haha. exactly! Although, I don't know who Richard Griffiths is.

how about "republican?"

Understood. But "conservatives" who are voting for Obama are rejecting the policies of the last 8 years. Additionally any socialist worth the ideas in his brain would have great difficulty with what's happened in the last months. The "Bailout" and its ramifications are anything but socialist; protecting the stock market and banks with money taken from working people may make sense in the macro-economics of neo-liberalism, but is anathema to a socialist. Government "interference" in "private enterprise" is not by definition socialism.

I still think Fascism wins. To me, there are other terms far more "ambiguous" and derogatory than Republican--socialist, for one.

EDIT: see comment above this one.

While Hegel is thoroughly correct, Merriam-Webster's definition does fit quite a few Bush-Cheney actions fairly well



Though really it's not very COMPETENT fascism.

although this portion of the definition is a bit vague, or at least under-developed, I am thinking this instance of "fascism" crosses American party lines.

"Socialist" "terrorist" "liberal" are all used much more in today's discourse and with at least the degree of ambiguity you ascribe to the use of fascist (in my opinion, much more fuzzy... "liberal" has been used to negate a person or idea in much the same way that "communist" used to be used). "Fascist" is almost quaint, old school... it's rarely used. What the Bushies have done in the last 8 years from trashing habeas corpus to the signing statements claiming executive authority over legislative are all clinical examples of fascism... too bad the term hasn't been used and understood more.

Yeah, I was being facetious. I may not like Cheney, but he's more single-minded and dismissive of others than fascist.

anyone who compares anyone to hitler should be gassed

Calling someone a socialist as a means of deriding another's beliefs, to me, instantly takes the wind out of the sails of the speaker. It's a term that is so obviously rooted in rhetoric with no real basis in those instances that it holds less of a "threat", so to speak; whereas, Fascist, to me, comes across a bit more "real" if not just because a majority of people don't really know what Fascism is or was. A lot of people probably think it means ascribing to the wholesale genocide of Jews or something similar.

I'd argue that, Liberal is used by the "right" in the same way Right-wing/Conservative is used by the "left", at least in common American political "discussions". I agree with your assessment of its intent in those situations though--i just think it's is a two-way street. "Liberals" ain't the victim any more than they are the perpetrator. Liberal may be equated to communist, but conservative or right wing seems to be used to suggest ideologies similar to the Inquisition.

Personally, I only use the term terrorist when referring to my friends of middle-eastern descent.

Whatever you say, Himmler.

In other fallout news, I just heard that one of my wives big republican friends is starting to lean away from McCain. It has become my wife's goal to sway her vote. I attribute her being on the fence to their redneck neighbor who is a card carrying member of the NRA who told her, "there ain't going to be no n****r in the white house"

Understood, i reject the last eight years as well but I was talking about the message a vote for Obama sends. If you are a fiscal conservative who normally votes for Republicans and you vote for Obama you send a very ambiguous message.

To the extent that its a protest against repubs' move away from fiscal conservativism/libertarianism toward big government conservatism that message probably gets lost. Voting libertarian, for a write-in, or leaving the presidential vote blank sends a stronger message. I know some argue we have a two party system and that its throwing away your vote not to pick the lesser of the two evils. I couldn't disagree more. You don't need to make the good the enemy of the perfect but if you really don't like the direction either party is heading, you should send that message. Your vote is much more likely to be heard that way than as one of millions that chooses one of the two main candidates in an election that isn't close enough to make an individual lesser of two evil vote meaningful.

That's why I got my blog, billy. The world is reading my message at www.nobodygivesafuckwhatithinkandimamas ... k.blogspot. 10 more hits and I reach a hundred.

if ol bobbo links you up at each of his blogs and you get just one click through from each of his demographics you're there.

I'm hitting the masses when I get linked on Tubanserpent

purple monkey dishwasher

Dayum!

Sadly, I think there's actually some hesitance on the part of a lot of traditional republicans to support Obama for fear of being beat up by their passionate, red neck neighbor. If they do change their vote, they do so quietly.

Obama should not spend another dollar or second of energy trying to sway any remaining undecided voters. At this point, the entire focus of the last two weeks of his campaign needs to be hammering home the point to his supporters that they absolutely must ignore what the polls say and vote as if he were actually trailing by double digits.

The BeeOK's of the world are the sole remaining obstacle to an Obama presidency. Nothing McCain and his campaign says or does is of any consequence anymore.

Wise words indeed. Barring the video of BHO smoking crack or the atomic destruction of Philadelphia by terrorists during the World Series, it's all about getting out the votes. I am (mildly) comforted to know that the Obama campaign has a highly organized plan... and (not the first to observe this...) the long primary campaign was great opportunity to develop the ground game. Internal stuff I am getting from Obama campaign is all about getting out the right voters.

I think they pretty much realize this, as this is the gist of the emails from the Obama campaign that I've been getting every day for the past week.

Still +3 from DC!