Comment You missed a couple memes, there (Score 1) 8
- 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.
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 try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.
No no, the desperation is 100% on your end, I assure you.
You say that as if you could support it, yet so far you have been wholly unable to.
I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this.(that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors")
Strong correlation with consciousness during the previous 6 years, I suppose.
That is a strange way to say "because I believe it to be such".
So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".
Your continued desperation to attach ownership of the GOP to me is. .
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
The only numbers that are going to matter are the results of the November elections.
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.
What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.
Oh, OW! Oh, that hurts! Oh, the suffering! Imma go cry now.
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?
Go suck a dick faggot
I suspect he's ok with that (if not with the way you phrased it).
I've heard of lazy, but this takes the cake. Or maybe, in your case, has the cake delivered, not to your front door, but to your sofa.
An 'unboxing' is only half of the modern way of reporting on new hardware. The more interesting question in this case is "will it blend?"
A pass for, or to do, what exactly?
Um, to. .
You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.
He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...
So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?
The absurd analogy in your silly hashtag is absurd because you are trying to - by repetition and hand-waving alone - convince people that the two concepts are related. Now, if you wanted instead to make an argument that neither have been effective, you would have a case. However you have given plenty of reason to expect that is not the case you are trying to make.
So then are you done calling for impeachment?
As I was explaining to my dad during the daily call on the way home, the way politics works, you don't bring anything to a vote unless you know what the outcome will be.
Really? The GOP has brought to a vote in the house - by one mechanism or another - over 30 different attempts to kill off (in whole or in part) the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. If they knew that those weren't going to pass, then did they bring them to a vote intentionally to slow down what little congress was doing?
While, in a absolute sense, I don't doubt that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors"
I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this. I don't expect that you will share that information, but I would love to know it. So far you have presented a laundry list of conspiracy theories about the POTUS but not once have you presented anything resembling a fact that would support your ambitions to throw him out.
unless the public is convinced that the president should be removed from power
So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".
somehow expect the spineless GOP to locate some vertebrae
If the GOP are invertebrates, then the democrats are - at most structurally - pond scum. They haven't stood for much of anything as a party in over a decade.
I'm not sure, at that point, what difference impeachment is supposed to make
other than giving your girl the ultimate Race Card play.
I couldn't get the article to load
Google cache?
At least I clicked on it. Not my fault it didn't work. What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.
The voters gave [absurd analogy] a pass in 2012
A pass for, or to do, what exactly? He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...
Until such time as the voters give the GOP such a commanding majority that substantial action is possible, all the impeachment talk is just so much hormonal whinging.
So then are you done calling for impeachment? Even if both chambers are deep red as a result of this election, impeachment won't lead to removal before the end of Obama's term. A deep red house and senate could repeal the bailout - but they won't because their owners won't let them - and potentially pass veto-proof bills if the majority is great enough. But if their goal is to more (more) nothing, they don't need any chance in either chamber to pull that off; they've exceeded at nothing for years now.
Which is why the GOP prefers the sweet passive aggression of letting the IRS crush the Tea Parties.
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I suspect it is sarcasm, but as it is also utterly fact-free I'm not sure where it comes from (other than your usual collection of conspiracy theories).
To your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010" point, you may find this interesting.
I couldn't get the article to load, it appeared that your favorite website was too busy trying to do who-knows-what to my computer (good thing I don't run windows) with their scripting. Based on the headline it looks like there is at least one columnist there who has a vague clue as to what is going on and what the bill was all about.
Either way I do see my height as being advantageous if I should need to attempt to defend myself or my family with a bat at home.
You are rolling the dice with your life unnecessarily with that plan.
You're rolling the dice regardless. It matters not whether your plan is a phone, a bat, a gun, or something else entirely. Guns are not 100% effective; even if you regularly practice with your gun it can still jam or misfire. You just have to decide which level of risk is acceptable to you. I personally find a bat to be an acceptable trade off as the likelihood of it accidentally killing an innocent person in my home is quite nearly zero. You might apply a different calculus to the matter.
Also, the latest trend in criminal activity is to bring a buddy or two
There have been bands of criminals working together in the past as well. Even in the city closest to my home they are even more exceedingly rare than armed individuals breaking into homes - and the town where I live hasn't even had an unarmed robbery in a very very long time.
But I think you have to be above average in size, really, to look enough like you mean it with one
That is a possibility. I happen to be several inches above average in height myself; while I don't have enough mass to scare people just by size if I am holding something that could hurt I expect people will take notice (unless I'm being robbed by an exceptionally tall person*).
(I would need something more like this!)
Might be worth a try, as long as they don't think it's some kind of cosplay or BDSM toy.
*I don't have an explanation for why, but exceptionally tall people don't seem to partake in much criminal activity - at least according to the crime reports I read. The vast overwhelming majority of crime reports I see report suspects in the 5'7" - 6' range in height. Granted, that is where most of the population is height-wise in this area, but if criminal activity was distributed proportionally by height I should have seen some dwarves and some giants commit some acts by now but I haven't seen any yet. I don't know if it is that people outside the mid quartile in height distribution are aware that they are easier to pick out of a line-up, or if witnesses just aren't particularly good at describing height, or something else is at play here.
Either way I do see my height as being advantageous if I should need to attempt to defend myself or my family with a bat at home. If I were short I would likely consider a different approach.
Happiness is twin floppies.