Let me be crystal clear here with with regard to "Liberals"

I could have sworn I'd already seen this OP.

of the right. Shellfishness, which may come from eating
bad shellfish, or an hereditary bad gene; anyhow.

The unshellfish ones will win in the end, since they did
not eat from the oily Gulf; the leeks shall inherit the
earth, but I'm not sure what else.

We'll inform the world you're a child mollusker.

'Librul'

We members of the Third Way can be easily distinguished from Reagan Republicans by our knowledge of spell checking tools. As long as you get us to write something containing vocabulary more advanced than is understood by a typical second grader, you're all set.

No wire hangers!!!

I have had unclean thoughts where I agreed with a Paul statement. I have sinned and I repent. Forgive me, oh merciful Third-Way Manny!

Medea Benjamin: Unrepentant Paulbot

I wonder how Medea would react to being called a Republican.

Meanwhile, you should familiarize yourself with the program of Rutus T. Firefly, Prime Minister of Freedonia:

[center]

[/center]

Don't we ever get a message from the side?

If you promote Rand Paul's candidacy for president, you are a right-winger. Paul is a right-winger. He is to the right of the Democratic Party on every single issue.

What is the purpose of singing his virtues? If people oppose war or militarization of police, they don't need to invoke an ultra-right wing libertarian to advance those positions. So why do they?

I just didn't see any endorsements of him. I saw members discussing the upcoming election campaign and the significance of right vs left rhetoric, policy positions, the media outcome, etc

I've seen the same discussions when Democratic politicians challenge the prevailing rhetoric

of police, or the excess of the NSA?

If so, please provide a link.

get an answer to your question. It certainly isn't the fault of the voters if we have to hear about those issues from a Republican, is it? It's the fault of a party that doesn't respond to the voters who they expect to elect them.

We all remember being told what the party thinks of those of us who supported them, your 'ideas are retarded' among other things.

It was making fun of a few threads about him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5442938

There's no reference to these 'young people' being DU members, right?

Not seeing the endorsement there

And we're going be deluged with thousands of threads saying so!

Good Grief!

promoting him -- and is a lie.

That Rand Paul is "promoted" at DU is a false premise that I've seen pointed out at least a hundred times today and ignored by you and others the same number of times.

Your OP started the whole fucking thing, and it's a total disgrace. The man is a neo-Nazi piece of shit and you described his candidacy as a "game changer." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5440997



Now we have people linking to the John Birch society as so-called evidence of Rand Paul's "leftism." The racist right is not left. They are not a game changer unless the purpose of the game is to increase GOP power and move the Democratic Party further to the right.

Who cares if he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, ban abortion, gay marriage, slash corporate taxes, abolish regulation of Wall Street, business and the environment. Who cares if he wants to end all publicly funded health care?

You made yourself perfectly clear in that OP. I now know more about you than I ever wanted.

A. you don't listen or comprehend. B. You know nothing about me.

This party is trying to survive a hostile takeover by The 1% and the military industrial complex - and you're nothing more than a loyal Lackey. I'm so disgusted by the people who consider themselves progressives bullying around people who bring new ideas to the table because it doesn't fit into the plans of the 1%. I know everything I need to know about you too.

How the country club set can save on their taxes while the poor go hungry? The issues you outline in that OP are all about the privileged. You are one that heralded the Neo-nazi piece of trash as a game changer for the "left." There is no left in the Aryan Nation. There is no left is slashing corporate taxes. There is no left in stripping Wall Street and the environment of all regulation. There is no left in turning all of healthcare over to the private sector. There is no left in allowing the state to exert absolute control over women's bodies and overturning the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act. Those are all ultra-right wing views.

If you can't articulate opposition to US military intervention abroad and NSA surveillance without appeals to a right-wing shit bag, what is the point? Who would willingly associate themselves with an ultra-reich wing type like Paul? How does that advance an anti-interventionist or anti-security state position? We all might find some random shit bag that we agree with on an issue or two. So what? Why invoke someone like that and discredit yourself and the issues in the process?

No leftist will support Paul. Right-wing white male supremacists will support him because he articulates the values they share.

I'll take your scorn as a badge of pride. After that OP, you have no authority to condemn anyone.

First of all, I am not a Rand Paul supporter. I think he is a racist douchebag along with everyone else in the cesspool that is the GOP. Have I said that clearly enough because I've said it enough times in the last two days to make me think some just don't want to hear it? I do not want him to be elected. If you think I do or you insist on saying that I have "heralded" him I have to believe that you're either 1) playing dumb and going on offense so you don't have to defend HRC's weaknesses on certain issues (in which case you're not a citizen of a message board but a propaganda shill for your chosen candidate) 2) you haven't really read my posts but are going off of headlines or other propaganda shills or 3) you just don't read well (in which case I apologize for taking you to task).

I never suggested that "liberals" or "progressives" or "leftists" would vote for him if you define those terms as someone who is fairly well rounded on the issues and stands for individuals over "The Man". He doesn't need liberals or progressives to vote for him because they only make up about 25-35% maybe? He's going to get the 35% racist/sexist/homophobic vote no matter what - they ain't voting for any "D". Who makes up the rest? A bunch of people who don't pay much attention to anything other than 30 second TV spots and probably won't ask many questions and may not make up their mind until Election Day. You know, the "undecided"s. How fucking stupid do you have to be to be "undecided"? Pretty fucking stupid and that's who will decide who the ruler of the universe is in a couple years.

If HRC can't come out and say "Hey I think a police state is a bad thing and we need to take steps to make sure 1st amendment rights are protected and summary executions are not carried out in the streets" then she might be vulnerable to any Republican who will say that. So why concede the issue? If she could just PRETEND like she's not a Wall Street crony and that she's against brutal authoritarian repression, then she would get more votes. That's all I'm saying.

She could conceivably lose both sides of the Ferguson "debate" (a term which I use loosely). Of course the racist haters on one side of the "debate" will vote GOP AND the "undecided"s (and remember, they are very stupid) who were on the other side of that "debate" Have you thought about that? A lot of people are fired up on both sides and a lot of them are stupid.

This was the point I was trying to make yesterday and many of those who attacked me as a "Paulbot" or "Concern Troll" know VERY well this was what I was trying to say. It's easier to attack than it is to defend on this issue.

To prove that I'm capable of accepting criticism, I'm going to take the advice of the best critical response I received yesterday. I'm going to stop talking about this until after we take care of business here in November.

After that, it's fucking on...

have been both directly and indirectly promoted here at DU. By self-proclaimed leftists of various stripes.
Please note that I'm not accusing you of promoting any of them. But the Far Left/Far Right convergence is a real thing, and something to keep in mind.

he seems to be to the left of the party when it comes to war, weed, and the NSA, but he is very far to the right on other subjects.

All critics of Hillary would immediately be Castro-bots. Which sounds like something you'd catalog order to fix your ergonomic office chair

It should be that it is essential to have a president who knows who to work with congress. Why on earth would you support someone with no experience doing that? Do you care what gets accomplished or is it all about what a pol says on cable TV?

Think of LBJ. No one--no one--would have considered him a leftist in his day, but the man knew how to work congress and got consequential legislation passed.

Going to be funny.

Just asking as a proud liberal progressive who does not support HRC

The Intercept reports that ICREACH was built under the direction of former NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander, and was created to "allow unprecedented volumes of communications metadata to be shared and analyzed," and give a "vast, rich source of information" to other agencies to exploit.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/25/snowden-documents-reveal-nsas-own-secret-google

"Exploit" as in profit from and blackmail with, in secret and without accountability. Nice power to have in a Police State.

If you say Paul is anti NSA but democrats aren't, you are lying.

If you say Paul is anti drug war but democrats aren't, you are lying.

Paul does not have a monopoly on these views, and he only holds them because they are in line with his racist, bigoted, anti civil rights views.

Most Democrats were behind Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of them even think that our population bombing in Japan in WWII was justified.

Obama got us out of Iraq, getting us out of Afghanistan.

I'd have to see a poll about bombing Japan that is a hotly debated issue. I'm guessing a three way split on that one.

hardly makes them antiwar.

And most apologized for that vote and said it was a mistake.

The nation is kind of war weary right now and so many dems don't want to see more war of the sort that would put lots of boots on the ground.

Dems made sure the sequester had the military get equal cuts. The dems support those troops damaged by Bush's wars.

Obama shifted the doctrine at the last SOTU, even featuring a vet harmed by the wars (and of course he was accused of using the vet as a prop by both the left and right).

Open your eyes.

Obama wanted war in Syria and only dumb luck stopped him.

Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and involved the nation in war in Libya. For most of his two terms he supported record budgets (since WWII) for defense spending. Now we are back in Iraq.

Open your eyes. The dems are less hawkish than the repubs, but not antiwar.

Unheard of since before then no President ceded to the War Powers Act.

He said he'd expand in Afghanistan and he did so, now he's leaving.

Libya was supported by the international community, invoking for the first time the Responsibility to Protect.

he asked for congressional authorization while claiming he didn't need it.

Bush signed the SOFA that "got us out of Iraq" and we are still there whether we know it or not...and we are still in Afghanistan after almost 6 years of this administration...it is the longest war in our history...and we are no closer to a "victory" than when we first started.

But keep believing we will eventually get out, but to me it looks like a permanent state of war...a war not meant to be won...a war with no end.
Orwell was right.

That's my favorite double-speak about the Iraq War I've ever seen.

McCain wanted Obama to renegotiate and Obama did not do so (a prime time would've been when they were having daily bombings in 2009). Cheney still chides Obama for that to this day.

But the doublespeak is that we did.
We just have a new enemy now...and it changes just like it did at the two minute hate.
And McCain is just playing his part as a shill for the war to triangulate the left into accepting it.
And it works.

ISIS is. If you don't think ISIS is a threat to human society then that's fine. If you don't think anyone should do anything about ISIS, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you that we must.

But I won't try to convince you that it is.

I don't think we're experiencing permanent war.

Every reality based Democrat (the only ones that are not most likely rat fornicators) knows that the left is the problem, solutions can only be found on the right or the center. Pragmatism tells us, that liberal only means you have the right to choose if you are a woman, the right to marry your same sex partner if you are born gay, and the right to free and equal civil liberties (well some of the time and only on some things), therefore nearly all Democratic politicians are extremely liberal.

As for non social policies, grow up and join the adults before you get spanked like the whinny fringe leftists you are, I have provided a list so even you damn dirty hippy most likely libertarians that are not very smart can understand what it means to be a responsible pragmatic Democrat, first tear that naked picture of Nader off your bedroom wall, then, memorize the following:

Democratic financial policies can only validly be proposed from the Friedman Chicago school of economics (fuck those fringe moonbat Keynesian most likely libertarian paulbots)

Democratic trade policies can only validly be proposed if they are enthusiastically free trade with an eye towards protecting the rights of the poor disadvantaged multinational corporations (fuck those fringe fair trade labor loving isolationist moonbat most likely libertarian paulbots)

Democratic banking/investment policies can only validly be proposed if you embrace the concept of providing liquidity to banks that are excellent gamblers that simply have a bit of bad luck every few years in predictable cycles when they bet your farms on mathematical equations and pieces of paper, but never ever give back the property they confiscate in the process, they should get to keep that as well, they work hard and we should not begrudge them what they steal fair and square. Another very important point, to thrive they must be free range and unregulated, because that is the only way for them to eventually trickle down on you what you deserve. (fuck those Commie most likely libertarian big government rule loving crazies that want to regulate and fine them for all the hard work they do to earn their trillions. We will no longer tolerate your most likely paulbot rat fornicating of our betters)

Democratic foreign policies can only be validly proposed if they are adequately interventionist with an eye towards making it easier to sell and produce arms (the only jobs program that ever works) or to procure whatever resources the multinational corporations covet on or under the ground those terrorist foreigners are squatting on, they may live there, but they do not own the resources, ownership is only fairly determined by an appropriate bidding war between the corporations that God gave those resources to when he created Adam Inc. and Eve LLC. (fuck the bleeding heart liberal most likely libertarian paulbot isolationists that do not understand foreign policy)

Democratic Constitutional policies can only be validly proposed if they allow or disallow whatever rights the Government wants to that you think some Goddamn old piece of hemp paper grants you when you are high on some other strains of hemp (fuck those traitor loving, Putin fellating free speech and privacy fetishist most likely paulbots twice sideways)

I hope all you leftist most likely libertarian Commie rat fornicators are taking notes, because this is the only way you will ever be part of the Democratic party. I don't know why I bother because although there are zillions of you lefties disrupting here and failing to vote and thus throwing elections, you are a very small minority of fringe crazies that are statistically negligible and your input therefore is hardly meaningful.



Sorry TWM, you are as always correct, but you are too nice sometimes to these pitiable leftist dirty hippy freaks, so I had to step in.

You should make this an OP

Make sure more people know that hippies need punching, not love.

Regards,

TWM

I should not have even ventured into GD today as I did because it took me away from work I should have been doing.
But. I needed a bit of a break, so I posted a couple of responses not really expecting as many replies as I received.

Besides, I am not really an OP Guy, in ten years I posted maybe two dozen OPs, I mostly read and upon rare occasion chime in.

I have been following the posting of a truly remarkable DUer, that has taught me what real Democrats are all about, and what a problem the left is, he pulls no punches and calls out the left like the Wyldman that he is, he is my new hero, and I am learning a great deal from him.

Of course implying what the left most likely is really all about, is something I thought to honor him for by following his example in this post. It was my hope to educate those on what exactly that technique is all about and how powerful it can be in a great many different circumstances.

I hope everyone learns from my post what to do, or not to do if one wants to sound reasonable and tolerant of the paleo-Democratic threat to the new Democratic vision.

I believe when you typed "the left", what you really meant to type was "the Professional Left."

Always happy to help.

Seems like a section on who are allowed to fight police would also be helpful.

So I abandoned it as being beyond my ability to capture properly without inducing sickness.

have it right. Be thankful to be alive and drink the damn koolaide. The middle class would understand if they were smart that they should give up all their wealth just to be able to smoke marijuana. I think it was the Goldman-Sachs queen that said, "let them smoke marijuana, then they won't give a shit if we steal all their f'n money." She was given some gold coins for the speech. Just sayin.

The democratic party platform is anti war.

The platform defends civil rights.

Basically you are being dishonest.

That hold most of the leadership positions in the party. The ones that promote policies found at thirdway.org and the progressive police institute, many of whom are former alumni of the DLC.

I was very honest about those true heroes of the party that I wrote about. I am certainly glad that that Keynesian has not been able to implement Keynesian policies (or should I thank who knew better than to place him first?).

I am also glad that the platform is flexible enough apparently for the reality based community to ignore upon occasion when it is pragmatic to do so.

If it makes you feel any better, I have been following the party platform for well over thirty five years so I am quite aware of what is in it at present and how it has evolved over the past 4 decades.

Sorry that you did not understand my post.

They don't hold most of the positions.

Go to That's My Congress. It's more of a three way split.

I think you know it untrue but by parroting the talking points you get a pat on the back.

You need to study up on the topic if you wish to discuss centrists issues. Because in fact those are

centrist positions by design and definition.

A quick primer below: (there is much more to know about the 30 year "Reaganization" effort against our party which is responsible for shifted us so far to the right of center regarding all but social issues, but a few key facts should get you started on understanding "Centrists" and how much damage has been done by them).

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.

The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats.

I was posting the current Third way positions, not all the positions within the tent, there are paleo-Democrats as well, but they weild little policy power, some in the party would like that to change, but not the centrists.

Blue Dogs have 19 seats, the New Democrats make up 60, and the Progressives make up 69. The Progressive Caucus has a lot of influence in the party.

Look at the scorecards for the House and Senate:

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/

http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/

These are the scores based on 1) cosponsership and 2) votes. Nothing, literally nothing else matters when you are looking at the liberalness of congress people. It is of note that Elizabeth Warren, DU hero, liberal populist extraordinaire, is no more liberal than third way Mark Udall.

Then you have GovTrak's view: http://ballotpedia.org/GovTrack%27s_Political_Spectrum_%26_Legislative_Leadership_ranking

They believe moderate Democratic leaders take up the lions share, and I believe that is accurate, because they have to work in a party that is factionalized into the equivalent of three different parties. How else do you manage a party like that?

There are good Democrats, but they wield little policy power, the blue dogs and centrists wield most of that, and that is simply a fact. I absolutely adore your wishful thinking and optimism (not sarcasm), but policy power is what matters, not technical numbers in non-leadership positions nor good intentions of a faction within the tent.

I believe more "non politician" progressive Democrats exist than Republican economic/social Liberal following ones do in our voting tent as well, but that has also not translated into policies that we try our damnedest to vote for.

Besides, most of this sub sub-thread of yours was a deflection of my post anyway which, as you may no longer recall, was a perspective of a Centrist Democrat given voice, and no matter how you try to change what it was by posting responses to other things besides what I actually posted, it remains honest and true.

OK?

I need to crash now, but it matters little as we will never agree that Centrists are not mirrored accurately by the voice I had given them, so productive discussion has reached it's end if it ever existed at all.

Many of them don't even vote with the party, so they're just DINOs, and irrelevant (except on policy issues we can grab a vote from them through pork bribery or whatever).

The New Democrats, then, must have a coalition with the progressives if anything is to get done. Ron Wyden, for example, is the most liberal congress person, and he was the one who got the waivers put in to the ACA so that states can move to single payer. Now if the New Democrats were these evil, anti-government, pro-corporate monsters that you portray, and if they wielded the power you claim they have, then they could've easily blocked Wyden's amendment.

But they don't have that power, and it's just demonstrably false to act as if they did. The platform, you act as if somehow the platform is not what the democrats in power support, but they were the ones who drafted and ratified it! So it must be something that they support.

I didn't deflect from your post, btw, your post is a completely silly caricature of some phantom that doesn't exist. The Democratic party doesn't require that all criticism be framed in this sort of neoliberal presentation that you define. There are many voices in the party and the progressive voice is the loudest and that will only be more true as the demographics of the nation change.

They're economic libertarians. That's a huge part of libertarianism.

I salute you Well done indeed.

loses elections for us when they stay home in massive numbers.

Bastards!

I think you've characterized the only responsible responses to their usurpation of our precious bodily fluids.

TWM can be too nice sometimes and he needs a wake up call.

I have memorized those points and I am now ready for Hilary.

Krugman: Hillary "bold and progressive", Obama "cautious and relatively orthodox"

and still seems fine with her:

I suppose that article means the Democrats are ready to begin using that horrid Keynesian model again, any day now, any day, but what would Goldman Sachs think? I hope she remembers who her true friends are and does not push for things like taxing corporations like we did 40 years ago, and shudder work programs to abate the un/under employment issue like FDR did during his depression, not doing that stuff has helped our true friends keep profits up and wages down. I also hope she doesn't raise the cap on SS, but rather does the sensible thing and finds a way to reduce payouts as much as possible like the adults think is the correct thing to do.

Your article has me frightened that she may not be far center/right enough for the usual Clinton fund raising model to work effectively.
My hope is that Krugman is simply preferring to endorse the lesser of two evils because he dislikes Republicans, that strategy has worked for us for thirty years now so I prefer to remain optimistic that that is what is at play here and the adults will win in the end.

... rooting out Paulbots, wherever they may be hiding.

..or support for elderly veterans (I know -- not going to happen - but go with me here). Can a broken clock be right twice per day?

Or elderly bank veterans.

Otherwise, of course not!

Regards,

TWM

Then support Hillary when she is the Democratic nominee for the GE. Because, anyone else is going to nominate SCOTUS Republicans and they are going to support whatever RW leg Islation that the Republican House...and maybe Senate majorities offer up. How fucking stupid are people here that don't get this simple fact of poltical life? Had Obama had overwhelming majorities of Democratic progressives in both Houses, would he be vetoing their bills? Only RW paid-for-posts would be making the case to destroy HRC on this board.

The critical question is not the outcomes that Rand claims to support, but the reasons for which he claims to supports them.

If you don't know, or pretend to not know, what his reasons are ... then your (self proclaimed?) place as a DU high priest of liberalism should be called into question.

But then again, it is August ... and outrage widgets don't just make themselves. And sadly, DU has become little without some manufactured outrage.

and the AC turned up a bit. And chocolate fudge....sovereign cure for Dementor exposure.

When he's POTUS and none of his "leftist" ideas come to fruition and he's nominating right-of-center jurists to replace Democrats, you can explain why this is good for the country.Because Hillary would be as bad as Bill...amirite?

They definitely cannot see that their philosophy is bankrupt.. or why it is bankrupt..

Rand will divide the shit out of the party. He's already working on liberals with his rhetoric of ending of the war on drugs.

We'll be forced to support a candidate who is pro-war and supports racist and unjust drug laws.

I don't want to jeopardize our advantage for Hillary's vanity project.

There were daily postings about Ron Paul here and, of course, there will be daily postings about Rand Paul here whether he chooses to run or not.

Have fun Libertarians, it's always fun to shut down their bullshit.

It's been obvious for a long time now, too.
Better believe it!

that I would expect from a Paul-bot.

Thank you for clarifying this issue, Third-Way Manny.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Hurtfull towards any Dem who is not a Clinton supporter. Uglyly labelling them as Rwers and siding all them with GOP.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 26, 2014, 07:36 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Better Believe It Manny's sarcastic attemps at satire are growing tiresome and transparent.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter needs to grow up. Clinton IS a corporate stooge.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This third way schtick is way to complain to about other Duers. Glad to have served. Vote to hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You don't have to be a Clinton supporter to be deeply offended by Manny's insistence on being a divisive influence on DU; just be a loyal Democrat/DU'er
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

You wouldn't happen to know what time the review *started*, or the time between your voting and the results (if you were a juror). I've heard a rumor of some shenanigans going on, that would be helpful info.

They should just put that in their signature line. We all see them use it so often.

Looks like the TOS has nothing to do with what gets alerted on these days.

Peace

It is that simple. If you are on this board, and agree with his reasons for being against military intervention, you are the furthest of the right wingers.

the nation in a state of war. (If we are already in a state of war because, e.g., we are invaded, then the President does not need authorization to wage war.) I have a published law review article on that topic and so have thought quite a bit about it. I also agree with some of his stated reasons for being antiwar. (I realize the new talking point is that all of his "real" for his good conclusions are evil.)

I would still argue that his reasoning for this is not because he is anti-war, but because that is the way it is written in the constitution. He is anti-war for other reasons, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with war. That is what I meant by thinker. It is not an anti-war position he takes by itself, it is an ideology that would leave many across the globe to suffer and die.

More than anything I meant that people hear he is anti-war and get all excited. When one delves deeper they find his reasoning to be extremely right wing and extremely flawed.

I still made a very broad brush statement that cannot be held up on its own. His reasoning for the topic you first mentioned is actually pretty clear in the constitution and over the past twenty years the constitution in that situation has been run over. My comment is not as absolute as I made it out to be.

I do agree with you that part of his rationale for being antiwar is his opposition to government helping people that are not citizens. I am deeply opposed to that Libertarian nonsense.

But that does not mean I want to buy a broken watch.