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.
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"...
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.
The Obama administration themselves!
I think they meant Dean-omize. Turn Tor users into Deans of well respected Universities/Colleges, probably to help increase the adoptomization and respectomization of Tor.
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.
Black Hat Researchers Actively Trying to Demonize Tor Users
Then I thought it was perhaps
Black Hat Researchers Actively Trying to Deamonize Tor Users
Before I figured out they meant
If you think the Commie Manifesto so important, you might offer a series of JEs highlighting key excerpts
I'm quite sure you could find other peoples' analyses of the Manifesto if you want. You have made a habit of not reading what I write here anyways so I see no purpose in making a series of JEs on the text.
Dare to educate, man.
I cannot force you to take in information. You are free to celebrate your ignorance if you so wish.
Anyone have other theories why this number is so much higher than the 5% of people who are just "late"?
The insurance industry - who received the greatest corporate handout in the form of the "health care bill" in 2010 in the history of the world - has an exceptional racket here. They have the ability to not only delay payments in "processing" for so long that they automatically go to collections by the time they decide not to pay, they can also undo payments after the fact for any reason.
Don't believe me? I had exactly that happen to me when I was a college student. The insurance I had (through my parents) decided over a month after paying my doctor's office that they wanted to un-pay it, so they did. By the time they took their money back the debt was considered overdue (relative to the date of service). I knew nothing of this until I started getting debt collections calls from various bad actors at 3am under assumed celebrity names. They threatened to garnish everything imaginable and impound my measly car (which was not worth anywhere near the debt) to seek payment.
I eventually got through to the insurance company directly and got them to go back and re-pay the un-paid bills. They never apologized for their little experiment or gave a reason why they chose me. Even better I had to promise to never, ever, use that insurance policy again in exchange.
Thanks a lot blue cross-blue shield. I hope your CEOs enjoyed the additional cruise amenities that they got in reward for destroying my credit.
This is why the genius of the U.S. Constitution is to assert outright that people are evil
Excepting that whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit, of course.
Did you really just say that?
I did, because you want to discard the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty - as well as protection from double jeopardy and other basic rights extended to the accused in the criminal justice system in this country - when the accused is someone who has the dreaded letter D after their name. I figured your bit about "people are evil" was rooted in the mythology that you like to arbitrarily substitute in place of the law here in the US.
I should think it hardly necessary to explain that the theological understanding that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" is orthogonal to the legal notion of innocence until guilt is proven.
Your insistence on a one-dimensional continuum of "good" and "evil" is as logical as claiming the world to be flat.
You're such an idiot.
Your political spectrum actually is better represented as a monopole, really. You only have people who you see as "good" (republicans) and those who you see as evil (everyone else). You don't even bother looking at what they actually believe in, only who they associate with. The obsolete one-dimensional political spectrum at least sorts on some sort of continuum, yours is binary.
If you go back and actually read the comments you'll see I never accused you of directly calling for assassination but rather pointed out that once you remove all protections of the law that are intended to protect everyone you should be aware of the likely outcome.
You trolled, and I called you on it.
i would like to say that suggests that you actually went back and read the comments (which would be the first time you did so in their entirety) and found that indeed I did not accuse you of directly calling for the assassination of President Lawnchair. However your history of behavior gives me reason to expect that you would not be willing to lower yourself to such an act, as learning is below you when it involves facts that do not support your world view.
Sorry if that hurts your pride.
So says the person bursting at the seams with pride over his selective illiteracy... But no, you have not hurt my "pride".
What's to know about Communism?
Well you could start by actually reading The Communist Manifesto, which spells out exactly what Marx wanted to accomplish with communism, and how.
Marx preached "the Kingdom of God, hold the God"
I'm not sure how, or why, you come to that conclusion. Just because you like to repeat it doesn't mean it is somehow connected to reality, though.
and Soviet Communism was essentially Naziism without such an overt anti-Semitic streak
More importantly neither were communism or socialism.
Any centralized, planned economy is a policy of failure.
You really don't have enough data to support that hypothesis.
And no, I'm not going to read every brain-dead reference you proffer
I have been consistently asking you to read just one piece of literature. It isn't even a long document, and it is available free from a large number of sources. You have repeatedly not only refused to read it but bragged about refusing to read it - while simultaneously claiming to be knowledgeable on it.
lest I join you.
It would certainly be terrible if you were to actually be knowledgeable on the topics you are trying to lecture me on.
the Tea Party is more accurately attacked for naivetÃ© than anything else.
If you mean in regards to the actual effects that their spoon-fed ideals would have on >>99% of the country's population (including most of the people who have been duped into supporting the Tea Party) then I would agree with you.