OK

No, and I gave you a fully rational explanation that, for all I harbor precisely 0 respect for BHO, the overarching concern is to restore the rule of law, not further debase it by answering Obama evil with Obama evil. Perhaps you've forgotten that, or aren't interested in rational discourse.

You can characterize behavior as cowardly, e.g. letting me under fire die. See "Saving Private Ryan".

By what unpartisan source, pray?

I think you misread my wholly sarcastic lifting of Jessup.

You really cannot procreate via sodomy. I'm not sure how you find this undeniable fact an object of fear any more than, say, sunrise.

So Greenspan rightly pointed out that inflation means the top 1% from the '20s would be in poverty now if their wealth hadn't been subjected to inflation.

Yeah. So what has that got to do with ANYTHING?

I suppose because Segway the first fairly successful version, no one else can make one? I seem to recall that the idea here of Mac clones were touted as perfectly acceptable, but of course Apple is Evil.

The most likely scenario is suicide. It's hard to imagine, but it's happened twice- SilkAir Flight 185 and EgyptAir 990. I don't think there is one case of someone stealing a commercial aircraft, just because there's no way to sell it. It's not a Honda Accord you can sell for cash or strip for parts; it's now the most famous plane in the world and you'll have as much success selling it as you would have selling a stolen Mona Lisa. And the parts have serial numbers.

No other scenario make sense. If the plane was hijacked for a terrorist plot, it should have turned up. Plots like 9/11 rely on the element of surprise, so you need to strike as quickly as possible, instead of giving the authorities an entire week to track you down. Similarly, if the plane and passengers were taken hostage, this would have been announced by now. If your hostage-takers are politically motivated, parading hostages on TV advances their cause; if they're just after money, they need to open negotations. Either way, we should have heard .

It all points to pilot suicide. That raises the question of why the pilot would fly on for hours instead of just nosediving into the ocean, but by definition pilot suicide isn't the act of a rational mind. It suggests not a desire to end one's own suffering but to inflict suffering on others and a complete disregard for human life- in other words, a sociopathic mindset. Eric Harris- the sociopath behind the Columbine killers- comes to mind here. He wanted to end his own life but also to take as many people as possible with him, and get as much attention as possible in it. Some careers attract this kind of person- lawyers, CEOs and surgeons are often sociopaths- and being a pilot may be one of those. You probably find that flying induces anxiety, now imagine that you not only have to worry about the anxiety of flying, but have to actually take responsibility for the safety of the airplane itself and several hundred lives... most normal people wouldn't enjoy that. Sociopaths have no anxiety, and actively enjoy control over and manipulating other people, personality characteristics that would make them a natural for the job.

And herein lies the rub: I'm no more responsible for, say the Roman Church than you are for the U.S.S.R., for all the Commies were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
And you can hate the meaning of life as much as I hate anyone trying to enshrine the state as God in any way.

Bwahahaha. I halfway think you believe yourself.

I get it! You consider counterfactuals to be "proof". It's all so clear now.

I'm fully aware that I'm contending with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_cat and you're going to substitute verbal evasion for rational argument.

That has to win some kind of award for perverse, left-handed logic. You appear to be saying that cowardice is the new courage. No, he's the President, and this is his dirty diaper. He owns this legacy, picked lock, corrupted stock, and perforated barrel.

I have? Can you help me pinpoint precisely where, so I can offer a apology in detail?

Look, my wife did a Master's program in public health. Can we agree that the marketplace for healthcare in the U.S. is screwed up beyond all recognition? It's all coming to a climax. I can venture that, while ObamaCare is a river of lies, and has been as false as the Democrats that passed it, there is a chance of recovery, after the destruction. Just as long as we don't double down on dumb and go for Single Prayer. That idiocy has failed badly enough in the UK.

So you both assert that I am less than forthright in a quest for a proper impeachment, which, who knows, could exhonerate Obama? What if it showed "not one smidgen" of cowardice, inattention to duty, or disregard for subordinates? I guess I'm missing the point here: why aren't we getting the story out there, and celebrating this paragon of leadership righteousness?

Can we be perfectly clear and agree that "Socialism", like "Fascism" has so much mud in the water that we can come up with copious examples that are both "correct" and contradictory?
I am comfortable that you are intellectually incapable of permitting yourself to be pinned down on any definition that is less than positive, irrespective of facts or history.
You own the negative examples of Socialism to the extent that I own Westboro Baptist Church.
Can we agree there?

I mean, after all of your effort to re-brand Obama as a conservative, you have the laughable gall to bemoan my calling this tripe "Socialism"? Do you ever listen to your absurd self, ever?