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.

Is that really the best non-sequitur you can come up with for this? Come on, you could have opted to talk about cars being deadly, or gone off on how Bloomberg banned the super-sized soda from NYC, or talked about how much Obama's last trip to Hawaii cost (to set up a few easy ones for you). Hell you could have even talked about Hillary Clinton's hair. What you brought up doesn't follow in any meaningful way, but it isn't far enough away to be adequately nutty either.

You can do better!

Also, congrats on the very quick post. This JE was barely 5 minutes old when you posted your first comment - I think that might be a new personal record for quickest-time-to-a-comment.

No, I demonstrate repeatedly one thing - that you are a deeply rooted partisan hack. I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

I don't need to pile on accusations, when I have proof to support my statement.

You might want to consider trying it something - facts can be your friend, too!

I have not seen you present that argument in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama. If you want to reduce government, that is your prerogative. Impeaching the POTUS won't help you in that aim, though.

So you are now so irritated to be demonstrated to be a partisan hack that you are bringing abortion into this discussion? That doesn't help your cause in any way, shape, or form.

Accuse? No, I demonstrate that you are a hard core partisan. You deeply hate the president because he is not from your party. You have proposed a variety of flimsy reasons for impeachment, which you seem to be for some reason surprised to find that actual thinking men do not agree with. In another month or so Benghazi will be forgotten and you will have picked up some other reason for trying to impeach him that is even less meaningful than this one. I'm guessing you'll soon say that he illegally fast-tracked the immigration papers for his Portuguese water dog and that he should be marched straight to the chair for it.

I like how you earlier claimed that your unending partisan witch hunt is somehow in the interest of bringing "seriousness" to the federal government; do you not realize how costly it is in terms of getting work done for congress to begin impeachment? You want a budget, but you want congress to start a new impeachment proceeding every other week as you keep dreaming up new reasons to have the president thrown out. Those goals are 100% mutually exclusive. Being as your calls for impeachment are not even remotely close to valid (at least based on what you have presented as evidence for crimes) such actions would be atrocious wastes of time and energy.

Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal, then you are on the right path. But don't bitch about a budget not passing if you have congress tied up in a constant cycle of trying to impeach someone for having a (D) after their name.

You shouldn't have much trouble passing the GRE; see if you can find a graduate program where you can get a master's degree. That should only take ~2 years and then you have something to show for your efforts. The CompTIA certs are a joke, the MS certs change all the time, and the rest are too poorly defined to be worth the testing fees.

Well sure, you need to eat and defecate at some point of the day, and you occasionally write Burma Shave lines as well. However I very highly doubt there has been a single week since January 2009 where you were not trying to push an impeachment effort somewhere (even if not here). I will also state that there was likely not a single time between January 2001 and December 2008 where you were attempting that.

That depends on how you define "an entire week". The definition of an entire week is not relevant, though, as I said how many weeks have you not been calling for impeachment, which would require a full 24x7 where you called for it not once. I very highly doubt any such week has existed since the inauguration of Obama in 2009.

I ask you just to show me one time where you were critical of a sitting president who had an (R) after his name. This appears to be your admission that indeed, you cannot meet that challenge. This is not a moving target here (and you should be good at identifying moving targets).

You are trying to claim that this latest impeachment dream of yours is somehow not just another partisan act on your behalf. I ask you to show that you are not partisan by showing us an example of a time where you were critical of a sitting president from your own party; it appears you cannot meet that challenge because you have never done any such thing. This only further supports what we already know - that you are on a partisan attack to remove the guy whose party you don't like.

Impeachment is supposed to be a serious process. When you devote all your free time to trying to find any justification you can dream up to invoke impeachment - even in the complete absence of factual information - you are stomping all over the seriousness of the measure for nothing beyond personal gain.

Look at it this way - how many times have right-wingers tried to drum up a call to impeach Obama? This is at least the third event I have seen you try to call up impeachment, and there were plenty of others from other people of mindsets similar to your own. I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

By comparison, how many times did people try to get impeachment going against his predecessor? How much time from January 2001 to December 2008 was dedicated to such efforts?

Can you show an example where you were critical of a sitting POTUS with an (R) after his name?

That's because you have a peculiar sense of "honest" that not only is clearly distinct from the part of this country that uses a dictionary, and you refuse to share what that may be. We might as well substitute the word "dingleberry" for any derivation of "honest" in your comments, as those words have just as much in common as your definition of honest and that used by anyone who agrees that dictionaries are meaningful in facilitating conversation.

Wrong.

Wrong.

No.

Stop lying, or I won't read your messages any more.

...

...

Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!

I will say, I was expecting a far less relevant image there.

No, it is a left/right issue. The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president and the left sees it as an unfortunate accident that cost the lives of several Americans who were overseas at a vulnerable time.

Why are these 4 people more important than the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan? Nobody holds anyone accountable for them.

You only want accountability when your guy isn't on Pennsylvania Ave. If you pursued accountability evenly you would have an argument but your comment history shows otherwise and supports fully the notion that this is indeed just another attempt at a partisan lynching for the sake of partisanship.

The Huffington Post says she did great. If your far-right media is cancelled out by this far-left media then we should be able to agree that the Secretary of State was present for the hearing.

I don't feel that Lenovo really changed anything too badly with the thinkpad line. Granted, I wouldn't buy a thinkpad edge, but the T series that I purchased works great. I've had it for over 2 years and the only problem I had was with a faulty shift key on my keyboard, which they resolved by sending out a new one for me to replace myself (much better IMHO than certain other vendors who would have asked me to send it to them).

I don't really see the difference between IBM thinkpad and Lenovo thinkpad as being significant.