You rolled several of your favorites together in that one, but you missed a few:

• 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?

This must have been discovered by a Benz mechanic. Soda cans are far too proletariat for S-class owners.

Shouldn't there be something along the lines of

it hasn't taken much more than a text message to get inside Paris Hilton for years

By now?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

... but yet you still support going for it. You still insist that there is a case for it.

... and there's the racist card being played again. It did take you a while to go for it, but not long enough for congratulations to be in order.

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.

ICANN's primary objective - at least for the last 10 or so years - has been profit maximization. They have done everything they can to help registrars make more money without concern for the long-term consequences of atrociously bad decisions (such as selling gTLDs).

I can't speak for programmers as I'm more on the sysadmin side of things but joined initially when I came across some really interesting articles on virtualization from their magazine. Then I started to get the magazine regularly and it was a horrible, horrible read. It's not designed for effective data transmission. It just felt like a way to allow fellow-nerds to get published. I'm able to gain more information from an issue of Wired than I was from an ACM mag. But that could just be me and my background. Their digital library, however, is a little easier to digest since you're only looking for specific things and was nice to have when writing academic papers. But again, if you're casually browsing - it's awful.

A pass for, or to do, what exactly? He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

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.

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).

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.

There is plenty of fundraising coming about on both sides with this. The point though is as much as the GOP loves to distort reality on a regular basis and has no qualms about lying to the public, this is an exceptionally blatant case of the latter. There is a long list of republicans who have been shouting for impeachment in DC for some time (some almost as long as you!) and now the orders passed down to them from above are to lie about ever demanding it, and to make that lie everywhere they possibly can.

This isn't like denying that they have made dozens of attempts in the house to repeal the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - at least with that they can cowardly hide behind the fact that some of their repeal attempts were partial rather than full - this is just an outright party-wide lie. It just happens to work for them because they have legions of donors who are dumb enough to either believe it or not mind it.

Of course, they aren't really trying to push through impeachment under the guise of improving "credibility"...

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.

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.

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*).

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.

Would anyone here doubt that a Mac Pro is a 'high end machine,' or that the posted specs for system noise don't make that "quiet?

One difference is obvious, you can go see, listen to, and buy a Mac Pro right now.

If instead you meant Dean-omize as in "turn them into Howard Dean", then in this crowd that would have the exact same effect as demonization.

The first time I saw the headline I thought it said

Then I thought it was perhaps

Before I figured out they meant