The other Awards Obama will will this year...

[Jester]

No. The march on Rome was a quasi-paramilitary "brown shirt" group of about 20,000 people. We frequently have millions march on Washington DC, without anyone even changing their mind, let alone cede power. Italy became a totalitarian state with out a bloody coup or revolution. Rather, Victor Emanuel decided the Mussolini government wouldn't be that bad

Tens of thousands of Fascist paramilitaries seized key positions around Italy, and then marched on Rome, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister in favour of Mussolini. Victor Emmanuel didn't just up and decide one day that this Mussolini chap should rule - he gave in to fascism after what amounts to a complete overthrow of the existing government, preferring Fascism to a civil war. But that was the threat, and it was perfectly credible. Mussolini took over with the threat of force - and it has sweet tweet in common with legal, non-violent protests in Washington DC.

Nope. North Korea became a totalitarian state without a revolution or bloody coup. Kim Il Sung was given the leadership in the wake of a power vacuum left by the Japanese. He didn't take power, he was given it by the Soviets. But, ok, yes, a war did create the vacuum. But, then again, any political crisis will do, such as planes flying into buildings.

Are you just reflexively disagreeing with me? You say "nope," and then proceed to repeat exactly what I said: He took power during a war, supported by the Red Army. QED.

Nope. Germany became a totalitarian state. Although, one might argue it took the beer hall putsch and the night of the long knives to intimidate the opposition enough to stand down.

???

What does this have to do with Germany pre WWI? The Beer Hall Putsch was in 1923...

The American political system has blended itself into a quasi-socialist pablum, whether you are talking about Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snow, John McCain, or George Bush. They have all gone to the politically expedient position of raiding the future to toss money at the electorate in an ever expanding array of social spending and expeditionary wars we cannot afford.

How on earth is it that you have somehow wrapped George Bush's wars into the rubric of "quasi-socialist pablum"? Does this actually seem sensible in your head? Because from where I stand, it's like saying "Napoleonic pacifism" - contradictory nonsense.

Yes, for example the "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" ordered Humana to stop scaring its customers when they sent out a mailing that stated that if health care reform legislation as currently drafted, goes through, the Medicare Advantage program may be eliminated. Nope, we can have Humana warning its customers about the negative effects of legislation.

You can if they're imitating official documentation and possibly using public funds to further their own propaganda. That's well within the government's purview to regulate, and not censorship. Companies can bitch and moan, but not on the public dollar, and not while (pretending to be) acting in the public interest. That what they were saying is also dubious at best is also interesting, but beside the point. (Also rather amusing that the attack on public health care is that it might reduce their much-valued public health care. Socialism is wrong, unless it's the kind that benefits you personally! In which case it's great, but somehow not socialism!)

Whether these allegations turn out to be true or not, the investigation will presumably tell us - I have no idea. But that's the concept, using public funds and quasi-public mailings inappropriately. Not that there is any lack of media scaring seniors about health care reform. I hear there's a channel that pretty much broadcasts that kind of stuff 24/7, and that a huge chunk of its viewership is elderly...

(Oh, and as for Astroturfing your butt, here's a great example - insurance megacorporation intentionally stirs up outrage based on bogus claims to protect its own profit margins.)

Maybe you haven't heard about Sen. Rockefeller's bill S.773, which among other items gives the government emergency powers to disconnect private companies from the internet.

No, I haven't. Apparently the idea is to bolster America's defences against the possibility of cyber-terrorism or computer warfare? I'm pretty sure the President already has those emergency powers, so probably such a bill is unnecessary. But while you may find this ominous (I can't say I like it) it certainly isn't an example of the President shutting down, censoring, bullying, threatening, or any of the other things you're implying. It isn't even a law yet, let alone a used power, let further alone an abused one.

But, of course, if you've got a particular Idea of Obama, I'm sure it all fits perfectly with his creeping-socialism-totalitarianism-takeover-scheme.

Maybe you didn't know that Anita Dunn has come right out and announced that with regards to the Fox News network, the White house plans "to treat them the way we would treat an opponent". So what does that mean? Do you want to be an "opponent" of the executive of the most powerful government on the planet? Seems petty to me. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch will suddenly die in mysterious circumstances. Eric Holder an avowed champion of internet censorship, hasn't moved on anything yet, the government seems to have other fish to fry.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/a...u_n_316691.html

And, of course, for the umpteenth time, I find that your link describes something totally different from what you're suggesting.

THIS is what the Obama administration is saying about Fox News:

"Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again... when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition."

His *ideological* opponents. Not enemies of the USA. He's treating them (rightly) as the propaganda arm of his political opponents - not as public enemies to be assassinated.

He is still about a hundred times more open with the press generally than Bush ever was. He just isn't interested in dealing *neutrally* with a "press" organization that doesn't return the favour. With Fox, it's shields up, which is the only reasonable way to respond to a network overtly hostile to every aspect of his presidency since long before day 1. But, "uniter" that he is, he hasn't even said he'll stop talking to them, let alone that they'll suffer any consequences. That's not even close to censorship.

I could go on and on...

Can and do.

But, you get the idea. The Obama administration has made it clear that if you f**k with them, they will f**k with you. It's the Chicago way.

They really haven't. Honestly, you're just taking stuff way out of context, adding ominous scare quotes to totally innocuous non-events, blowing things far out of proportion, and reading your own bias into everything Obama says or does. I'd argue against something more specific, but there isn't anything - just a bunch of rightist paranoia, the latest Drudge nonsense, the latest manufactured outrage, all packaged together in the old 2008 anti-Obama campaign meme of "He's from Chicago, therefore he's basically Al Capone." It's old hat, it doesn't match reality, and it's paranoid.

-Jester