>>63971580
>You argued that he didn't argue for a total war economy (during war, implied)
Okay. So you take umbrage at something I didn't actually assert (that Senator Gary Hart would argue against more defense spending in the event of literal WW3), but vaguely feel I implied. But when Gary Hart explicitly argues for 100 billion dollars in defense spending cuts, you don't feel he was "really" arguing for 100 billion dollars in defense cuts. Is that about the sum of it?

>>149632520