Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Any one with a plural brain cell count knew this 137

Journal by smitty_one_each
Benghazi Emails Show Blaming Video Was Effort to Protect, Re-Elect Obama
The past certainly frozen, but there are lessons here that can still protect the future from the particular flavor of idiocy.
Plus, answering the Lefty sycophants in advance: Piss Off, ye slack-jawed dirtbags. You've done enough damage, have you not?

As usual, the Instapundit is highly astute:

I don't think anyone will impeach Obama because
(1) He's black, and impeaching the first black President is too fraught;
(2) Another impeachment so soon after Clinton might set a pattern; and
(3) President Biden.
But I was serious when I called for him to resign over the Nakoula arrest. It was a transparent case of political scapegoating and a complete abrogation of Presidential responsibility. In itself, it indicated an unfitness to serve, and subsequent revelations have merely underscored that fact. For the same reason, of course, I didn't expect him to resign.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Any one with a plural brain cell count knew this

Comments Filter:
  • Choosing to impeach - or not impeach - Obama is not about race. It also isn't about anyone with a last name of Clinton. It most certainly isn't about Biden, either - remember the last president pushed out of the white house left only after his VP left.

    The reason why Obama isn't being impeached over your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight ... one-thousand eight-hundred twenty-third favorite conspiracy theory is that there is not enough evidence to call an impeachment. An impeac
    • Choosing to impeach - or not impeach - Obama is not about race.

      Oh no. If Bush had been as careless, in, say 2007, they would have broken out the spikes and mallets and give Georgie his choice of tree upon which, metaphorically, to hang.
      Your 'lack of evidence' claim is far beyond specious [youtube.com], and you soil yourself to pretend not to see that, for example, Nakoula was thrown in jail in a purely shameful, banana-republic context. Keep sticking up for this idiocy--it make you look swell!

      • Choosing to impeach - or not impeach - Obama is not about race.

        Oh no. If Bush had been as careless

        What does Bush have to do with this? I thought you said that was the second standard play for the "progressives" - after playing the race card that you cannot show an example of being played the way you insist it is played so frequently - to play the "Bush card". You seem to be misreading your own cue cards.

        If Bush had been as careless, in, say 2007, they would have broken out the spikes and mallets and give Georgie his choice of tree upon which, metaphorically, to hang.

        Really? I'm quite sure that Bush's incompetence killed more than 4 Americans. In fact, over 600 times that many and still counting. Bush's incompetence also dismantled an economy that was successf

        • Nah, Bush, in all of his 8-year Chevy Chase impression, never had anything as mind-bendingly stupid as Benghazi go down. You know he didn't, and you know that the 2006 Democrat Congress would have utterly destroyed him if anything of similar magnitude had occurred on Bush's watch--it would've made ramming through the Progressive agenda far easier.
          But, hey: counterfactuals and $5 are a beverage at Starbucks.
          You keep defending the rodeo clown, and I'll keep laughing. It's as close as I can get to my money b
          • Stupidity is not impeachable. We know this and accepted it long ago. Neither is incompetence. You need to go way, way, WAY beyond those - and you have not - in order to bring something to the level of an impeachable offense.

            You keep defending the rodeo clown

            That only supports the notion that you actually realize that you have no evidence whatsoever of an impeachable offense having been committed by Obama. A clown does not have access to enough power to commit an impeachable offense .

            • by Arker (91948)
              The real problem is simply that Congress is as corrupt as the executive branch and has no will to reign them in.

              Obama has committed numerous impeachable offenses, as did his predecessor and his predecessor before him. For the murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (among many others) for instance. Or for repeatedly and intentionally violating Section 7008 of the U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Or repeatedly and intentionally violating the US Constitution, I:8, Amendment I, IV, VI, inter alia. Or any of
              • Well said.
                • I suspect you did not fully read the comment you just replied to, or you would likely not be praising it in that manner. Of course you've shown that you are often proud of your refusal to read things, so this would not be surprising.

                  Allow me to point out something important that you seem to have missed - he said that Obama has done the same things that Bush did, and for the same reasons that Bush was not impeached, he will not be impeached either. He is smart enough to realize that the situation is no
                  • Three points:
                    (1) I did read Arker's post.
                    (2) I don't dispute that there is substantial corruption overlap between all politicians in kind, if not degree (your girl has totally turned it up to 11)
                    (3) Your behavior resembles that of an absolute jerk. I hope that you're less tedious in person.
                    • You are the one who has included every reply today (at least, every reply you have written to me) an insult directed squarely at me (and sometimes at others as well). I'm not sure how you feel justified in calling me an "absolute jerk" or "tedious" when I am the one asking questions and you are the one hurling insults in reply.
                    • "(3) Your behavior resembles that of an absolute jerk. I hope that you're less tedious in person."
                    • 1. I asked you questions

                      2. You responded with insults

                      We have had meaningful discussions in the past. Why you are not interested in trying to have one any more is not at all clear.
                    • I stated what I think your behavior resembles, as one places a shoe in the middle of the room's floor.
                      Predictably, the shoe went into your mouth.
                    • He needs this: http://i60.tinypic.com/10ommip... [tinypic.com]
                    • If the shoe fits -- wear it, asshole.
                    • So very kind you are, friend. This is how you parody the loving attitude claimed by the conservative movement, right?
                    • I'm just pointing out a self-evident truth - that you, sir (I use that term loosely), due to your conduct on this website, are quite simply best described as an asshole.
                    • are quite simply best described as an asshole.

                      It is obviously far better to directly insult someone who you disagree with than to call them a racist, right? Is that the joke you are going for here, that the conservative movement is trying to accuse "the left" of overusing allegations of racism in order to try to get people to forget how often conservatives reach for silly insults when they realize that their arguments hold no water and have no factual support?

                    • I'm not making this point in the context of a political discussion.

                      Just pointing out that your pattern of on-line harassment makes you an asshole.

                      Don't like being called an asshole? Quit acting like one.
                    • I'm not making this point in the context of a political discussion.

                      Ordinarily I would agree that you are not making a point. However as you are a fake conservative I presume that you are actually trying to make a point about conservatives' inability to make a point on this matter; instead preferring to go to insults when questions on facts arise. In which case, you are making a great point about other people not making points (and hence I have to disagree with you).

                      your pattern of on-line harassment

                      On-line harassment? I would be interested in knowing where you feel this pattern comes from. I ask peop

                    • Thank you for proving my point completely, asshole.
                    • Ha! You're even more hilarious this week than usual!

                      Are you amping up the act in homage to Colbert's announcement of the pending retirement of his character? I don't think you're really comedy central material if you're hoping to fill his job upon his departure but you are amusing. When you follow me to discussion threads and start spouting nonsense, it does bring to mind the "creeper" walk that he's done behind peoples' backs (for comedic effect, of course!) in the past. Then you start discussions
                    • Please provide evidence to support your claims.
                    • You do make it slightly more difficult when you keep deleting your journal entries - your jokes were much better before.

                      But this entry of mine [slashdot.org] highlighted a few that you dropped in very rapid succession almost 5 years ago. Your writing has remained pretty much the same since then.
                    • Writings in your journal do not constitute evidence.

                      Please provide proof that I did not vote for Ted Cruz.

                      Please provide proof that I did not vote for the following candidates in the last 5 Presidential Elections:
                      2012: Romney/Ryan
                      2008: McCain/Palin
                      2004: Bush/Cheney
                      2000: Bush/Cheney
                      1996: Dole/Kemp

                      Due to being under 18 at the time, I was uneligible to vote in the 1992 Presidential Election, however I would have (erroneously, hindsight being what it is) voted for Ross Perot.

                      You remind me of a ch
                    • Writings in your journal do not constitute evidence.

                      The writings in my journal show that nobody could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe in the obviously contradictory things you have posted here. Why you chose to delete those obviously contradictory and silly things is not something you have shared publicly. The most reasonable conclusion is that you posted them to make a mockery of the conservatives here on slashdot, and you have done a fine job of that.

                      Please provide proof that I did not vote for

                      If you know anything about the voting system in this country you would know that neither o

                    • The writings in my journal show that nobody could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe in the obviously contradictory things you have posted here.

                      This is a lie, and you know this full well.

                      The rest of your rant is another shining example of the infantilism we've all come to expect from slashdot's version of Professor Edward Weston.
                    • Thank YOU! for providing proof that you are whack and a most gullible fool (Well, actually the both of you are). You're just voting for crazy democrats in a costume. *You'll dance to anything*

                    • The writings in my journal show that nobody could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe in the obviously contradictory things you have posted here.

                      This is a lie, and you know this full well.

                      No, it is not a lie. It is, however, an incomplete statement. I should have said that nobody could possibly be smart enough to write on slashdot and dumb enough to not notice the obvious contradictions in the statements you made in your journal entires.

                      I apologize for the lack of clarity, there. Go ahead and continue on with your regularly scheduled comedy routine now.

                    • More infantilism when caught in an obvious lie. Just as I expected from slashdot's Edward Weston.
                    • Oh, come on. You can do better humor than just imitating Pudge.
                    • More infantilism [slashdot.org]...

                    • Could you write a JE comparing me to this person I had not previously heard of? I'm not sure why you have such a poor opinion of a photographer [wikipedia.org].
                    • I prefer my fiction without an extra triple serving of god, thank you much. Next time when you are comparing me to someone you hate who happens to have a common name it might do you some good to mention which person of that name you are referring to.

                      Of course the vagueness might be part of your act at this point as well.
                    • And after that, you kept calling him only "Edward Weston". How was I supposed to know that the original reference was somehow significant? Just because I don't follow Christian fiction (well, that is, beyond the Bible itself of course) doesn't give you any rationale for claiming intellectual superiority.
                    • Because reading and comprehension are important, my dear boy.

                      Took you a long, long, time to get to that punch line, friend.

                    • Sure. Because if anyone has ever been a poster child for reading and comprehension, it would be you!
                    • You're getting a lot of use out of that word; too bad you aren't using it right. Of course that fits well with your usual act. Keep it going, friend, you keep my day from getting too boring!
                    • Well, that one, too. Nice catch, I should have said you were using two words incorrectly back there. I like that, though; a little faux conservative error correction. A novel idea!
                    • No, I just thought you would enjoy knowing that I still find you amusing. Not entirely as funny as you used to be (though you haven't been around as much lately as you were before, so you might just be a bit out of practice), but still amusing.
                    • That is exactly the appreciation I would expect your act to show to its #1 fan. Nobody stays in character quite like you!
                    • ... says the creepy gay obsessed stalker troll.

                      Nice choice going back to that, considering nearly every case from the past several weeks has started with you replying to a comment that I wrote in a discussion. That's a good way to go out with a bang, I suppose. I'll miss your act if you're going away again!

              • Obama should actually be impeached for many of the same reasons [washingtonsblog.com] that Bush should have been impeached, and it is extremely unlikely this will actually happen, for the same reasons Bush was not impeached.

                Actually, the big reason why neither of them - or for that matter hardly any other sitting president - have been impeached is that you need to show that the president knew their actions to be illegal and did them anyways. This is why the president has legal counsel in the white house, to confirm that their actions are legally valid under the restrictions of the presidency. Otherwise if every mistake is impeachable then the president is no longer allowed to make any mistakes at all - and is expected to be

                • by Arker (91948)
                  "Actually, the big reason why neither of them - or for that matter hardly any other sitting president - have been impeached is that you need to show that the president knew their actions to be illegal and did them anyways"

                  I do not see that requirement in my copy of the Constitution. Nor does it seem in any way unfair to expect the US President to be familiar with the US Constitution.

                  "This is why the president has legal counsel in the white house, to confirm that their actions are legally valid under the res
                  • "Actually, the big reason why neither of them - or for that matter hardly any other sitting president - have been impeached is that you need to show that the president knew their actions to be illegal and did them anyways"

                    I do not see that requirement in my copy of the Constitution. Nor does it seem in any way unfair to expect the US President to be familiar with the US Constitution.

                    If willful violation is not a requirement for impeachment, then there has never been a president in my lifetime who was not deserving of impeachment, and frankly I doubt anyone alive today can say any different.

                    Indeed if the criteria is set such that any offense - by the interpretation of anyone - can initiate impeachment, then our government would be in an endless cycle of impeachment trials. If your goal is to ensure that the government never passes another bill, this might be a good way to shoot for

                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Re: the 'willfull' issue let me just back that out a little for context. I think there IS an implicit understanding in the Constitution not just in regards to the President specifically but in the broader context of common law that one cannot be criminally culpable for something done unconsciously for instance. Not 'willfully' but at least 'knew or should have known.' The last part is important, because if we have a professor of constitutional law turned President who claims to have not known about e.g. the
                    • Very well said, both in fact, and for the purpose of mocking the pathetic arguments with which you are beset.
                    • We are routinely told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

                      That depends on the law or laws in question. Furthermore the laws that govern the reach of the executive branch are not nearly as direct as those that govern the rest of us.

                      The legal boundaries on the Presidents lawful powers are a matter of law, not of opinion. The idea that you can exempt yourself from the law by commissioning a flawed legal opinion is one that would be far more disastrous in general practice. There would be no point in passing any laws at all, if one can exempt oneself from the law simply by paying a lawyer to write an advisory opinion that says it's ok.

                      Just to clarify, here - you are not trying to make a case that the POTUS would simply find a new adviser if the one he had did not support his desires, are you? If you want to hold that cynical of a view of the executive branch you can, but I don't think you can support it factually any better than I could the contrary. If you have

                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "Furthermore the laws that govern the reach of the executive branch are not nearly as direct as those that govern the rest of us."

                      That is the practice. That is not the law. And it should not be.

                      When those who are sworn to uphold the law set themselves above it that is corruption, which you will recall I say is the underlying cause of this mess. Systemic corruption, mass, general corruption, not just any one individual, but affecting nearly all of our top officials and a large minority of society in general.
                    • If I'm Mark Steyn to d_r's Michael Mann, I'm less confident than I should be [spectator.org]:

                      But anyone who thinks that facts and the First Amendment trump all here is unfamiliar with the American legal system. Because the defendants' blogs are disseminated widely over the Internet, Mann was able to shop for a friendly jurisdiction. He launched his suit, unsurprisingly, in the District of Columbia, 90 percent of whose population votes Democratic, where jurors and judges are likely to be unsympathetic to conservatives (as the outrages against Scooter Libby and Ted Stevens demonstrated).
                      Steyn and National Review have moved to dismiss the case under anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statues intended to spare innocent defendants the substantial costs of discovery and other legal expenses. This is a standard response to frivolous and vexatious litigation. But the initial judge, Natalia Combs-Greene, rejected the anti-SLAPP action, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Her reasoning can only be described as tortuous: According to her, the defendants uttered statements that could be considered defamatory—specifically, they implied that Mann had engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. (As NR editor Rich Lowry wrote when Mann threatened to file suit, "In common polemical usage, 'fraudulent' doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.") The judge acknowledged that there was "slight" evidence of actual malice but said that it would be sufficient to "demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false."
                      At this point, Steyn took the tompions [thefreedictionary.com] out of his heavy-gage guns and bombarded the serried ranks of be-robed sacred cows on the American bench. Apart from appealing the decision (unsuccessfully), he impugned the judge's intelligence and pointed out factual errors in her judgment. It was a refreshingly robust response, doubly refreshing because of the free lunch the entire American judiciary has long enjoyed in the media and public opinion. While the president and Congress have been rightly chastised for their incompetence, and at times, their venality, the bench has soldiered unassailably on for decades, tacitly assumed by almost everyone to be condign and virtuous.

                      Read the whole thing. Conrad Black is borderline lyric in his lambasting of our decadent legal system.
                      And d_r's arguments, as usual, are a pile of bollocks.

                    • "Furthermore the laws that govern the reach of the executive branch are not nearly as direct as those that govern the rest of us."

                      That is the practice. That is not the law. And it should not be.

                      I hope that means that we would both like the laws to be more clear. However I know that I do not write the laws, and it is probably not too daring of an assumption for me to say that you likely don't, either.

                      Turkey and the US were working together to funnel arms from Libya to the Syrian jihadists.

                      Not once has Smitty or any other slashdot Benghazi conspiracy theorist mentioned such a thing. However, again, if this is the basis of the argument you still need to demonstrate both that Obama was directly involved in such a decision and that he knew it to be wrong if you want to use it to drive

                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "However I know that I do not write the laws, and it is probably not too daring of an assumption for me to say that you likely don't, either."

                      I am, however, capable of reading them.

                      "It would, of course, be very difficult to come up with a reason why the US government would intentionally deliver weapons to Al-Qaeda"

                      It's not hard to find at all actually. It's public knowledge. You really pay that little attention?

                      Even captive media like the NYT and the WSJ have acknowledged that Islamists in general, and Al Q
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      That was a really good read, thanks.
                    • Bolstering your point, Syria is backed by Russia; thus, the situation is a watered down Afghanistan of the 1980s, as we re-constitute the mujahideen, in a faltering, blundering sort of way. In a bizarre fashion, this nearly makes damn_registrars' stupid joke about Obama being "conservative" roughly half true, as BHO tries to crib from Reagan's playbook. But he does foreign policy like he does websites, it appears.
                    • "It would, of course, be very difficult to come up with a reason why the US government would intentionally deliver weapons to Al-Qaeda"

                      It's not hard to find at all actually. It's public knowledge.

                      One big problem you overlooked entirely here is that we are discussing a city in Libya called Benghazi. You just discussed Syria quite a bit but did not bother connecting it to Benghazi, which is Smitty's top (by post and JE count) conspiracy theory. The current Syrian uprising [wikipedia.org] began around March 2011. The event in Benghazi was September 11 of that same year. I don't recall the US providing any assets to the uprising in the 6 months between; if you have reason to believe that they did please state them

                    • by Arker (91948)

                      Since obviously you wont look it up no matter how many times I refer to it, I will give you a link: Seymour M. Hersh "The Red Line and the Rat Line" [lrb.co.uk]

                    • Smitty's conspiracy theory for Benghazi requires Obama to have access to a time machine. I'm not sure that yours is much better.

                      The article you quoted states that the Administration was interested in overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria. I don't see much reason to doubt that, honestly. However it doesn't show any evidence of them doing so before the beginning of the Syrian uprising. Being as the uprising began less than 6 months before the attacks on Benghazi - and the administration showed almost
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Yeah, the US establishment seems stuck in the cold war, not just Obama but DC in general, it almost seems like they willfully refuse to update their mental maps and just prefer to live in an eternal 70s twilight zone. This seems to be the only explanation possible for their actions in some cases.
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "Being as the uprising began less than 6 months before the attacks on Benghazi - and the administration showed almost no interest in Syria in that time frame - it is hard to explain how the weapons intended for the Syrians ended up in Benghazi in that little time."

                      I do not see any difficulty in the timeline. This starts in early 2012, the attack on the embassy is in September, there is plenty of time. The NYT (among others) have reported Qatari C-17s being used for this, they have a cruising speed of over 5
                    • The distance from Damascus to Benghazi by car - as you cannot legally cross into Israel from Syria - is well over 3,000 miles. If you are a smuggler, driving only at night, it will take much longer to cover that distance than an average driver doing 60mph all day long.

                      When is it that you imagine US weapons were first brought in to Syria? I haven't seen any good arguments for when that started. You then need to figure out if it is even possible by ordinary means of transportation to get from Damascus
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "The distance from Damascus to Benghazi by car - as you cannot legally cross into Israel from Syria - is well over 3,000 miles. If you are a smuggler, driving only at night, it will take much longer to cover that distance than an average driver doing 60mph all day long"

                      True and completely irrelevant. No one was using cars. Thought that should be pretty clear from the specific reference to Qatari C-17s which travel at over 500mph and can do a nearly straight line from point a to point b, no?
                    • Do you have evidence of them actually flying the weapons from Syria to Libya? Just because an aircraft exists that can do it does not mean that someone is using it to do that. Why would someone be interested in chartering a plane to fly these weapons from one conflict to another?

                      And of course all this is based on the speculation that the Administration intentionally sent weapons to Syria that early in the conflict - or at all.
                    • In fairness, Putin seems to be dealing from a similar deck.
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "Do you have evidence of them actually flying the weapons from Syria to Libya?"

                      It's been reported by news agencies around the world, including mainstream US sources like the NYT.

                      "Why would someone be interested in chartering a plane to fly these weapons from one conflict to another?"

                      Perhaps I am missing something but you seem maddeningly dense here. Have you already forgotten the thread?
                    • Allow me to help you here. In d_r's mad realm, you have to personally prove every assertion. This is not a dialogue; this is a study in intransigence.
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Not really going to disagree with that. He seems at least a little more adaptable at times but that may very well just be because he has less power to throw around.
                    • "Do you have evidence of them actually flying the weapons from Syria to Libya?"

                      It's been reported by news agencies around the world, including mainstream US sources like the NYT.

                      And yet I never heard of it happening. I would like to know which sources you are reading that have found American-provided weapons being flown from Syria to Libya. I am asking you again, please help me find these sources that found that happening.

                      "Why would someone be interested in chartering a plane to fly these weapons from one conflict to another?"

                      Perhaps I am missing something but you seem maddeningly dense here.

                      I could say the same about your strange insistence on not using the quote tag to separate quotes.

                      Have you already forgotten the thread?

                      The thread began with Smitty pretending that one example of an event is sweeping evidence of it being a widespread mantra that occurs every minute of every day.

                    • ...BHO tries to crib from Reagan's playbook.

                      :-) Which part? Beirut? Iran/Contra? Playing both sides predates even Reagan.

                      I don't suppose you'll ever stop idolizing the man.

                    • I have more respect for Putin's low animal cunning than our pack of rodeo clowns [theonion.com].
                    • I don't suppose you'll ever stop idolizing the man.

                      And speaking of sounding arrogant. How in the world am I 'idolizing' him here, exactly?

                    • You brought him up. How would I know? You claim Obama is "cribbing" something from him. I'm kind of interested in knowing how. So far, Beirut and Iran/Contra are the ones that are most obvious.

                    • Indeed, I'm de-mythologizing him enough to confess that, yes, there was skullduggery on his watch.
                      In any large organization, you can contend that the dork at the top whom you like was unaware of the details of Scandal X.
                      As an old squid, though, I don't buy off: if you're the captain, you own the actions of the crew, heroic or craven.
                    • As an old squid, though, I don't buy off: if you're the captain, you own the actions of the crew, heroic or craven.

                      I agree completely. That is why I wonder how you keep Reagan on that pedestal of yours. All your posts clearly indicate that you are still hung up on the person and his affiliations and not the act. If you don't "buy off", you have a funny way of showing it.

            • You need to go way, way, WAY beyond those - and you have not - in order to bring something to the level of an impeachable offense.

              Why, no: no, I do not.
              (a) I agree that Obama is effectively unimpeachable. His re-election is pretty much an infinite pardon, due in no small part to the sort of intellectual decay in which you personally wallow.
              (b) I do know that, whereas Bush's stock has (to a degree) recovered a bit over the last five years (still *not* supporting his brother as Shrub Round Three, mind you) I think that #OccupyResoluteDesk and his little Gangster Chorus are going to be recognized as the nadir of American politics. If the

              • I agree that Obama is effectively unimpeachable. His re-election is pretty much an infinite pardon

                Have you forgotten that Nixon was reelected, and serving his second term when he resigned? Granted the situation was very different but it lead to the end of an administration, which is your ultimate goal here.

                That said, if you could actually provide evidence of impeachable actions you would be able to build a case for impeachment hearings. Right now you are pretending that your favorite conspiracy theories and rumors are sufficient substitutes.

                And who is it that you are saying you "agree" with? I

                • I yawn at your tired tautology that, because there is no evidence, no evidence can exist.
                  You're starting to look like a caricature of a Poe character, trying to swear enough times that your Chicago Savior hasn't done anything wrong. It may be true, on a per-day basis, that he hasn't done anything more wrong than any other day, but that's about as non-negative as it gets with #OccupyResoluteDesk.
                  Just keep it pathetic there, as you try to defend this bucket of crap, you hear?
                  • because there is no evidence, no evidence can exist.

                    I have never claimed that. Not once. I have pointed out that you have never presented any evidence, nor have you ever presented any good reason to expect there to be any. You have been seeking the removal of Obama from the White House since at least November of 2008. You have latched on to a dizzying array of conspiracy theories that you have sworn from the highest mountains to be sufficient for forceful removal of the POTUS in spite of not having the smallest conceivable shred of evidence to support s

                    • What I actually want is reform. Replacing #OccupyResoluteDesk with another tool (Bush; Clinton; it don't matter) is not a substantive improvement.

                      though your attempt at racist baiting is noted yet again

                      That's an interesting accusation; I've never said I'm anything other than tired of false accusations.

                    • What I actually want is reform. Replacing #SillyHashTag with another tool (Bush; Clinton; it don't matter) is not a substantive improvement.

                      You did not criticize Bush when he was president. You endorsed the conservative ideals that are in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 when they were proposed by conservatives - and you have endorsed "replacements" for it that include the same ideals. You endorsed the conservative actions of Obama when they were enacted by Bush and proposed by other conservatives.

                      though your attempt at racist baiting is noted yet again

                      That's an interesting accusation; I've never said I'm anything other than tired of false accusations.

                      You have made a great number of failed attempts to get me to call you a racist. You are so very much in love with your unsuppor

                    • What I actually want is reform.

                      Mothra vs Ghidorah

                    • "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

                      Sorry, Chumly: the: "You didn't say X at time Y, therefore you're muzzled on Z" is bollocks. Get a real argument, please.
                    • Only if you're playing along.
                    • The point here is that you are criticizing the current POTUS for being from a party other than your own. If he had an (R) instead of a (D) after his name you would be wrapping his actions in the flag and declaring him a great patriot. Instead you are demonizing him and slinging silly insults at me when I point out your obvious double standard.

                      The one lacking an argument is you. You cannot provide a reason beyond that parenthetical consonant for why these actions were fantastic in 2007 and evil in 2009.
                    • Nothing has gotten reformed by "playing along". You gotta break stuff.

                    • Give some of this to damn_registrars and Captain Splendid, er, "fustakrakich".

                      http://i60.tinypic.com/10ommip... [tinypic.com]
                    • Speculation.
                    • But you deny that the Tea Party is actually "breaking stuff". So we seem stuck in a do-loop with you.
                    • But you deny that the Tea Party is actually "breaking stuff"

                      That's right. They're actually fortifying established authority. Anything they break has that explicit purpose. They are not against concentrated power, except for that which is not in their hands. They are not the "alternative" you are looking for, unless of course you think as they do, which would mean that "reform" is just another punchline in your book of silly jokes.

                    • You could disprove my assertion of you not criticizing the previous conservative president for the same conservative actions by showing us comments you posted here where you did that in that time frame. You keep trying to pretend that I am somehow endorsing Obama's actions simply by my not calling for his extralegal removal over them; I will give you far more leeway than that.
                    • You could disprove my assertion of you not criticizing the previous conservative president for the same conservative actions by showing us comments you posted here where you did that in that time frame.

                      Even if I cared two figs, I totally lack confidence in my ability to shut down your speculative urges with any amount of evidence. You're so off galavanting in your own fantasy realm, we're going to have to pray for an overt miracle from God to recover you, I fear.

                    • Where is the slack, when every effort feeds the tautology?
                    • I totally lack confidence in my ability to shut down your speculative urges with any amount of evidence.

                      You are free to speculate all you want. I have, once again, given you very clear criteria that you could meet under which I would consider your argument to be valid and supported. Instead you have opted again to reach for silly insults.

                      I really miss the man you used to be, who was interested in having a discussion with people who did not occupy the same extreme conservative end of the conservative wing of the republican party. Your opinions haven't changed much (if any) since then, but your willingn

                    • You simply need to stop drawing from a circle of carney hucksters that feed on the same money pool. It's not complicated.

                    • I really miss the man you used to be, who was interested in having a discussion with people who did not occupy the same extreme conservative end of the conservative wing of the republican party.

                      I have reason to doubt this. Your repeated false accusations (violence against POTUS, plagiarism, &c) are not the behavior pattern of someone who can "really miss" anything. While not a formal medical diagnosis, I consider you a sociopath, and troll, and mostly the target of prayer for a miracle to restore you to functional humanity.

                    • But you're contradicting your "just totally randomize elections" prescription here. Doesn't the logic of your idea force you to embrace hucksters, Huckabees, and humbugs?
                    • violence against POTUS

                      You have shown repeatedly that you don't care what the law says about removal of the POTUS. In particular you don't see the right to a fair trial or provisions against double jeopardy as being applicable to those who are of a political party that you harbor ill will towards. Furthermore you don't care how much federal time and money is consumed in investigation of your unending list of conspiracy theories (if you were a true fiscal conservative you would acknowledge what an utter waste that would be at t

                    • No, I'm not. The lottery, which is my preferred method, is a completely different issue. Here I am talking about using what you already have, a chance to shun the big money con men when voting. Of course that won't happen. This is why a lottery is needed, to keep political hucksterism from becoming a career.

                      When you vote for those people, you are showing that "concentrated power" is not the bugaboo you claim it is. You just want to be closer to that power. Your five year "epiphany" will evaporate if Ted Cru

                    • When you vote for those people, you are showing that "concentrated power" is not the bugaboo you claim it is. You just want to be closer to that power. Your five year "epiphany" will evaporate if Ted Cruz or one of your other wacko friends get in.

                      Nah, the Vichy GOP you inadvertently support is currently thrashing the Tea Party right handily. Thanks.

  • Before we Oregon taxpayers sue him and Kitzhaber for the $330 million they wasted on Obamacare in this state without one shred of source code to show for it.

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy

Working...