Once again, what are you doing to help fix the problems in this country? Maybe we can come up with some constructive ideas, rather than get boggled down in trivial, useless nitpicking of nonsense.
Hmmmm.... why not debate David's premise instead of turning the argument into a defense of David? What you're doing is called an ad hominem response, Marc.
To note some of the other posts, let's be clear that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler used the idea that the common working man was their cause, even though they used that idea simply to usurp power. The Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists all had massive labor-union support (as does Obama), going in. The idea that "fascists" were somehow "conservatives is a simple example of how history has been distorted in the telling. The "Fascist" symbol of a wheat sheaf was a symbol of labor-union power. At the time of their takeovers, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini were popular, the mainstream medias supported them, progressives supported them, and many in the U.S. (where socialism was the trendy thing to do and what many school/college professors favored) supported Hitler, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and Mussolini. One of the cute parts about the Obama campaign (IMO) was the prevalence of Obama portraits on campaign posters that were eerily reminiscent of Stalin and Mao posters (easy to research on Google).
BTW, immediately upon coming into office, Obama began to do the unions' bidding. On his second day in office, Obama signed an executive order to rescind one that required unions to post notices that union-members did not have to let their dues be used for political purposes. Here's a commentary on other things Obama has done for unions. Pretend it was Bush or some conservative... in no case would I allow any president of the U.S. to engage in this kind of behaviour; I'd be screaming. Notice the silence from the MSM and Obama supporters:
So David's comparison of school-children being taught to extol Obama is not really far off the mark. Probably you can find a way to acknowledge his point and then argue it without having to bring David personally into the argument?