need. But it moved us closer to that goal.

So here, once again, you are spending all your powder attacking the 2nd best person on this while giving a free pass to all the Rs and Ds who are much much worse.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees your gross distortion of priorities.

Who cares what you passed if it didn't do any good? You people are literally insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I've spent entirely too much time pointing out what's wrong with either your Lew Rockwell cut and pastes, or your perspective on these matters.

The problem this time is not only does the screed go off the deep end, it simply isn't responsive to the point of the thread.

Moreover, pretty much every one of the other candidates is as bad or worse on the points you made, but your free market zealotry is so blinding that you have nothing to say about them.

Is there, for example, ANY candidate in the OP chart who isn't MORE of a sell-out to Israel than Bernie?

Take Snowden for another example. Is there any other candidate - D or R - who has a more reasonable position on Snowden.

As usual, you and the Lew Rockwell cabal are blind to the real problems, the real war-mongers, the real corrupt politicians. They get a pass.

You could have made a MUCH BETTER case against every one of the candidates shown in the OP chart, but you chose to smear the best one.

You and I agree on a number of things. But it's hard to deal with you when you get into your knee-jerk wingnut mode like this where your priorities are blinded by dogma.
That's always the problem with this crowd. No one is ever pure enough.
 
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees your gross distortion of priorities.

They are all or nothing types, and if it has some of what they want they attack it harder. Bizarre creatures that prefer their ego to be bolstered by their ability to be correct while they are the ones creating the litmus for correctness. They have an aptitude for talking about politics while not even participating in them because they are above the system.
 
Hillary's a free-market gal. She's just pretending to be a progressive.

hillary-clinton-pantsuit-internet-gif.gif
 
I've spent entirely too much time pointing out what's wrong with either your Lew Rockwell cut and pastes, or your perspective on these matters.
And you are just as wrong now as you were then. Totally inadequate. A) Lew Rockwell didn't write it. It was a contributor to his website that wrote it. Not all articles are agreed with by LR. Example; Pat Buchanan and David Stockman sometimes contribute as well as many others with advanced degrees. It's a freedom thing. You wouldn't understand. B) I posted 4 articles. Of them, 1 was from the Lew Rockwell site, the most read libertarian website in the world. Lew was a former Chief of Staff for Ron Paul, a leader in the libertarian movement. He's also the heir to Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard. You yourself, have claimed to be a libertarian or having shared many of their positions. Yet, you seem to direct a lot of venom towards the LRC site. Maybe you're not really compatible with freedom. An internet troll under the employ of Cass Sunstein perhaps?

The problem this time is not only does the screed go off the deep end, it simply isn't responsive to the point of the thread.
It's entirely germane to the thread. Do you read your own posts? You wrote 3 paragraphs in your OP. All 3 mentioned The Bern. By the way, where is the argument for this old coot being 80 years old before his 1st term expires? Too old.

You made mention of "collectivist authoritarian". I pointed out in my reply that he is just that...an admitted socialist. They believe in violence to achieve their goals. If you don't believe that, just refuse to pay your taxes when he sends the IRS to your door to give all these kids a "free education". Nothing is free. It's a gimmick. But, I'm guessing you already cut a couple of checks to the 'Bernie for Prez' campaign. You've been P.T. Barnum'd and you don't like someone calling you out on it.


Moreover, pretty much every one of the other candidates is as bad or worse on the points you made, but your free market zealotry is so blinding that you have nothing to say about them.
WOW! You have a problem with freedom and people engaging in voluntary contracts and you refer to it as zealotry. What a hater of freedom you are. Your extremism is anathema to the Founders and their cause. Your mind is totally contaminated. Again, I made no mention of the other candidates...in this thread because that is not what you posited in your opening. I stuck to the thread. Try it sometime.

Is there, for example, ANY candidate in the OP chart who isn't MORE of a sell-out to Israel than Bernie?

Take Snowden for another example. Is there any other candidate - D or R - who has a more reasonable position on Snowden.
Just look at how the other whistleblowers have been treated by Obama. Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl come to mind. The Burn is wrong on this as well.

As usual, you and the Lew Rockwell cabal are blind to the real problems, the real war-mongers, the real corrupt politicians. They get a pass.
Cabal implies furtiveness. There is nothing secret about this group that seeks to educate the conditioned masses who have been schooled in our prisons under the Dept. of Education. Then again, you hardly presented a compelling case to support your wildly, ridiculous assertions. Again, you haven't been reading my other posts, as I have come down hard on all of them. But, you didn't mention them in your opening. Try sticking to your own topic.

You could have made a MUCH BETTER case against every one of the candidates shown in the OP chart, but you chose to smear the best one.
Boy, it sure is tiresome debating you. Like Groundhog Day. Read the 3 paragraphs in your opening.

You and I agree on a number of things. But it's hard to deal with you when you get into your knee-jerk wingnut mode like this where your priorities are blinded by dogma.
I think I just amply confirmed what a knee-jerk wing nut reactionary you are. You're boring me.
 
I think I just amply confirmed what a knee-jerk wing nut reactionary you are. You're boring me.
Let me just pull out one of your comments...

ME: Take Snowden for another example. Is there any other candidate - D or R - who has a more reasonable position on Snowden.

YOU: Just look at how the other whistleblowers have been treated by Obama. Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl come to mind. The Burn is wrong on this as well.

This PERFECTLY illustrates your tendency to
1) dodge the point raised, and then
2) attack someone who wasn't even part of the conversation (Obama) on that same issue while
3) ignoring those that you sometimes defend (because you like their positions on taxes and their claimed belief in free markets), who are much worse on this measure.

Feel free to ignore me. I will miss our agreements on many foreign policy and rights debates, but won't miss this constipated pseudo-religious side of your thinking,
 
Let me just pull out one of your comments...

ME: Take Snowden for another example. Is there any other candidate - D or R - who has a more reasonable position on Snowden.

YOU: Just look at how the other whistleblowers have been treated by Obama. Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl come to mind. The Burn is wrong on this as well.

This PERFECTLY illustrates your tendency to
1) dodge the point raised, and then
2) attack someone who wasn't even part of the conversation (Obama) on that same issue while
3) ignoring those that you sometimes defend (because you like their positions on taxes and their claimed belief in free markets), who are much worse on this measure.

Feel free to ignore me. I will miss our agreements on many foreign policy and rights debates, but won't miss this constipated pseudo-religious side of your thinking,
This is rich. You accuse me of attacking someone. This from the guy with the Jesus moniker, who accuses me of "knee-jerk wingnut mode".

Don't muddy the waters again. Stay within the guardrails of the topic you framed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT