You said "In reaction to Obama", whereas the meme being offered right now is Obama had nothing to do with Clark's comments.

Ummm, yea. What I said was "grasping at straws stage already in relation to Obama" As in his candidacy. Read much Bit?

Maybe you should find a blog with training wheels dude...

The trademark signature of a conspiracy theory - or nut case in the vernacular - is that somehow enormous effort, sophisticated collusion and precious resources are focused on a particularly trivial and inane result. It's hard to believe some random blogger weblog, which undoubtedly so far down the power curve as to be getting purely random hits, is the target of a ruthless campaign by a candidate for the president of the United States and one of the most highly valued corporations on the planet.

Amazing, their attention to details so tiny as to be imperceptible by the average cockroach and yet these juggernauts still leave Bithead's blog untouched!

101st Fighting Keyboarders, indeed.

Ask yourself; who would benefit?

Immediately, only the guy who actually did it. In the long term, only the right-wing conspiracy theorists. Unless you can somehow convince me that some guys I've never heard of, who were still using blogger.com, could be perceived as threat to Obama's campaign.

Hitler wasn't always violent, either. Nor Stalin.
Or had that point gotten by you?

There was another word in there that I used, combined with the conditional "or".

This is not a violent or authoritarian suppression of opposition, so even if you can satisfy #1 above, it still not the same.

Hitler wasn't always violent, either. Nor Stalin.
Or had that point gotten by you?

You don't even know who is doing this, let alone connect it to Obama's campaign

Ask yourself; who would benefit? Comon, quit dancing around the obvious.

Gee what have we been talking about.... Silencing opposition to the party, maybe?

1: You don't even know who is doing this, let alone connect it to Obama's campaign. 2: This is not a violent or authoritarian suppression of opposition, so even if you can satisfy #1 above, it still not the same.

That he did. And the claim was that Obam had no connection whatever. Remember?

And his actual working doesn't contradict that. McCain doing something "in relation to Obama" doesn't assume that any actions were taken by Obama, where as "in reaction to" would have.

Oh? Which tactics, exactly, are similar between Obama's campaign and the Nazi party?

Gee what have we been talking about.... Silencing opposition to the party, maybe?

Ac

tually he said "in relation to Obama". Be sure you're keeping up with his words before you criticize him for not doing so.

That he did. And the claim was that Obam had no connection whatever. Remember?

It's important to note that the "fairness doctrine" wasn't a blanket policy. It only applied to broadcasters that were making use of the public spectrum. Cable TV, for example, wouldn't have been subject to it. Talk radio, as they're using the public spectrum, would.

It's akin to obeying regulations when you enter a government owned park. It's sheer lunacy to say that this "violates the constitution". The government has the right to make reasonable requests in return for the use/lease of government property.

No.
You said "In reaction to Obama", whereas the meme being offered right now is Obama had nothing to do with Clark's comments.

Actually he said "in relation to Obama". Be sure you're keeping up with his words before you criticize him for not doing so.

Reference:

Actually, its a good sign that the GOP seems to be at the grasping at straws stage already in relation to Obama...

No, but it seems clear that anyone employing such tactics as we've seen Obama and his minions employ can be compared directly to nazis.

Oh? Which tactics, exactly, are similar between Obama's campaign and the Nazi party?

Fairness doctrine is a violation of the 1st amendment in my book - where does the constitution speak to equal rebuttal time?
...
I would label it rather crudely as the "censorship" doctrine.

So, allowing person A as much time to speak as person B is somehow violating person B's right of free speech? But not allowing person A as much time to speak as person B, that isn't violating person A's right to free speech? I'm confused. By what definition is giving guaranteed air-time to a person censorship?