What, am I now seen as the gadfly drunk? Everyone assumes that I posted under an influence? Umm...no.

My use of the term fascist refers to people voting and following someone based on a cult of personality rather than the facts on hand. Polls indicate that when asked on principle what the federal gov't should be doing the najority of Americans are knee-jerk against the level of government suddenly being imposed on us. So there's a schism there that indicates - to me - that folks love of Obama is not coupled with a knowledge of what he's trying to do. And that, in a nutshell, is the definition of a fascistic state.

As to the other issue: What I post here are my true thoughts, hysterical as they may seem sometimes. I don't edit myself because I'm comfortable with the community and I'm not trying to tone down or spin. I don't rant because I'm under an influence; it's because I believe I'm in a group I can rant to. And my posting hours are weird because...well...my hours are weird.


>Actually, I think the term fascists was referring not to those who disagree with his 'analysis' but those who voted for Obama. :o) I took John's post as a late night ranting and perhaps under the influence? The response though, was from someone completely sober (I think). Perhaps I'm wrong on both counts...
>
>I was commenting on a statement that didn't have any 'facts' but perported to be 'additional facts.' I really thought I missed a message somewhere. I had problems with the UT interface before and thought it returned...
>
>
>
>>How about Johns use of the word fascists to describe those who don't agree with his analysis. As I said the US right wing seems to be having trouble finding its feet and instead indulging in inflammatory rhetoric.
>>
>>
>>
>>s>I must've missed something. I didn't see any 'facts' you posted that would bring the discussion into 'balance.' I only saw posts deriding the original post in general:
>>>
>>>People who write this kind of stuff are automatically added to my "no reason to waste my time on this guy" list.
>>>
>>>I wonder if my UT is not displaying all messages again (it's done that before)...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Only when I feel that nobody else write something to get the discussion "into balance", so to say. In that case I sometimes adds a few facts, but I don't feel the urge to get more involved than that.
>>>>
>>>>>But you keep commenting Tore ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have met John many times, and know that he's a good guy. But a good guy can have POVs which are quite different from mine. And as I wrote, I don't waste my time discussing these matters with them. That doesn't mean that I don't respect them or like them. It's just that I let them speak out without making any public comments myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John's a good guy and generally worth listening to. He was just a little fired up there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People who write this kind of stuff are automatically added to my "no reason to waste my time on this guy" list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What it has to do with VFP? There's Chatter forum on UT for sh*t like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Did anyone watch Obama's address to Congress?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>OK, now this dude had moved into the category of outright liar. No earmarks? Hahahahah....the average American will burp, pull the tab on a new beer, and move on. But the truth is that the latest spending bill has between $4 Bn and $8 Bn in earmarks depending the interpreter,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Now they're pushing through a bill to give the District of Columbia voting representatives. Seems fair, right? But it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, The only way legally to do this is through a Constitutional Amendment. But, golly gee, that would be inconvenient to Congress do we'll just overlook that aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All you idiots who voted for this guy without knowing what he realy stood for and are singing his praises still are clueless or ... I dunno ... fascists. He's boiling the frogs, folks. If you don't know the analogy look it up.