Your "evidence" is comically non evidential. Because the Obama Administration has not launched the Great Socialist Totalitarian Takeover (GSTT for short) that you have been paranoid of since (at least) September of 2008, you are now claiming that it is around the corner. When should we then expect this event - that you have no logical reason to anticipate - to occur, then? Will they launch it in January 2017?

The first four years of the Obama Administration were the same as the four years that came right before them. Years 5 and 6 haven't changed anything from those either. Yet you continue to insist that the GSTT is coming this afternoon.

I have given you references in the past, and you have refused to even look at them. You then give links to conservative blog posts and get angry at me when I question their rigor.

That, however, is not the biggest problem by a long shot. When you make a claim about how you are 1000% convinced that the Lawnchair Administration is going to make an 11th-hour clandestine move to bring about a totalitarian socialist nightmare, I ask why and you say "just because". Then when I point out that your argument is not in any way supported by reality, you demand that I disprove it. That burden of proof logical fallacy is, at the very least, absurd.

How? I've noticed you have been grabbing more random phrases from the Ron Paul / Ayn Rand bag of dogma; I would hope you would be wise enough not to drink their kool-aid.

This has not been a change in course in that dept.

If only that phrase actually meant something; then I could respond to it.

More or less, yes. The Lawnchair Administration has been nothing but a continuation of the previous administration, which was an amplified version of three administrations prior to it.

We're almost making progress here...

How can you call them "Progressive" when they haven't done or changed anything? All they have done is continued on the same right wing trajectory of Reagan and his legion. The only thing missing from the Lawnchair Administration are the cowboy hats.

There is no shortage of things that have gone wrong during the Lawnchair Administration, with the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 as the capstone of how little has been accomplished (in comparison to what was described in campaign promises) and how deeply conservative their actions will be remembered to be. However you look at every action as part of some great conspiracy theory intending to bring us towards some extreme socialist hellhole, in spite of their being no evidence whatsoever to support that idea. On top of that you then also grab on to all kinds of silly secondary labels in the apparent hope that you can bring down the administration through baseless insults alone - even if the insults are contradictory to your claims of the aspirations of the administration.

That is a strange statement coming from you, considering how certain you are of the validity of your conspiracy theories against the president which you have no facts to support.

It would also be strange to see you describe my statements that way considering the facts of who is on the payroll of the insurance industry, but you don't like facts much when it comes to politics, so in this way that statement is very much in line with your standard M.O.

The question is only whether or not a President McCain would have wanted anything called health care reform. He may have discarded entirely any discussion of it as not being sufficiently "maverick-y" or under similar bullshit. However if he had wanted "health care reform", the same crappy bill would have passed the house and senate (regardless of partisan composition of the two) and he would have signed it.

For that matter had it made it to voting in either chamber, with any chance of not being signed in the white house, you would have seen your GOP friends happily and magically becoming "nonpartisan" and voting in favor of it to override the veto. The fiscal strength of the insurance industry would assure that.

You aren't trying to pretend that their spending ended there, are you? It is well known that the insurance industry owns politicians from both sides of the aisle. This same bill would have come about had a President McCain said he wanted health care reform.

Wait, are you referring to the massive handout they already got in 2010, or are they asking for a bailout after their handout?

• Hillary Clinton
• Racist
• Benghazi

C'mon smitty, bring it on home. Wrap 'em all together into one nice package and tell us how this is the cherry on top.

You say that as if you could support it, yet so far you have been wholly unable to.

That is a strange way to say "because I believe it to be such".

You pretending that the Tea Party is anything more than an only-slightly-more radical and slightly-less-informed - and somewhat-differently-funded - branch of the GOP is ... amusing.

So if enough people vote against their own interests in the 2014 elections, we can then spend millions (if not billions) of dollars on an impeachment that has no chance of removing the POTUS? That should about do it for a good long time for the conservative movement, right there.

It appears you are trying to make a case that you read some small part of my comment. Would you like a biscuit or a bone in reward?