Again, you say "whatsoever"
I say whatsoever because so far you have provided no evidence whatsoever that is worthy of the execution you are calling for. You are calling for the removal of the POTUS, that is abundantly clear. You have more often than not given zero regard for an actual hearing, trial, or any form of impeachment; indicating you are OK with a violent removal. Being as you have no case against him, it would be reasonable to assume that you are OK with such an act, otherwise you would have indicated from the beginning that a trial is warranted.
You are entitled to hate the POTUS for whatever reason you choose. You have a constitutional right to speak your mind, even when you have no facts whatsoever to back up your conspiracy theories. Similarly I am not obligated in any way to sit still and watch you spout out volumes of fact-free hyper-partisan nonsense. Believe it or not (and I highly doubt you would) you could actually convince me that something is wrong in the situation, if you would be willing to share anything resembling evidence of such dark actions. Yet you instead choose - repeatedly - not to share any evidence. The only reasonable conclusion from your repeated refusal is that you have no evidence to support your claims and wishes.
As with any personality (Reagan, Palin, Cruz, Bush) I'm ambivalent on Paul.
Your opinion of him doesn't matter, and neither does mine. The Lord Dr. St. Dr. Rev. Dr. Fr. Dr. Ron Dr. Paul Dr. Dr. Dr. is the most powerful cult leader this country has seen in at least the past 100 years. He has an army of people who are literally willing to die for him. His policies don't matter, only the devotion of his followers. It is truly astonishing how many people support him in spite of the fact that his policies would make their lives far worse (for example I've seen a number of students at state-run medical schools supporting him, even though in his dream economy they would never have been able to go to med school).
His strong suit was economics.
Except that his entire economic policy was truly centered around lowering his own taxes. He didn't even pretend to give a shit what it would do to other peoples' taxes. He proposed several ideas that would have been disastrous to the vast overwhelming majority of Americans in the interest of making things more comfortable for the very top echelon.
So you just label anything you don't like a "conspiracy theory" and just gaff it of
No. Not even close. I label things as conspiracy theory when you insist they are earth-shattering despite having no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.
As I said before, you are calling for the removal of the POTUS. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for your argument in favor of removal and your evidence has not yet extended beyond the (D) after his name. If you had an argument that was based on more than that, I would not label it as a conspiracy theory.
Way to bring the intellectual honesty, boss.
You have brought neither intellect nor honesty with your arguments thus far. A statement of "the POTUS is an evil, evil, evil, evil democrat!" is not sufficient for impeachment. When you pretend that there is more to your argument than that, you are the one being dishonest. Hell the article I linked to in this JE actually has factual findings from Benghazi, yet you insist that removal needs to go forward regardless of facts.
I've already considered that Google and other Web 2.0 have done this for years, since they will give you realtime results as you type.
I'm less concerned about what I type than clicking a link that contains questionable queries and then searches with my identity. There's a million ways to make it look like someone likes something they don't.
what are "paullowers"?
Followers of Lord St. Rev. Dr. Ron Paul. They are, of course, legion on slashdot.
Don't pretend that you are actually interested in seeing facts come forward if they don't support your agenda.
You're saying my quest for an honest, limited government with a balanced budget is a dishonest one?
Being as you have exhibited an interest in only the "truth" that supports your conspiracy theories, yes. Everything you have stated and promoted over your favorite conspiracy theories to date suggests that even if a multi-billion dollar outside investigation following guidelines set by tea party conservatives in the house completely exonerated Obama over Benghazi, you would still shout for him to be removed from office over the matter.
I just love the way you conflate the theological and the economic.
With libertarians (specifically paullowers) and tea partiers (specifically those closest to the Koch Bros [whether they realize it or not]) those are pretty well interchangeable terms.
We'll be having none of that traditional nonsense.
If a "proper" investigation failed to lead to the violent overthrow of the potus, you would be using that same phrase again in support of such an event occurring. Don't pretend that you are actually interested in seeing facts come forward if they don't support your agenda.