>>For the final time, I don't call Obama a Fascist or a Socialist.
But you do complain that the horrid Dems are demonising the Republicans for the current situation. As opposed to calling Obama a Fascist? The horror, the horror.
>> (If you'd like an irreverent answer, I don't think Obama is even smart enough to be a "good" socialist).
Why would you think that? He has more degrees than you, is more successful in financial terms, and made it to President of the United States without inherited wealth to smooth the way. And he's not a WASP. Not a bad effort.
>>What I have said and will continue to say - consistently - is that the "ominous parallels" between the two are alarming.
The "ominous" parallels are selected to justify being alarmed. Equally you could draw parallels to Mohommed, Goebbels, Christ, JFK or whoever else has characteristics you want to connect to your target. Doesn't make it valid. As I keep saying, specifics without invective are what makes an argument. The rest is polemic.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
