Way too much stock is given Betteridge's "law". Wikipedia says he broke his own law. Not much of a law, is it?
That will force me to write it down, making the site inherently less secure.
Not if you keep it in a secure place, like where you keep your money and credit cards.
Congratulations on your statistics-defying eyesight
Age-related presbyopia is easily remedied with cheap reading glasses. If you're also nearsighted and don't wear contacts you can just take your glasses off to read. If he had cataract surgery and the surgeon used a CrystaLens (more expensive than a standard IOL) he can probably see better than a kid.
I've absolutely never advocated more than the simple justice the Benghazi Four have been heretofore denied
That is a lie. You have repeatedly called for the president to be removed. That does nothing to provide "justice" for those four dead people. You can't bring them back from the dead by putting someone you hate on the unemployment line. Justice would involve finding the people behind the attack.
You're false to claim I advocated proceeding to the gallows
You repeatedly asked for him to be thrown out of the white house over this, without any regard for the legal system. At that point, when you are forcibly removing the president by extralegal means, you are essentially supporting a lynch mob. Just because you didn't specifically call for him to be executed doesn't mean that your method would not lead to it.
Only recently have you started to give lip service towards having a civilized evaluation of the matter. What you haven't been brave enough to say is what you want to see done once the legal system fails to come to the conclusions that you want.
Expecting nothing from you, I am not disappointed.
I have given more than you have on this matter. You keep evading the question and returning to silly insults.
the no-talent rodeo clown
I saw Lethal Weapon last night, tonight it's Loaded weapon... (I scored today, I'm loaded).
That's a state law. This particular tinfoil hat paranoia is federal law.
What I'd planned to do (which obviously didn't work) was to replace all quotes with end quotes, then replace all quotes preceeded by a space with a start quote. Easy, simple, but...
Or special prosecutor.
But no blow-job occurred. Why do we need a special prosecutor? Previously you wanted to proceed directly to the gallows. I'm curious as to why suddenly you are pretending to have an interest in an orderly legal evaluation of the absence of evidence.
And my request is for a grand jury
First of all, you have at more than one time indicated that you feel the POTUS should be removed from office immediately over this. You have not previously indicated any interest in actually following through with anything resembling a trial (which is what you would have if a grand jury voted in favor).
That notwithstanding, a grad jury is called to evaluate whether or not enough evidence exists to proceed with prosecution of a case. Being as you have no evidence for your charges, a grand jury would have to vote against. What would you do then?
Not a whole lot has been happening. I took Wednesday off because they forecasted sixty degrees, probably the last time I'll see weather that warm before I retire.
September to November 2012 did occur
Indeed time did pass. However the mere fact that time passed was not sufficient to prove your allegations.
and we have the Administration's behavior to go on
Please elaborate on how "the Administration's behavior" supports your allegations.
So "nothing whatsoever" is both inaccurate and an example of the "penchant for denial" of which I speak.
The mere passage of time in no way supports your allegations of a deliberate lie. You have been swearing up and down that the administration intentionally lied about the situation. You have been swearing up and down that evidence exists to support that notion. The mere passage of time is not evidence to support that idea. To demonstrate that they lied you need to provide reason to believe that they knew better at the time they gave their initial assessment.
You have never done such a thing, in spite of the fact that I have asked you many times to do so.
never set out with the intention of overthrowing a presidential administration
Justice for the Benghazi Four is not the same thing as overthrow. Why do you H8 justice?
First, i do not "H8 justice". Second, overthrowing an administration based on a conspiracy theory is not justice. Third, it won't bring back the four who died. Fourth, you have been constantly pushing at least one conspiracy theory in the hopes of bringing about an overthrow of the Obama administration since at least January 2009.
You are shouting endlessly for the removal of the POTUS based on a conspiracy theory.
Actually, I say many other things, e.g. "Redistribute power, not wealth".
That is an interesting dodge, there.
How about some factual data?
As opposed to your non-factual data?
Again, you went and avoided the question; likely because you have no data. You are the one trying for the heftiest allegations you can come up with. Do you know how criminal justice works in this country? A defendant is not required to prove their innocence when on trial, they need only to convince a jury that the prosecution did not prove their own case beyond a reasonable doubt. You are for some reason pretending that the defense and prosecution are required to meet the same level of obligation in trial.
We just have to investigate Benghazi to find out what's in it
And if you don't find evidence to support your conspiracy theory, you'll still try to overthrow Obama. And what would you be able to find to support your allegations by investigating Benghazi itself? You need to investigate the administration's intelligence on the event, not the event itself.
You're really sounding unhinged
I suspect the condescending meme you intended to apply there was "stop hyperventilating"
So, I guess the real story is that you choose to believe the politician when he makes promises he won't keep.
So then how do you vote for anyone, if you don't believe any politician to be actually interested in fulfilling their campaign promises? Or are you one of those clowns who writes in Mickey Mouse on every line in the belief that somehow that is going to accomplish something?
And I never saw Smitty say Obama was behind Occupy Wall Street.
Do a google search for smitty's trademark silly hash tag. It will lead you to one of his blog posts where he lays out his argument for Obama being directly behind the Occupy movement. That is the entire reason why he uses that tag, to bring eyeballs to that conspiracy theory. He hasn't come up with a comparably clever hash tag yet for his Benghazi conspiracy theories, or he's likely be inserting that into every conversation as well.
Right now he's busy with his obsession over Wilson, as if he were the original sinner.
For some reason he's not willing to just modify the "no true Scotsman" argument to "no true Conservative" yet, which would actually be one of his best to date if he were to do it. I guess he's still afraid to break St. Ronnie's eleventh commandment.