... then Google+ might be the only relevant social networking site. Facebook, twitter, etc, are still mostly plugged up with people taking pictures of their (coffee / cat / car) or telling you which bathroom they are using this afternoon. Google+ actually has meaningful discussions.

Do you deny that you have made numerous calls on slsahdot for Obama's impeachment?

Do you deny that you have never on slashdot made a call for a republican president?

I have decided that since slashdot conservatives will not return kindness to me, regardless of what I offer them, that the reasonable thing to do is approach slashdot conservatives in essentially the same way that they approach me - with the difference being that I present facts while they present snide remarks.

I didn't say you are 100% wrong. I just said you are a highly devout and entrenched partisan. That on its own is not a bad thing, but denying it does not help your cause. You are very devoted to your cause, but when you claim your cause is something other than what it is, solely to try to make your cause look more reasonable, you just make the cause look silly.

So when you see the demonstration of many different points of fact that support an argument you just brush them off as the repetition of one fact?

I presented you with an argument based on facts, which you rejected because the conclusions based on those facts challenge your assumptions of the world. If that is how you opt to approach the world, then so be it.

30 foot is almost Jumbotron size. Does your office really have room for something that large (to say nothing of the budget)?

Context-free? Hardly. You give plenty of context that plainly demonstrates you to be an extremely partisan individual. Show me one time where you criticized a sitting republican president on slashdot? You can't, because it hasn't happened. I am no fan of republicans in general, but I am at least willing to criticize people who also have the (D) or other non - (R) letters after their names. You cannot say the inverse.

And being as at least once a week you are calling for president Obama to be impeached, you are not only partisan but more extreme in your views than any liberal I have ever seen on slashdot.

I don't recall discussing the national debt in this thread previously.

Why did you leave that part of my quote in, and then not respond to it?

There are plenty of people who would see a single-payer healthcare system as being a critical part of the "L,L, & PoH" goals.

There are plenty of people who pay more than half their paycheck in taxes & insurance costs as it is.

Those are two completely disconnected numbers. Yes, insurance companies tend to get a 90% discount at the office in comparison to what Joe six-pack would pay for the same procedure if he walked in with no insurance. However that by no means indicates that only 10% of revenue is being spent on that.

You are entitled to your opinion, and as usual I expect you will do nothing to explain it beyond providing links to your own blog or other conservative web sites.

I don't believe anyone is forcing you to come here and share your opinion. You could chose to be partisan on a different conservative web site instead.

I am not impressed by your linking to your own blog as somehow being a source of information.

What does that have to do with anything? Indeed very very few people aside from you ever call him BHO. Most people who chose that acronym do so to remind us of his middle name. Nobody who uses it saves themselves any meaningful amount of typing, it takes scarcely more effort to type Obama instead. Hence when dealing with someone as deeply partisan as yourself it is reasonable to expect that you are using the TLA as a weapon of spite rather than as a way to spare yourself energy or time consumption.

Calling my demonstration of you being a severely partisan individual "absurd" does not in any way make you less partisan. You could have shown a situation where you criticized a sitting republican president to suggest that you are not a severely partisan person, but no such case exists. Meanwhile every week you call for the non-republican president to be impeached on something that no evidence of substantial merit for such an action exists.

You hat the president because he is not of your party. Romney would have done the same things, Bush did the same things, and Reagan could even do things that are this conservative. Yet you hate Obama because he didn't run as a member of your party.

Not that you care what I would do for this. I would tell you but you would brush it off and go back to something else.

You and I do not agree in what that means in particular.

Conservatives frequently refer to Ronald Reagan as a highly conservative president, and they often strive to emulate his actions (or more particularly the parts thereof that they remember most fondly). In particular:

• Regressive taxation
• Pro-big-business policies
• Reduction in federal non-military spending
• Increase in military spending and military efforts
• Reduction in federal government accountability

And on all of those, Obama has eclipsed all of his predecessors of the past 3+ decades.

No conservative president has ever done any of those things. Nevermind the fact that "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" are terms that are purely subjective; just because we differ in their meaning does not mean that either of us are wrong.

Exactly what you think you have to gain by mocking your being demonstrated to be a devout partisan is unclear. However when you go so far as to claim that you are being accused of being a racist, when that is not the case, you really don't help your own cause. Not once have I claimed this to be about race, as you have plainly indicated that in your case it is all about party. Frankly, if you actually took the time to read and comprehend what I have written you would see that I am not fond of much of what Obama has done as POTUS, either.

My point is that we currently have in power the most conservative president we have had in at least three decades, and possibly in all of this nation's history. Yet because he does not carry the mark of your reverence you hate him with the heat of a thousand suns, and at least once a week you make another call for his impeachment (or more). You should be celebrating the fact that the president in power is granting you many of the conservative actions that even your dear St. Ronnie could not accomplish. Instead you dig in and insist that the POTUS is some sort of demon spawn because you did not vote for him.

Perhaps he is on the way to turning into this robot ?

Why would we expect you to suddenly do something in the future which you have never done before, especially when it is so obviously counter to your standard M.O.?

Hell, Obama and Biden have had more disagreements than you and the sum total of all presidents to have had an (R) after their names. The next GOP president could start a Catholic-only draft to burn the Vatican to the ground and you would call it a great idea.

Please read the comment that you just attempted to reply to. I was not endorsing government action in this case, which appears to be the claim that you are attempting to make. Your reply to Zontar has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Because Dianne Feinstein has nothing to do with an unhinged idiot in MN threatening his own family with an AK47, that's why.

In case my "good guy or bad guy" question was not glaringly obvious I was referring to what the head of the NRA said when he claimed

But here we have a guy who was legally able to own an AK47 and he pulled it on his family in an act that very clearly was not self-defense. Fortunately he didn't pull the trigger, but since he wasn't previously a criminal does that mean he was a "good guy" or a "bad guy" prior to doing this? If he became a "bad guy" the moment he pointed his AK47 at his family, then how could we have possibly placed a "good guy" with a gun in the scene in time being as his daughter isn't old enough to own a gun? If his wife had been armed would that really have prevented him from doing this?

But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power. You are attacking Obama not because he is politically distant from you - as he obviously is not - but rather because he has a different letter after his name.

That is a ridiculous argument and you know that. Obviously you cannot impeach him yourself but every week you are calling for congress to do so.

You have shown yourself to be disgustingly partisan.

The way you discuss it, it is.

... and then you prove my point. Thank you.

Abortion does not belong in this discussion. You injected it because you are ashamed to have your deep partisan root exposed yet again for all to see. You somehow see yourself as having a moral upper hand on an issue that you have disgustingly oversimplified. I fully expect that like so many others if we were to actually discuss abortion you would again represent your side with no actual data whatsoever and a hail of links to your own blog or other conservative blogs.

In other words, you are just trying to distract.