Thanks for the clarification :o) I watched a news program (don't remember which one) yesterday which more or less supported your statement without calling it fascism. According to a recent survey (it may have been Rasmussen), the majority of the populace is actually against what Obama is doing so far when they are questioned on specifics without any reference to him in the question. When asked about Obama and his policies though where his name is actually in the question, the majority support him. Interesting...



>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...

SNIP