>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.

I feel tempted to say that you more or less call USA a fascist state, but I am sure that's not what you mean. As I see it, most Americans judge the politicians in general, and especially the president candidates before the elections, more on their look and apperance, and on their family. What they really say and stand for, comes second. In a perfect world no politician should be allowed to appear before the public, they should only be heard.

>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.