Thomas Lindaman's Bottom Line Blog - Right Wing Bullshit from beginning to end.

On the blog of right-winger Thomas Lindaman's blog, called The Bottom Line Blog, he wrote a LOT of bullshit in the comments of this page:

https://thomaslindaman.blogspot.com/2007/02/my-response-to-house-and-senate.html

I'm going to retain the last response here for preservation purposes.

UPDATE: Boy, I'm glad I retained it. It mysteriously vanished from Lindaman's site. I'll try resposting it and maybe it'll stick this time.

--LINDAMAN: I would prefer they do something that actually MEAN something. A non-binding resolution doesn't commit anyone to do anything. I said as much in my original post. As far as 'taking credit' they can't do that based on the now-failed non-binding resolution. It's clear why it was done: to provide political cover for reelection. They could 'make a statement' to get the anti-war vote while still appearing to 'support the troops.' It's a simple political play.--

A non-binding resolution is a fucking statement of intent, you blubbering idiot. It's putting a marker down. But you're too busy huffing your own farts and gobbling down Cheetos to understand nuance. Of course it's a political play, you monumental dumbass. Everything in politics is a fucking play. You just exposed yourself as a political amateur with the strategic depth of a fucking teaspoon. Stick to what you know: polishing off a whole pizza by yourself, faggot.

--LINDAMAN: What could they impeach Bush over? 'Lying' about the war (which, by the way, they supported with their votes)? 'Doctoring intelligence' (which they had access to when they made their initial vote)? During the Clinton impeachment, we heard from Democrats all about the importance of not impeaching just for political reasons. Now, Democrats support doing just that.--

'What could they impeach Bush over?' How about lying the entire fucking country into a goddamn war that's killed thousands and wasted trillions? He lied about WMDs, you gullible fuck. He lied about the ties to Al-Qaeda. That's called 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' you ignorant slob. The fact that some gutless fucking Democrats voted for it initially because they were scared of looking weak doesn't absolve the chief fucking liar. You bring up Clinton's impeachment? He got impeached for lying about getting a fucking blowjob. You're trying to compare a stained dress to thousands of flag-draped coffins. You are a morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest piece of shit. Your brain is so fucking smooth, it's a wonder you don't slip in the shower and break your fat fucking neck.

--LINDAMAN: Ummm…getting them through is not what Pelosi promised. And, of course, she failed, which is why she had to keep fudging with the 100 hour promise by excluding necessary elements to making law.--

Ummm… shut your fucking cum-guzzling mouth. This nitpicking over the definition of '100 hours' is the most pathetic, desperate, cunt-faced argument I've ever seen. You're like a fucking toddler arguing about whether bedtime is at 8:00 or 8:01. She promised to get a specific set of bills through the House, and she fucking did it. It's a legislative body, not a goddamn magic show, you fucking simpleton. There are processes and rules. The fact that you're clinging to this semantic bullshit proves you have absolutely nothing of substance to say. You lost the argument on the merits, so now you're crying about the fucking stopwatch. Hey, lard-ass, maybe if you spent less time timing Congress and more time on a fucking treadmill, you wouldn't be such a miserable, whiny cunt.

--LINDAMAN: Ummm… that's what 'pass' means in this context. She didn't say 'we're going to bring up these bills for a vote in the first 100 hours.' She said they would be PASSED.--

Listen you fat fucking mouth-breather, the word 'pass' in a legislative context means to pass through the chamber. That's exactly what the fuck happened. Are you so goddamn dense, so insulated by the layers of your own blubber, that you don't understand basic fucking civics? The House passes a bill. The Senate passes a bill. Then the President signs it into law. The House did its fucking job. You're deliberately misrepresenting the term to score a meaningless point because you're a dishonest, greasy piece of shit. Your argument is based entirely on you being a fucking vocabulary-challenged imbecile. Go back to school, you fucking dunce, or better yet, just roll back into the sea like the beached whale you are.

--LINDAMAN: I'm going by what Pelosi said. She said everything would be done within the first 100 hours, not the first 100 hours that were convenient for the House. Maybe if she spent less time going to coronation events and more time working, she'd be able to make a legitimate claim to meeting the 100 hours. They didn't get the bills passed within the first 100 hours, though. And it's the fact that Pelosi set the standard and then lied about it that was the point of my argument.--

You're going by what you think she said, you corpulent fuckwit, because your brain is a fucking puddle of rancid gravy. You're bitching about 'coronation events' while you're probably getting winded reaching for the TV remote. This is the last refuge of a fucking loser: crying about procedural clock management. It's the most boring, ass-numbingly stupid hill to die on. She set a goal for the House and the House fucking met it. You're just a sad, pathetic little manatee-person who gets off on feigned outrage over things you don't even fucking understand. The only thing intellectually dishonest here is the shit-smeared word vomit you call an argument.

--LINDAMAN: No. Pelosi was using a clock that took out time for the procedural side of proposing bills. That's still time that has to be factored into the introduction and voting on every bill. And that's time Pelosi didn't include in her accounting, thus, she's intellectually dishonest.--

No, you fucking jackass. 'Procedural side' is part of the fucking process. The clock refers to legislative hours in session dealing with those specific bills. Are you fucking brain-dead? It's not a fucking countdown timer on a bomb in a shitty action movie. This is how government works, you absolute fucking moron. You're attacking her for following the established norms of how legislative time is fucking counted. You're so desperate to call her a liar that you've invented a whole new set of rules that exist only in your tiny, fat-addled fucking brain. She's not dishonest; you're just a fucking idiot who doesn't know how anything works.

--LINDAMAN: But it seems to me that you're willing to excuse dishonesty if it benefits you. I'm not. Dishonesty is dishonesty, and Pelosi and company are more than willing to twist the facts to get ahead.--

It seems to you? What the fuck would it seem like to a fat sack of shit who gets his news from chain emails and his own ass? You're accusing others of dishonesty while your entire fucking premise is built on a lie you invented about a fucking stopwatch. You are the poster child for intellectual dishonesty. You sit there in your grease-caked chair, pretending to be some paragon of truth, but you're just another partisan hack with a keyboard. The only thing you're not willing to excuse is your next meal. Fuck your fake moral high ground. It's not about what benefits anyone, it's about what's factually correct, and you wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your cavernous asshole and died.

--LINDAMAN: Again, she said they would be passed. They weren't. And they went past the first 100 hours. That's dishonesty.--

Again, you're a fucking broken record of stupidity. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, you colossal fucking dumbass. It just makes you look even more pathetic. They WERE passed. Through the House of Representatives. That is the definition of the fucking word in this context. You're being deliberately obtuse. It's a transparent and frankly embarrassing tactic. You've been corrected, and you just keep plugging your fat fucking fingers in your ears and screeching 'LA LA LA I'M RIGHT!' You're not right. You're wrong. You're a fucking moron. It's that simple. There is no dishonesty except for the bullshit pouring out of your fucking mouth.

--LINDAMAN: Thank you for right. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week, not 4 days due to a BCS game. And it doesn't matter who requested it, the Democrats were in power at the time and could have refused. They didn't, thus, they're guilty of breaking their promise within the first 100 hours of taking power.--

Thank you for proving you're a fucking goalpost-moving cunt. First it was Pelosi, now it's Hoyer and some fucking football game? Jesus Christ, you are desperate. So a single week they work four days and suddenly the entire platform is a lie? Are you fucking kidding me? This is the most chickenshit, nitpicking bullshit I have ever witnessed. You ignore the substance of the legislation, the actual work being done, to cry about a fucking single day off. Get a fucking life, you corpulent whiner. The only promise being broken is the one you made to your doctor about maybe eating a fucking salad once in a while.

--LINDAMAN: Nope. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week. And unless they had a special session on Saturday of that week, which I doubt, they worked 4 days. And by your own admission, the House Democrats broke their word and, thus, were intellectually dishonest.--

Nope, you fucking retard. You're misquoting him and clinging to your own bullshit version of reality. The entire point of giving the GOP the day was to foster the very bipartisanship you cunts are always crying is dead. They extended an olive branch and your response is to screech about a 'broken promise.' This proves you don't give a fuck about functional government; you just want to score cheap, pathetic points. You're a fucking hypocrite. You demand bipartisanship and then shit all over it when it happens because it fucks up your moronic 'Dems are liars' narrative. You're the one who is intellectually dishonest, you sad, fat fuck.

--LINDAMAN: The 100 hours talk, for one. Didn't happen. Their stated desire to open up bipartisanship in debating bills for another. Didn't happen. Pelosi's promise to 'drain the swamp' of corruption for another. Didn't happen.--

This is the most pathetic fucking list I've ever seen. 'Didn't happen'? You fat fuck, we just went over the 100 hours bullshit, and you were proven to be a fucking idiot. Bipartisanship? They literally gave the opposition a day off to prep, an act of good faith you immediately shat on. As for 'draining the swamp,' that's a long-term fucking goal, not something that happens in a week, you impatient slob. Corruption has been festering in D.C. for decades. Expecting Pelosi to wave a magic wand and make it disappear instantly is the kind of fairytale thinking I'd expect from a child, or a profoundly stupid man-boobed blogger like yourself. Your entire case is built on lies, misinterpretations, and childish impatience. It's fucking pathetic.

--LINDAMAN: Ah, but Hoyer DID say they would be going back to working 5 days a week. It's out there, as are Pelosi's promises.--

Cite it, you fat fucking coward. Put up or shut the fuck up. You keep saying 'it's out there' like it's some kind of magical incantation. If the quote exists, then fucking produce it. You won't, because you can't. You're lying. You're a fucking liar. You're a fat, greasy, partisan fucking liar who pulls 'facts' out of his ass and hopes no one will call him on it. Well, I'm calling you on it, you fucking sack of shit. Post the direct, unedited quote from a credible source right now, or concede that you're a fucking fabricator of bullshit. We're all waiting.

--LINDAMAN: Because they're trying to get us to stop fighting. We didn't create them; they were already there and waiting for the call. Blaming us for the actions of terrorist leaders before we started the war on terrorism is intellectually dishonest.--

Holy fuck, the stupidity is breathtaking. You're admitting they were activated in response to our actions, you monumental fucking dipshit. That's the entire fucking point. Our invasion was the 'call' they were waiting for. It was the catalyst. It was the fucking recruiting poster. You think those fuckers were just sitting around playing backgammon before we showed up? We kicked over a hornet's nest in the middle of a fucking desert, and now you're acting surprised we're getting stung. This isn't 'common sense,' you greasy fuckwit. This is you twisting logic into a fucking pretzel to avoid the obvious conclusion: our presence made a bad situation infinitely fucking worse. Your brain is a goddamn black hole of logic.

--LINDAMAN: Still not getting the point, I see. Listen, it's simple. You've made a point that cannot be proven, so you're stating it on blind faith. I'd welcome any proof you have, such as a census, that proves we're creating more terrorism. But you'd be hard-pressed to find such evidence because it simply doesn't exist.--

Still not getting the point? The only fucking point is the one on top of your head, you fat fucking pinhead. You're demanding a 'census of terrorists'? Are you genuinely this fucking stupid, or is it an act? This is the most pants-on-head retarded thing I have ever heard. You want us to go door to fucking door in Fallujah with a clipboard? 'Excuse me, Mr. Al-Zarqawi, are you a new terrorist or have you been one for a while? Just collecting data for a fat fuck on the internet.' National Intelligence Estimates from our own fucking government stated the Iraq war has become a 'cause célèbre' for jihadists. That means it’s their fucking number one recruiting tool, you blithering idiot. It's not blind faith; it's the conclusion of every single intelligence agency with a fucking pulse. You demanding a census is a child's argument to avoid facing the goddamn truth.

--LINDAMAN: Prove to me that the IISS did a census of terrorists and I'll concede the point.--

My god, you really are doubling down on the dumbfuckery. They are a fucking think tank, you gelatinous moron. They analyze intelligence. They look at chatter, recruitment patterns, and on-the-ground reports to draw a fucking conclusion. It’s called analysis, a concept your tiny, gravy-soaked brain is clearly unable to process. Your demand is so unbelievably stupid, so fundamentally ignorant of how the entire world works, that it disqualifies you from any serious fucking discussion. You're excused from the adult table. Go back to the kids' room and play with your fucking blocks.

--LINDAMAN: Yes, but Iraq's connections to terrorism are well-known and proven. You have to ignore that established fact in order to justify your position, which weakens your position.--

Iraq's connections to terrorism are 'well-known and proven'? That is a fucking lie. It is a zombie lie that even the fucking morons who started the war have walked back. The 9/11 Commission Report, which I'm sure is far too many big words for your fat fucking head to handle, found NO FUCKING OPERATIONAL LINK between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. None. Zero. You are repeating debunked propaganda like a fucking parrot with a head injury. You are not arguing from an 'established fact;' you are arguing from a fucking delusion you refuse to let go of because it props up your entire shitty worldview.

--LINDAMAN: Yes it was. Iraq under Saddam had a track record of funding and supporting terrorism. If we're fighting a war against terrorism, shouldn't we go after all of the connections, not just the politically expedient ones?--

Yes it was? Are you fucking insane? The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan. They were trained by Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Going after Saddam instead was like finding out your wife was cheating on you with your neighbor and deciding to burn down the house of some random dude three towns over. It's strategically fucking moronic. Saddam was a secular Ba'athist fuck who hated religious extremists like Al-Qaeda more than he hated us. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You're just spewing jingoistic bullshit you heard on Fox News at the time.

--LINDAMAN: Then, you're in the minority.--

I’m in the minority? Do you ever leave your fucking house? The majority of this country turned against that fucking war once the lies became too obvious to ignore. YOU are the fucking minority. You are a sad, dwindling remnant of fucking ignorant chub monsters who can't admit they were wrong. You live in a fucking echo chamber of blogs and talk radio that reinforces your own bullshit. You're not the silent majority; you're the loud, ignorant, and morbidly obese minority.

--LINDAMAN: Because Republicans believe in providing for the common defense. And Democrats these days don't. Geez, you're making this easy. :-)--

Republicans believe in providing for the common defense? That’s the biggest fucking joke I’ve ever heard. You mean like when they sent our soldiers into a fucking war without enough body armor? Or when they ignored pre-9/11 intelligence warnings? Or when they cut embassy security funding? Your party's idea of 'common defense' is starting optional wars and then sending other people's kids to die in them with shitty equipment. Democrats have been pushing for things like 100% cargo inspection and securing loose nukes, you know, shit that actually fucking protects the country. You don't give a fuck about the common defense; you just have a hard-on for invading brown countries.

--LINDAMAN: John Murtha's call for a 'slow bleed' undercuts your arguments. John Kerry saying Iraq was the 'wrong war, wrong time' undercuts your arguments. I could go on, but those are two pretty big things to overcome. I wouldn't want to be accused of piling on. :-)--

You fat fucking coward. You use the words of two decorated combat veterans, two men who have seen more war than you've seen fucking vegetables, as proof that Democrats 'hate the troops'? Murtha wanted to stop the 'slow bleed' of American soldiers dying every fucking day for a mistake. Kerry correctly identified the war as a fucking strategic blunder. They are trying to save soldiers' lives, you disgusting piece of shit. And you, a fucking armchair warrior whose only battle is with diabetes, dare to question their fucking patriotism? You're the one who wants to keep piling on the bodies of American soldiers to protect your own fucking ego. You are a fucking ghoul.

--LINDAMAN: Of course, that's not what Durbin said, but please continue to evade the exact quote. :-)--

Of course that's not what Durbin said, you fucking simpleton. He was making a broader point about the abuses, and you're nitpicking the fucking employee roster. Yes, it's soldiers. And there are also fucking contract interrogators. Both can be true, you monumental fucking dumbass. Some of the worst fucking abuses were carried out by these rent-a-thug fucking contractors, not just the military. You're trying to dodge the issue of torture by playing a shell game with who signed the fucking paychecks. It’s a pathetic, dishonest tactic from a fat, pathetic, dishonest piece of shit.

--LINDAMAN: And you're excusing Durbin's comments because of who made them, not because they're accurate. Show me even one incident where the troops at Gitmo are acting like Nazis. Otherwise, Durbin's lying about the troops.--

Am I excusing them? No, you fat fucking gaslighter, I'm explaining them. Durbin used a fucking shitty analogy to describe real fucking torture. Was it hyperbolic? Yes. Does that mean the torture didn't happen? No, you fucking dunce. You're clinging to the word 'Nazi' because you know you can't defend the actual fucking facts of what happened. You want to ignore the documented cases of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and sexual humiliation because it doesn't fit your 'our boys can do no wrong' fucking fairytale. It's not about Nazis, you idiot. It's about American soldiers and contractors committing fucking torture, and you're defending it.

--LINDAMAN: Not at Gitmo. And not one of them was even remotely close to what the Nazis did to prisoners.--

Not at Gitmo? That is a fucking lie. That is a bald-faced, easily disprovable fucking lie. The fucking FBI's own agents reported seeing detainees chained in fetal positions, left to shit and piss on themselves. They saw it with their own fucking eyes. You're just denying reality. And stop with the fucking Nazi bullshit. Nobody is saying it's the Holocaust, you fucking moron. That's a strawman you built so you can feel good about defending fucking war crimes. The point isn't whether it's 'as bad as the Nazis.' The point is that it's fucking torture, it's illegal, it's immoral, and it was done in our fucking name. And you're okay with that because you're a morally vacant fucking slug.

--LINDAMAN: You ignored my post about that. Typical.--

You're a fucking child. 'You ignored my post!' Wah! Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up. Nobody ignored your post. And even if they did, nobody is obligated to respond to every piece of shit that falls out of your mouth.'Typical' of a whiny, self-important sack of lard who thinks every thought that pops into his empty fucking head is a profound truth that demands an immediate response. Nobody ignored you, you fat fuck.

--LINDAMAN: No. He was convicting them of crimes before they had even the first semblence of a trial.--

No, you fat fucking simpleton. He was relaying what he was told by other soldiers. It's called testimony. It's called a fucking account. Whether you like it or not, it happened. The Winter Soldier Investigation was full of vets detailing the fucked up shit they saw and did. But you can't handle that, can you? You have to plug your fat fucking ears and pretend every soldier is a G.I. Joe action figure. Kerry repeated allegations of war crimes. He didn't convict anyone in a court of law, you fucking moron. You're deliberately conflating testimony with a fucking judicial verdict because it's the only way your tiny, patriotic-boner-addled brain can process it.

--LINDAMAN: It's relevant because if a soldier sees a crime being committed by a fellow soldier, he or she has to report it up the chain of command. Kerry doesn't appear to have done that. So, either he's guilty of dereliction of duty or he's lying about what he saw.--

It's relevant because you're moving the fucking goalposts again, you fat fucking coward. You lost the argument about what he said, so now you're trying to shift it to what he fucking did or didn't do about it. It's a classic chickenshit debating tactic. You're cornered, so you try to change the fucking subject. For all you know, he did report it and nothing fucking happened, which was common as shit in that clusterfuck of a war. Or maybe he didn't. That doesn't change the fucking fact that the atrocities happened, and he spoke about them. Your little 'gotcha' moment is a pathetic fucking diversion from the main point: American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam, and John Kerry was one of the few with the balls to say it out loud.

--LINDAMAN: And you're dodging the point, which is that I produced proof of what I said, which is more than what you have.--

You haven't provided proof of shit, faggot. Durbin, Murtha, and Kerry don't 'hate the troops' and you didn't provide one goddamn citation of proof they do. By contrast, when URLs are posted, you ignore them.

--LINDAMAN: Nope. I didn't see one ad where McCain's military service was attacked.--

Nope? Just because your fat ass didn't see it on your fucking TV doesn't mean it didn't happen, you ignorant fuck. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, Bush allies ran a fucking whisper campaign and put out flyers accusing McCain of being a traitor who collaborated with the North Vietnamese. They called him the 'Manchurian Candidate'. It was a disgusting, filthy fucking tactic, and it came from your side of the fucking aisle. You're either a fucking liar or you're so fucking uniformed you shouldn't be allowed to operate a keyboard. Which one is it, you fat piece of shit?

--LINDAMAN: No. They had their field operatives make fun of his war injuries, just like they did to Bob Kerrey.--

Field operatives? You mean SNL? You think Norm MacDonald holding a pen the way Dole did is 'Democratic field operatives making fun of Dole's war injuries'? Dole loved Norm's impression, you liar. That's why he did a bit with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3VPGSu4Lw

Are you this much of a fucking snowflake? You're equating a Saturday Night Live sketch by Norm MacDonald, a goddamn comedian, with a targeted political smear campaign run by a presidential candidate's fucking team. That is the most brain-dead, false equivalence I have ever fucking seen. One is a joke, you humorless fat fuck. The other is a deliberate political assassination attempt. And show me the fucking citation where anyone 'made fun' of Bob Kerrey's war injuries. Fucking post it. You won't, because you're a fucking liar who pulls this shit out of his cavernous, flabby ass. You have no proof, just a vague, whiny fucking complaint about comedians telling jokes.

--LINDAMAN: No. Falsely accusing them of war attrocities makes them troop haters. See, they're not really going after the attrocities; they're attacking the troops directly without qualification of their statements.--

You claim Murtha and Kerry are 'falsely accusing them'? You just admitted the atrocities happened when you tried to downplay them by saying they weren't as bad as the fucking Nazis. So which is it, you fat, hypocritical piece of shit? Did they happen or not? You can't have it both fucking ways. Kerry and Murtha, both combat vets, spoke out about the reality of war, a reality that makes soft, doughy fucks like you uncomfortable. They are not 'troop haters.' They are fucking realists. The only one attacking the troops here is you, by insisting that anyone who points out a fucking war crime is somehow their enemy. You're the one shitting on their integrity by demanding they all be perfect fucking saints.

--LINDAMAN: I saw posts there, I've seen actions taken by the Democrats in Washington. I've seen the faux left in anti-war protests malign and condone murder of troops. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the troops.--

Oh, you saw 'some posts' on a fucking blog? Well, shut the fucking front door, the case is fucking closed. Are you for real? You're basing your entire worldview on some random fucking comments from anonymous dickheads on the internet? I can go find posts on a right-wing blog calling for the execution of politicians. Does that mean all Republicans are fucking traitors? No, it means there are fucking morons everywhere, you included. Your 'evidence' is a handful of fucking anecdotes and your own confirmation bias. It's pathetic. You have absolutely nothing of substance, just a collection of grievances from the fucking fever swamps of the internet.

Such terrible posts... that you didn't link to. Not to mention that you said "DailyKos, I'm sure,", which makes it clear you didn't read anything there, liar.

--LINDAMAN: The doctor who treated Kerry's injuries wasn't qualified enough? LOL--

So your evidence that Kerry self-inflicted an injury was... The doctor? You mean the one lone fucking dissenter decades later whose story kept changing? You're going to hang your entire fucking case on one questionable account against the sworn testimony of multiple other witnesses and all of Kerry's official fucking military records? That's your smoking gun? Are you fucking brain damaged? The Swift Boat Vets' claims have been debunked more times than your fat ass has been to an all-you-can-eat buffet. They were a partisan smear group funded by fucking GOP mega-donors, you gullible fuck. They weren't 'right.' They were a pack of fucking hyenas paid to lie, and you swallowed their bullshit hook, line, and fucking sinker because you desperately wanted it to be true.

--LINDAMAN: Ah, the 'Marines you know' card. That's no different than a racist saying, 'I can't be racist because I have black friends.'--

Fuck off, ass-rammer. That Warchick cunt is the closest you'll ever get to a military friend, and "she" never served.

--LINDAMAN: You keep defending and excusing those who do, so you tell me. :-)--

You can't back that up with anything, you lisping limp-wristed pillow-biter. You're the one defending politicians who send them to die for lies. You defend smear merchants who attack their service records for political gain. You attack decorated veterans who speak out against pointless wars. You're a fucking chickenhawk who gets a vicarious thrill from war but has never had the fucking guts to go himself. Your 'support' for the troops is a fucking costume you wear to feel tough while you sit on your ever-expanding ass. You don't give a fuck about soldiers. You only care about them as political props for your shitty, failed ideology.

YOU. HATE. THE. TROOPS.

--LINDAMAN: By the way, you're wrong about Gitmo. They aren't letting civillians guard the prisoners. It's all military, considering Gitmo is a MILITARY INSTALLATION! Keep throwing these softballs at me. I love being able to knock them out of the park. :-)--

As stated, there were also private contractors there.

--LINDAMAN: And again, not at Gitmo.--

Again, you are a spunk-gulping liar. You are stating a complete and utter falsehood as fact. The Taguba Report and multiple investigations by the fucking Inspector General of the Department of Defense confirmed the presence and actions of private military contractors from companies like CACI International at Guantanamo Bay. They were involved in interrogations. This is not a fucking debate point; it is a settled, documented historical fact. You can keep fucking denying it, but that just makes you look like an even bigger, more ignorant fucking moron than you already do. You're not knocking softballs out of the park. You're swinging a fucking whiffle ball bat at a cannonball and shitting your pants.

--LINDAMAN: And you're having to reach waaaaaaaay back to get a lot of no-names to fill up that list. On the other hand, I've come up with big name Democrats who should be undergoing investigations as we speak.--

Reaching way back? Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay. These were the fucking leaders of your party, you historically illiterate fucking moron. This shit happened within the last few fucking years. It's not ancient fucking history. You're just deliberately ignoring it because it shatters your bullshit narrative. And you've 'come up with' a list of people who should be investigated? That's fucking hilarious. You're working on suspicions, the very fucking thing you were just told wasn't happening from this side. You are a walking, talking, lard-assed fucking hypocrite. You demand convictions from me while you're waving around a fucking list of your own goddamn hunches.

--LINDAMAN: Pelosi doesn't seem to be too quick on that. She asked him to resign and he refused…and she let it go.--

She LET IT GO? Are you fucking brain dead? She stripped him of his committee assignment, you fucking imbecile. That's the most severe punishment she can unilaterally fucking hand out. What the fuck did you want her to do? Go to his house and personally drag his ass out into the street? She took away his power. The Republican leadership, by contrast, changed their own fucking House rules to keep Tom DeLay in power after he was indicted. They literally rewrote the fucking rules to protect a criminal. The hypocrisy is so fucking staggering it's a wonder your fat head doesn't fucking explode from the cognitive dissonance.

--LINDAMAN: Considering William Jefferson and Bill Clinton are two different people…--

No fucking shit they're two different people, you gutless fuckwit. But they both have the name "WILLIAM JEFFERSON", faggot. The point is you're a shitty fucking communicator.

--LINDAMAN: I already have. I'm telling Pelosi to put up or shut up about draining the swamp. She has chosen to shut up, thus cementing her position as intellectually dishonest.--

The 'are you going to back your comment up with actions' was in reference to you backing up your 'try to keep up' comment. You won't back it up because you know you'd be a corpse in a ditch.

As far as Pelosi goes: You've backed it up? By typing on a fucking keyboard? You haven't done shit, you impotent fucking blob. You've sat in your fart-stewed chair and whined. That's not 'action,' you delusional fuck. And again, for the fucking cognitively impaired, she didn't 'shut up.' She took away his fucking committee assignment. That is the opposite of shutting up. It's a concrete fucking action. You just keep repeating the same fucking lie over and over again, hoping that if you say it enough, it will magically become true. It won't. You're just a fucking liar.

--LINDAMAN: Not quite. But please continue to misquote me to try to prop up your poor excuse for an argument. :-) Besides, I've already proven time and time again that, even by your standards, I don't have to enlist anytime soon. :-)--

Yes, 'quite'. You said you'd join when the Democrats stop being hypocritical intellectually dishonest cowards. So it's in your best interest to ignore all the evidence that they aren't that to begin with, you yellow-toothed lardass.

--LINDAMAN: But that's not what I said. You took issue with what I wrote about the intellectually dishonest Democrats. :-)--

That is exactly what you did, you fucking liar. You presented a false dichotomy, implying that only Republicans are honest, so anyone waiting for honesty from Democrats is a fool. It's a classic partisan fucking setup, and you're too goddamn stupid to even do it subtly. You got called on your broad, idiotic generalization and now you're trying to scurry back to your original shitty point. You can't. You already showed your fucking hand. You're not an honest broker of facts; you're a fucking cheerleader with a keyboard.

--LINDAMAN: I've seen the entire letter, and it's been misquoted repeatedly by your side to excuse Clinton. By the way, I don't see you defending Clinton's actions, which further support my point.--

Defending WHAT actions? You stated he said he loathed the military. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

--LINDAMAN: It was in his original letter.--

Produce it. Post a fucking link to a digitized copy of this 'original letter.' Find a scan. Find a fucking photograph. Do something other than just repeating 'it was in the original letter' like a fucking cult member chanting a mantra. Every credible source, every fucking historian, every goddamn archive has the same version of the letter, and the phrase 'I loathe the military' isn't fucking in it. You are claiming to have seen a document that no one else on planet fucking Earth has ever seen. You are either a delusional fuck or a bald-faced liar. There is no third option.

--LINDAMAN: Thank you for admitting I was right about Clinton's attitudes about the military. :-)--

Clinton's attitudes you have in your delusional mind about a phantom letter that you can't produce, fatass. This is the most pathetic, transparent attempt to declare victory I have ever seen. You have proven nothing. You have cited nothing. All you've done is assert your own bullshit as fact. You are a fat, sad, fucking liar.

--LINDAMAN: I would rather those who post responses to my posts do so by being honest and knowledgable. And by the way, you went after me first with personal attacks, remember? Not exactly intellectually honest to cry foul now.--

You want honest and knowledgeable? That's fucking rich coming from a morbidly obese shut-in whose only knowledge comes from the bottom of a KFC bucket. You sit there, grease staining your keyboard, crying about "personal attacks" after spending this entire thread slinging shit like a constipated monkey. You're the one who came in here with a head full of debunked right-wing talking points and the intellectual rigor of a fucking turnip.

Don't you dare preach about intellectual honesty, you pot-bellied hypocrite. You started this by calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar and a troop-hater. Now you're clutching your pearls because someone had the nerve to point out what a fucking disingenuous gasbag you are? Boo fucking hoo. Go cry into a bowl of gravy, you pathetic waste of space. Crying foul now isn't dishonest; it's pointing out that you're a whiny little bitch who can't take what he dishes out.

--LINDAMAN: The original letter stated, "I loathe the military." Since then, the Clintonites have tried to change history by altering the orignal letter. By the way, your link isn't the original letter. They didn't have PBS or the Internet back then. Thank you for proving me right. :-)--

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? This is the dumbest, most easily disproven piece of conspiratorial bullshit I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The actual text of the letter Bill Clinton wrote to Colonel Eugene Holmes on December 3, 1969, has been publicly available for decades, you drooling retard. He never wrote "I loathe the military." That's a complete fabrication you probably picked up from some chain email your equally brain-dead uncle forwarded you in 1998.

The actual line, which requires a functioning brain cell to understand, was this: "I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military…" He was explaining the SENTIMENT of war protestors to a military man, you illiterate fuckwit. He was describing how OTHERS felt. It's a concept called "empathy" and "context," but I wouldn't expect a lard-assed simpleton like you to grasp that.

Your argument that because PBS and the internet didn't exist "back then," the publicly available letter must be a "cleaned up version" is the kind of logic I'd expect from a lobotomy patient. The letter was released to the press; it exists in physical archives. You're not being "proved right," you're proving you're a gullible moron who believes any fantasy that confirms his pea-brained biases. Wipe the fucking cheeto dust off your chin and try reading something other than the back of a cereal box.

--LINDAMAN: It was in the original letter, the one you claim to be quoting from, but, in fact, are quoting a cleaned up version.--

Still beating this dead horse, you fat fuck? Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. It just makes you look even more pathetic. Where is this "original" letter? Pull it out of your ass and show it to the class. Oh, wait, you can't, because it DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST. It's a phantom, a figment of the collective imagination of every mouth-breathing, right-wing dipshit who can't stand the fact that their entire worldview is built on a foundation of horseshit.

You have no proof. No evidence. Not a single goddamn shred of anything to back up your claim. All you have is "nuh-uh, you're quoting the fake one!" It's the last refuge of a cornered idiot who knows he's been caught talking out of his ass. The text of the letter is widely documented and has been for decades. It was released by the Clinton campaign itself in 1992 to get ahead of the story.

You're a fucking joke. You claim to want "honest and knowledgable" debate, but when you're presented with actual, verifiable facts, you retreat into a fantasy world of imaginary "cleaned up versions." It's intellectually dishonest, it's cowardly, and it's frankly embarrassing to watch.

--LINDAMAN: Gee, sending soldiers into harm's way with orders not to shoot until shot upon…--

Another fucking lie from the party of "personal responsibility." Those are called Rules of Engagement, you ignorant slob, and they exist in every single military conflict to prevent the kind of mass civilian casualties that turn a population against you. The idea that this was some unique, nefarious Clinton-era policy designed to get soldiers killed is pure, unadulterated right-wing propaganda that you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

Soldiers in Iraq, under your beloved George W. Bush, operated under similar, and sometimes even stricter, ROE. They couldn't just open fire on anything that moved. That's how you avoid war crimes, you fucking moron. It's a fundamental concept of modern warfare. The fact that you're trying to spin this as some kind of Clinton-specific betrayal of the troops just proves that you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're just regurgitating talking points you heard on Fox News while you were elbow-deep in a bag of pork rinds.

--LINDAMAN: replacing on-the-ground intelligence with satelites…--

But the intel committees of both the House and Senate from both parties embraced high tech intelligence. They were screaming for it after the Gulf War.

--LINDAMAN: That doesn't excuse it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was meant to be in addition to the on the ground surveilance. Clinton pulled that back because he didn't want us consorting with "the bad guys."--

This is a level of historical revisionism that would make Stalin blush. The push for more high-tech intelligence, including satellite surveillance, was a bipartisan effort that gained massive momentum after the first Gulf War. Both parties in Congress were demanding it, you fucking amnesiac. To blame this on Clinton as some kind of scheme to weaken the military is so fucking stupid it defies belief.

And the idea that he did this because he "didn't want us consorting with 'the bad guys'" is a childish and simplistic view of intelligence gathering. Of course we consort with "the bad guys." That's how you get human intelligence. But relying solely on that is a recipe for disaster. You need a mix of HUMINT and SIGINT to get a clear picture of the battlefield. The expansion of satellite intelligence was a modernization effort, not a partisan plot. But I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to understand the nuances of anything more complex than a fucking pop tart.

--LINDAMAN: showing an active disdain for the soliders whose job it was to protect the President from the White House to Marine 1, and vice versa.--

--LINDAMAN: Nope. It was his entire Administration. Bill and Hillary had a hatred of the military and they showed it repeatedly throughout their years in the White House.--

Citation fucking needed, you bloated gasbag. You keep making these sweeping accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up. "His entire Administration" had a "hatred of the military"? Prove it. Don't just pull it out of your cavernous, cellulite-ridden ass. Give me names, dates, and specific incidents. You can't, can you? Because this is just another one of those right-wing urban legends that gets passed around in chain emails by people who think Snopes is a liberal conspiracy. It's the same kind of vague, unsubstantiated bullshit you've been slinging this entire time. It's all just a smokescreen to cover for the fact that you have no real arguments, just a deep-seated, irrational hatred for a man who hasn't been president in six years.

--LINDAMAN: This is all common knowledge. That's why you have to feign ignorance of it.--

No, you fatuous fuck, it's not "common knowledge." It's "common bullshit." There's a difference. Just because a lie is repeated often enough by enough gullible morons for it to become a talking point on right-wing radio doesn't make it "knowledge." It's still a fucking lie.

And I'm not "feigning ignorance." I'm demanding something that you seem to be allergic to: proof. Evidence. A single, solitary shred of anything that isn't just your own biased, partisan opinion. You're the one feigning knowledge, pretending that you're some kind of expert on military policy and presidential history when it's clear you've done less research than a fucking middle schooler writing a book report.

--LINDAMAN: After you provide a citation of when the IISS did a census of terorrists. :-)--

What a masterful evasion, you corpulent coward. You pivot from being unable to defend your own baseless claims to making a ridiculous demand that you know can't be met. You've been backed into a corner and you're too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

The IISS, and numerous other intelligence and security organizations, reported a massive surge in Al Qaeda recruitment as a direct result of the Iraq War. They don't need to do a fucking "census" to know that. They monitor communications, debrief captured combatants, and analyze propaganda. It's called intelligence analysis, you fucking simpleton. Something you clearly know nothing about. This is a classic strawman argument, and a pathetic one at that.

--LINDAMAN: I posted a quote with attribution from the beginning, and just posted the specifics you requested. You're busted.--

You're a fucking liar. You posted a fabricated quote, and when you were called on it, you doubled down on the lie by claiming the real, publicly available text was a "cleaned up version." You've provided no attribution for this imaginary "original" letter because you can't. It doesn't fucking exist.

And what "specifics" did you post? You've offered nothing but vague, unsubstantiated claims about the Clinton administration's "hatred of the military." You haven't cited a single source, a single document, a single credible witness. You're not "busted." I'm not "busted." The only thing that's "busted" is the chair you're sitting on, which is clearly straining under the weight of your massive ass and even more massive bullshit.

--LINDAMAN: It was in the original letter, not the cleaned up version you're quoting as fact.--

Still clinging to this pathetic fantasy, I see. It must be comforting to live in a world where facts that contradict your worldview are just "cleaned up versions" of the "real" truth that only you and your fellow conspiracy theorists are privy to.

Let's be clear, one last time, for the people in the back who might be as slow as you are: The letter has been publicly available in its entirety for decades. It's been quoted in countless books, articles, and documentaries. The text is not in dispute by anyone with a functioning brain. Your insistence that there's some mythical "original" version where Clinton professes his "loathing" for the military is the last, desperate gasp of a man who knows he's been utterly and completely defeated.

--LINDAMAN: By the way, you're guilty of the same thing you accused me of doing, and you're still doing it. :-)--

Where, coward? Show me. Show me where I've fabricated a quote. Show me where I've relied on debunked conspiracy theories. You can't, because I haven't. All you have is your smug, passive-aggressive smiley faces and a seemingly endless supply of bullshit.

--LINDAMAN: See above. :-)--

See what above, you vapid cunt? Your wall of incoherent, debunked drivel? You've presented nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing. No proof, no evidence, just the same tired, fat-fingered keyboard faggot bullshit. That smiley face is just you signaling to the world that you're an empty-headed coward who can't form a cogent thought, so you try to hide your intellectual impotence behind a passive-aggressive emoji. It doesn't make you look smart; it makes you look like a castrated little boy who's trying to pretend he's got a pair.

--LINDAMAN: The Constitution states Congress spends money, not the President.--

"Uhm, actually…" Is that really your argument? This pedantic vomiting is fucking pathetic. We're talking about policy and priorities, and you're trying to hide behind a civics lesson you probably just looked up on Wikipedia. Nobody is arguing that the President signs the checks, you blithering idiot. The President sets the agenda. He submits a budget. He uses the bully pulpit to pressure Congress. He wields veto power. To pretend the President has no hand in spending is so disingenuous it's laughable. You're not being clever; you're being a deliberately obtuse jackass because you can't defend the substance of the argument.

--LINDAMAN: Which means…Congress spends the money, not the President. Civics 101.--

And here you are again, smugly repeating your little "gotcha" as if it erases reality. Congratulations, you've established that you passed a middle-school government class. Now try applying that knowledge to the real world, you fucking simpleton. When a President from a party that controls Congress proposes a budget, and that budget gets passed largely as he wants it, whose priorities are being funded? It's a transparent attempt to absolve your political heroes of any responsibility. It's the kind of limp-wristed buck-passing that defines your entire weak-kneed political tribe.

--LINDAMAN: And let's see the actual numbers. In Washingtonspeak, a cut is a reduction to proposed increases. Show me the real cuts and I'll concede the point. But you can't.--

Look at this fat fuck moving the goalposts. First, it was about who spends the money. Now that you've been shown to be a pedantic fool, you're creating your own special dictionary where "cuts" don't count unless they meet your arbitrary, made-up standard. This is the tactic of a born loser, a flaccid nonce. You're playing word games because you can't handle the facts. But fine, let's play your little game.

--LINDAMAN: Just show me where there were actual cuts. Wouldn't want you to make a statement without supporting documentation, after all… :-)--

You want documentation, you lazy, obese piece of shit? Here you go. In 2003, the Bush administration tried to cut combat pay. They tried to cut the family separation allowance. They threatened to veto a bill that would let disabled veterans collect both their disability pay and their pensions. His 2005 budget sought to cut staff at the Veterans Benefit Administration, the very office that handles disability claims from the soldiers you pretend to worship. His 2006 budget proposed doubling prescription co-pays and imposing new fees on veterans trying to access the VA medical system. These aren't reductions in "proposed increases," you gelatinous cunt. These are direct attacks on the pay, benefits, and healthcare of the men and women in uniform. Now take your little smiley and shove it up your fat, greasy ass.

--LINDAMAN: Opposing the war in Iraq based on lies is one way, and that's what the Democrats have done and continue to do.--

You accusing anyone of lying is the height of fucking irony. You, who just got caught fabricating quotes and denying basic reality, are going to lecture anyone on truth? The opposition to the Iraq War wasn't based on lies; it was based on the fact that the justifications FOR the war were a fucking mountain of lies, half-truths, and manipulated intelligence that people like you swallowed whole because it fit your simple-minded, testosterone-deficient worldview.

--LINDAMAN: 1) Iraq didn't have WMDs. 2) Iraq didn't have any ties to terrorism. 3) Iraq didn't attack us. 4) Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. 5) Iraq was contained by the UN. Need more? :-)--

This list is a monument to your own gullibility. It's a highlight reel of the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern American history, and you're still defending it. This isn't a list of "Democrat lies;" this is a fucking list of REALITY.

1) WMDs: They never found them. Not after turning the country upside down. The CIA itself concluded that Saddam "did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons" when the invasion happened. The UN inspectors said before the war that they hadn't found any evidence but needed more time. The entire premise was bullshit.

2) Ties to Terrorism: Yes, Saddam was a bastard who funded some secular Palestinian groups to annoy his neighbors. But the idea that he was in bed with the Islamists who wanted to kill secular dictators like him is fucking moronic. The 9/11 Commission, the CIA, and every serious intelligence agency found no evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

3) Iraq didn't attack us: Did you fall and hit your head? When the fuck did Iraq attack the United States? They didn't. This is a complete fabrication made up to justify a pre-emptive war.

4) No connection to al Qaeda: Repeating this for your thick skull: there was no connection. A secular Ba'athist dictator was not working with pan-Islamist jihadists. They were ideological enemies. Suggesting otherwise shows a stunning lack of basic knowledge about the region, you fucking dunce. The invasion of Iraq is what CREATED Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

5) Iraq was contained: After the first Gulf War, Iraq was under crippling sanctions, its airspace was patrolled by no-fly zones, and weapon inspectors had dismantled the bulk of its old WMD programs in the 90s. Saddam was a neutered dog in a cage, playing a bluffing game to look strong to Iran and his own people.

This isn't "proof" of Democrat lies, it's proof that you're a brainwashed fucking tool. It's pathetic.

--LINDAMAN: As far as not acting in a military manner, Kerry and Murtha have that experience in spades.--

You're going to lecture anyone on "acting in a military manner"? You, a man whose only personal battle is with a flight of stairs? A slob who gets winded walking to the fridge for another tub of lard? Kerry and Murtha served in combat. You've served yourself another helping of potato salad. They may have said things you disagree with, but they did it as men who actually wore the uniform. You're a fucking civilian, a spectator, a doughy blob of Jell-O who thinks he has the right to judge the conduct of men who have been shot at. It's the ultimate stolen valor, you pathetic little wannabe. Your only uniform is a gravy-stained wifebeater.

--LINDAMAN: No, because they have not acted like military men in that they lied about our troops in the field during a time of war.--

You are the last person on this fucking planet who should be accusing anyone of lying, you two-faced hippopotamus. Your entire presence on blogs and chatrooms has been a monument to dishonesty, from fabricated quotes to debunked conspiracy theories. And now you're clutching your pearls about "lying about the troops"? The biggest lie about the troops was the one your political idols told to send them to Iraq in the first place. A lie about WMDs. A lie about al-Qaeda. A lie that got thousands of them killed and tens of thousands maimed for nothing. Murtha and Kerry pointing out the ugly truths of a disastrous war isn't lying; it's called fucking courage. Something you wouldn't recognize if it bit you on your cottage cheese ass.

--LINDAMAN: More historical revision. Clinton said he would report to the ROTC and then didn't. No explanation, no attempt to provide an explanation, nothing but a lie.--

This is your big "gotcha"? A convoluted story about a draft notice from over fifty years ago? You're digging through the fucking fossil record to find something to stick to a man who successfully navigated the post-Cold War world while your boy Bush drove the country into a ditch. Here are the facts, you historically illiterate fuckwit. Clinton received a draft induction notice, and he made arrangements to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas to fulfill his military obligation. Subsequently, the draft lottery system was instituted, he received a high number (311), and the draft board told him he would not be called. He didn't just "not show." His obligation was rendered moot by a change in policy. It's all a matter of public record. To call it a "lie" is, itself, a fucking lie.

--LINDAMAN: That's not something you decide to do. He was ORDERED to go to the ROTC and he didn't show.--

Wrong again, you fat fuck. He wasn't "ORDERED to go to the ROTC." He made an agreement to join the ROTC as a way to defer his induction. Before that agreement was ever finalized and he was formally enrolled, the draft lottery happened, he got a high number, and his local draft board released him from the obligation. It's a nuanced situation that requires more than a single brain cell to comprehend, so I can see why you're struggling with it. You prefer your reality to be black and white, simple enough for your mushy, gravy-soaked brain to process.

--LINDAMAN: And funny how Clinton didn't have the "guts" to protest the war until he was overseas. :-)--

The sheer fucking hypocrisy is breathtaking. You, a man who has never shown an ounce of courage in his entire life, are questioning the "guts" of a man who stood up for his convictions, even if it meant being labeled a draft dodger by future generations of pathetic, chair-warming cowards like you. He was a student at Oxford, you fucking ignoramus. That's where he was living. Was he supposed to fly back to the US every weekend to hold a sign so his protest would meet your exacting standards of bravery? It's a chickenshit argument from a chickenshit man.

--LINDAMAN: LOL! You said Clinton had "guts" for opposing the Vietnam war. But his "guts" didn't show up until he was well off our shores. That's not "guts." That's cowardice.--

No, you fat tub of shit, cowardice is sitting safely behind a keyboard and smearing the character of men who actually took a stand. Cowardice is hiding behind a wall of debunked talking points and passive-aggressive smileys because you're too intellectually and morally bankrupt to engage in an honest debate. Cowardice is hanging out in an AOL Chatroom and backing down when getting called out to fight face-to-face. Organizing and participating in anti-war protests, regardless of location, took guts during that era. It put him at odds with the government and the mainstream culture. What have you ever done that took guts? Decided to have a third donut? You are a flabby, impotent eunuch passing judgment on your betters.

--LINDAMAN: Another faux liberal lie. Armor was provided from the get-go. Easily proven if you did your homework instead of parroting talking points.--

This is, without a doubt, one of the most disgusting and easily disproven lies you've told yet. It's a slap in the face to every soldier who had to scrounge for scrap metal to bolt onto their Humvees because they were sent into a war zone with inadequate equipment. The lack of body armor and armored vehicles in the early stages of the Iraq War is a matter of voluminous public record. There were congressional hearings about it. News reports. Soldiers and their families were on national television begging for proper equipment. For you to deny this is to piss on the graves of the men and women who died because of those shortages. You're not just wrong; you're a fucking ghoul.

--LINDAMAN: Another faux liberal lie. The troops had the body armor. Which goes back to a lie that John Murtha said, thus further cementing his position as anti-troop.--

Fuck you. Just, fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit. In late 2004, a soldier in Iraq, SPC Thomas Wilson, publicly asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld why they had to dig through scrap heaps for armor. The video was played on every fucking news channel. Rumsfeld's pathetic response was "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want." It was a global embarrassment that exposed the administration's negligence. But no, according to your fat, delusional ass, it was all a "faux liberal lie." You are a truly pathetic specimen, completely detached from reality, defending the indefensible just to score cheap political points.

--LINDAMAN: I already did,--

You just say 'I already did' like some impotent husband assuring his wife he took the trash out when the fucking bag is still sitting by the door, stinking up the whole house. You are a lazy, useless sack of meat and lies.

--LINDMAN: and you've done plenty of ad hominem attacks on me and others. What's your excuse? :-)--

Not until this response, ass-rammer. My excuse is that you deserve it, you quivering mound of rejected pig fat. Ad hominem means arguing against the man instead of the point. But with you, there is no separation. Your points are a direct reflection of what you are: a stupid, dishonest, cowardly piece of shit. Attacking your nonexistent character is the same as attacking your bullshit arguments because they both spring from the same polluted well of ignorance and arrogance. I am not avoiding the issue. I am identifying the source of the fucking problem, and the source is you, you flabby, useless cunt.

--LINDAMAN: Ummm…you might want to reread your posts again, this time with an honest eye. :-)--

You want me to use an 'honest eye'? Bitch, please. Look in the mirror and see the man who has to invent imaginary 'original letters' and deny documented history because the truth makes his tiny balls retract into his cavernous gut. Your little smiley face does not hide the fact that you are a weak, frightened little boy hiding under a blanket of your own bullshit.

--LINDAMAN: I want to talk, but I want people who talk to me to be informed and honest. So far, the faux left has batted 0 for 2.--

You do not want to talk. You want to lecture from a throne of chicken bones and stale pizza crusts. You want an audience of nodding sycophants who will swallow your every lie without question. The moment you are confronted by someone who is actually informed and honest, you fucking short-circuit. You resort to lies, evasions, and pathetic little word games because you are a coward. You have the intellectual fortitude of a wet paper bag. Saying 'the faux left has batted 0 for 2' is just you projecting your own complete and utter failure onto your opponents. You have not just batted zero. You have struck out, shit your pants in the batter's box, and then cried to the umpire that the pitcher was being mean to you.

--LINDAMAN: That's nice, but you didn't really post proof that Schwartzkopf was called a traitor. What was that you said about making blanket statements without proof? :-)--

Look at the little man trying to squirm away again. Are you a fucking idiot? My point, which flew right over your fat fucking head, is that if right-wing bloggers are calling anyone who opposes the war a traitor, they are, by extension, calling General Norman Schwarzkopf a traitor. It's a simple fucking concept, you dumb piece of shit. He opposed the fucking war, you moron.

--LINDAMAN: Yes you have. You didn't have the courage to say "You're lying" but instead you've implied it plenty in our exchanges to date.'--

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo, did I hurt your delicate fucking feelings? You are a lying sack of shit. There, I said it. Happy now, you fat crybaby? You've been repeatedly caught in your own fucking lies, and now you're projecting that shit onto me. It's pathetic, even for a fat fuck like you.

--LINDAMAN: Or are you saying that your comments about Clinton's "loathing the military" wasn't a suggestion that I was lying? :-)--

It wasn't a suggestion, you dumb fuck. It was a direct fucking challenge for you to provide a single shred of goddamn evidence. Something you have spectacularly failed to do. You just keep repeating the same bullshit lie like a broken fucking record. You're a fucking liar, Lindaman. A fat, stupid, fucking liar.

--LINDAMAN: More lies. The original text of the speech had a LOT more missing than just the "us." In fact, the statement as made bears little resemblance to the script.--

So where is it, you fat fuck? Where's this magical 'original text' that proves your bullshit point? You keep talking about it, but you never fucking produce it. Put up or shut the fuck up, you obese coward. You have nothing but your own fat fucking ass to pull these lies out of.

--LINDAMAN: Even in the context given in the actual text of the speech, it was unclear until the "punchline" that he was talking about the Bush Administration.--

It was perfectly fucking clear to anyone with a functioning brain cell. He was roasting Bush. The only reason it seems 'unclear' to you is because you're a fucking moron who needs everything spelled out in crayon. You're too fucking stupid to understand basic context, you fat piece of shit.

--LINDAMAN: And let's not overlook the fact that he was at a rally amongst Democrats. When we're around people we're comfortable with, we drop some of the societal expectations put on us and act more openly. Kerry was merely stating what he and his fellow Democrats believe to a group of true believers. Sorry, but I don't buy the "botched joke" line because, once again, I've done my homework.--

Your ‘homework’ consists of confirming your own fucking biases, you fat retard. You’ve twisted a simple goddamn joke into some grand conspiracy because you're a fucking partisan hack. You see what you want to see, and right now you're seeing a fantasy that only exists in your fat fucking head.

--LINDAMAN: Yes I do, because Kerry is arrogant and believes himself to be superior to everyone. And Kerry's already on record as showing disdain for the military.--

That's your big fucking gotcha? The man stumbled over a fucking joke. He was supposed to say, 'You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.' But he flubbed the line. Big fucking deal. Are you so desperate to paint Democrats as troop-haters that you'll cling to a goddamn verbal slip-up? It’s pathetic.

You want to talk about disdain for the military? Let's talk about the cocksuckers who sent them into a meat grinder based on a fucking lie. Let's talk about the chickenhawks who dodged the draft themselves and then had the gall to question the patriotism of a decorated combat veteran. Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three goddamn Purple Hearts. He didn't have to go to Vietnam, but he did. You sit there on your fat ass, typing away on your computer, and you have the fucking audacity to question his respect for the men and women in uniform? Fuck off, Gravy Seal.

--LINDAMAN: Wrong. His immediate statement said he would not apologize to the Bush Administration for prosecuting the war, but made no reference to the troops. That didn't come until day 2 or 3.--

You're so fucking dishonest it's astounding. He immediately clarified that his botched joke was about Bush, not the troops. He said, and I quote, "My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop." He then went on to apologize to any service member or family member who was offended. So don't fucking sit there and tell me he didn't make reference to the troops. You're just twisting the facts to fit your bullshit narrative. It's the same dishonest bullshit you pull time and time again. You find a fucking kernel of something and then you blow it up into this massive conspiracy to make your political opponents look bad.

What's really going on here is that you can't stand the fact that a decorated war hero would dare to speak out against a Republican president's war. It shatters your simplistic little worldview where Republicans are the patriots and Democrats are the traitors. So you have to resort to these pathetic, transparent attempts to smear his character. It’s a fucking disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you're not, because you have no shame. You're a partisan hack, plain and simple.

--LINDAMAN: And as I've shown above, my feelings are based in far more than just any feelings I have against Kerry.--

Bullshit. Your feelings are based on your own deep-seated, irrational hatred for anyone who doesn't subscribe to your right-wing ideology. You've convinced yourself that you're some kind of truth-teller, but you're just a fucking propagandist for the Republican party. You repeat their talking points, you parrot their smears, and you do it all with this smug, self-satisfied grin on your face.

You act like you're some kind of intellectual heavyweight, but you're not. You're a fucking lightweight. You're a guy who gets his news from right-wing blogs and talk radio, and you think that makes you an expert on foreign policy and military affairs. You're a fucking joke. And what's even funnier is that you don't even realize it. You actually think you're making a difference. You think you're fighting the good fight. But you're not. You're just another fucking limpwrist on the internet, spewing your venom and your lies. You're a sad, pathetic little man, and I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

--LINDAMAN: Facts. Try them. You just might like them. :-)--

Facts? You wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your cavernous asshole and built a fucking nest. You deal in feelings, speculation, and right-wing talking points that you regurgitate like a mother bird feeding its retarded chicks. You haven't presented a single verifiable fact this entire fucking time. All you've done is say "I'm right" and then stick a smarmy fucking smiley face at the end like some self-satisfied pederast. The only thing you've proven is that you're a fucking moron who gets his information from chain emails and washed-up talk radio hosts.

Let's review your "facts." Kerry hates the troops because he botched a joke. That's not a fact, that's a malicious fucking interpretation. Clinton loathes the military because of a line in a letter that no one can find but you swear exists. That's not a fact, that's a fucking conspiracy theory. Democrats are intellectually dishonest because Nancy Pelosi's "100 hours" clock didn't include procedural time. That's not a fact, that's the most pathetic, nitpicking bullshit I've ever heard. You don't deal in facts. You deal in greasy, stinking piles of shit that you call "facts" to make yourself feel smart.

--LINDAMAN: I am a former Libertarian who left the party after a distinct ideological shift that I didn't agree with. They became Democrat Lite. Their 2004 candidate said Michael Moore had a right to advertise his movie when no such right exists in the Constitution. Also, the LP came out against the war in Iraq, in spite of the fact that they also are opposed to people committing fraud and denying others their rights. Saddam clearly did both of those.--

Christ on a fucking crutch, this is the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever read. You weren't a Libertarian. You were a fucking Republican who liked the idea of less taxes but got scared when you realized it also meant not invading every fucking country in the Middle East. "Democrat Lite"? Because they believe in the First Fucking Amendment? Michael Moore has every goddamn right to advertise his movie. It’s called free speech, you illiterate fuckwit. The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly list "movie advertisements" for them to be covered. Does it have to say you have the right to post your fat-fingered bullshit on a blog, too?

And your justification for the Iraq War is that Saddam committed "fraud"? Are you fucking kidding me? That's your rationale for a trillion-dollar war and hundreds of thousands of dead? Because he was a "fraud"? You’ve got a severe case of brain damage. The Libertarian Party opposed the war because it's an aggressive, interventionist, state-building exercise which is the exact opposite of their fucking platform. They were being consistent. You, on the other hand, just wanted a socially acceptable excuse to go kill brown people, and when the Libertarians didn't provide it, you took your ball and went home crying like the little bitch you are.

--LINDAMAN: I am a classic liberal, or a 'small-L libertarian' if you'd prefer. My distinction is based on liberalism in thought, not necessarily in practice. The so-called 'progressives' are as far away from liberalism as you can get, but they'll still take some pride at being called a liberal because they think it gives them a level of moral superiority. But it's my point that one cannot distort the original ideas of liberalism to include more statist elements and still be a liberal, thus the 'faux liberal' tag.--

A "classic liberal"? You? Don't make me fucking laugh. John Locke would rise from the grave just to piss on yours. You're an authoritarian bootlicker, a nationalist shill who wraps his statist bullshit in the flag and calls it patriotism. You don't believe in individual liberty. You believe in liberty for people who think exactly like you. Your entire worldview is based on a massive, bloated, globe-spanning military, government surveillance, and projecting national power. And you have the fucking nerve to call anyone else a "statist"?

The hypocrisy is fucking breathtaking. You're a walking, talking Dunning-Kruger exhibit. You spew this pseudo-intellectual garbage like "liberalism in thought, not necessarily in practice" to sound profound, but it's just meaningless word salad designed to obscure the fact that you're just another generic, right-wing blowhard. You're not a classic liberal. You're a fucking fraud. You're precisely the kind of intellectually dishonest, label-appropriating cunt you accuse others of being. The only tag that fits you is "fucking idiot."

You call progressives "faux liberals" because you think it gives you some kind of intellectual high ground, but you're just a fucking poser. You want the cool, intellectual cachet of being a "classic liberal" without actually subscribing to any of its core tenets, like non-interventionism or genuine free speech. You're a Republican who's too much of a coward to just admit he's a Republican because you know the label is associated with warmongering morons like yourself.

So please, spare me the fucking lecture on what constitutes a real liberal. You don't have a fucking clue. You've cobbled together an "ideology" from bumper stickers and talk radio soundbites. It's a pathetic, incoherent mess, just like every single fucking argument you've tried to make here. You are a complete and utter phony, and everyone with a functioning brain cell can see right through your bullshit.

--LINDAMAN: Because conservatives, at least from the grass roots level that I've seen, actually DO believe in smaller government and personal freedom with personal responsibility.--

You are a special kind of stupid, a truly weapons-grade fucking moron, if you actually believe that. "Smaller government"? Are you fucking high? These are the same cocksuckers who voted for the Patriot Act, want to build a fucking wall across the entire border, and think the government belongs in every bedroom in America to make sure nobody's having gay sex. They scream about "small government" and then turn around and demand a ten-trillion-dollar military budget to go blow up mud huts on the other side of the planet. It's the biggest fucking con job in modern politics, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

"Personal freedom"? For who? For the Christians who wants to tell a gay couple to fuck off? Sure. For a woman who wants to decide what happens inside her own fucking body? Not a chance. For some kid who wants to smoke a joint in his own home? Lock him up and throw away the key. Their idea of "personal freedom" is the freedom to be exactly like them: a white, straight, Christian who loves Jesus and guns. Everyone else can get fucked. You don't see grass roots, you see astroturf, you gullible fuck.

--LINDAMAN: You're right. They're statists.--

And here we have the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty, the absolute peak of having your head so far up your own ass you're tasting yesterday's lunch. You, the war-cheerleading, flag-humping nationalist who just got done fellating "conservatives" for their supposed love of small government, are calling someone else a statist. The sheer, unmitigated gall. You support a global military empire, the surveillance of your own fucking citizens, and government intervention in the most personal aspects of people's lives, but the Democrats are the statists.

It is the most chickenshit deflection imaginable. You can't defend your own side's massive expansion of government power, so you just point your fat finger at the other guys and screech "STATIST!" like a fucking parrot with Tourette's. Your entire ideology is a fucking contradiction. You're a bootlicker for the most powerful and intrusive state apparatus on the planet, the military-industrial complex, and you have the fucking balls to call anyone else a statist. Un-fucking-believable.

--LINDAMAN: He's the genetic combination of Ross Perot and Casey Kasem. And his ideas aren't that great. We already have a 'Department of Peace' in existence. It's called the State Department."--

Look at this fucking master debater. Calling the State Department a "Department of Peace" is the most Orwellian bullshit I've ever heard. It’s the fucking Department of Imperial Management. It's the soft-power arm of the same war machine you love so much. They don't promote peace; they promote "American interests," which usually means destabilizing some poor country so a corporation can suck out its resources. It's the department that lays the groundwork for the CIA and the fucking Marines to go in and crack skulls. You think Condoleezza Rice was running a fucking peace-and-love drum circle over there? Get your head out of your ass.

--LINDAMAN: Wrong color. They're closer to communists than environmentalists.--

Oh, here we go. The old red scare bullshit. Anybody who gives a shit about the planet is a "communist." You don't have a fucking clue what communism even is, do you? It's just a spooky word you use for anything to the left of Attila the Hun. You see a recycling bin, and you start screaming about gulags. You're a relic, a fossil. A walking, talking exhibit of brain-dead Cold War talking points.

You can't engage with the actual science of climate change or the economics of pollution, because that would require a brain capable of processing information. So you just yell "COMMIES!" It's pathetic. It’s lazy. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a fucking monkey flinging its own shit. The fact that you think this is a compelling argument proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you are a complete and total fucking simpleton. You're a political infant. Go back to your coloring book, the adults are trying to talk.

--LINDAMAN: Laws in and of themselves are a form of the legislation of morality. If it's done to protect society from a larger threat, like murder or theft, I have no problem with it. If it's done against actions that really have no bearing on society as a whole, like pot or sex between adults, I oppose it.--

What a fucking convenient little philosophy. Look at this fat fucking hypocrite, trying to sound like some enlightened libertarian while cheering on the party that wants to legislate every fucking aspect of personal life. He "opposes" laws against "sex between adults"? Holy shit, tell that to the Republican platform that wants to ban gay marriage and thinks sodomy is a crime against God. This piece of shit would be the first in line to vote for some Bible-thumping judge who wants to put gays in fucking conversion therapy camps. He doesn't give a flying fuck about personal freedom. He just wants the freedom to do what he wants, and fuck everyone else.

This isn't a principled stance; it's a fucking smokescreen. He throws out "pot and sex" as a sop to make himself sound reasonable, but it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. This is the same guy who supports a "war on drugs" when it's brown people getting locked up and a "war on terror" that shreds the fucking Constitution. His entire standard for what "harms society" is whatever his political masters tell him to be scared of this week. He's not a thinker. He’s a fucking receptacle for right-wing talking points, a fleshy goddamn container of pre-packaged outrage.

--LINDAMAN: Abortion should be a state issue. The fed has no real say in it from a Constitutional standpoint. I consider myself pro-life, but with an understanding that my opinion is mine and isn't the law of the land. I'm more of an advocate of reducing the number of abortions through persuading society to take up a higher standard than I am of letting government get its hands in the matter.--

This is the most pathetic, cowardly, fence-sitting bullshit I have ever seen. "I'm pro-life, but, like, don't make it a law or anything, tee-hee." He wants to have it both ways. He wants to signal to his right-wing buddies that he's on Team Jesus, but he doesn't have the fucking balls to actually stand by the conviction. He wants to control women's bodies, but he wants to do it with "persuasion" and "higher standards." What the fuck does that even mean? It's meaningless, condescending garbage from a man who thinks he has the right to dictate what a woman does with her own fucking organs.

He wraps his control-freak bullshit in the language of sweet reason, but it's the same old crap. He wants to "persuade" society, which is just code for shaming women and pushing for policies that make it harder for them to get healthcare. He's not against "letting government get its hands in the matter." The entire point of the pro-life movement he's trying to court is to use the government's hands, fists, and fucking boots to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. He's a fucking liar and a coward, trying to sound moderate while shilling for a movement of religious fanatics.

--LINDAMAN: I am opposed to a draft, mainly because I don't feel it's necessary. We have a lot of military folks cooling their heels in places where we no longer need a military presence. To institute a draft when we have that condition is stupid. From an ideological standpoint, I'm opposed to the draft because it forces people to do something that may be against their will. Persuasion works better, I've found, than force. What some people will do when drafted is rebel, which hurts morale and cohesiveness. And that, ultimately, hurts any war effort.--

Oh, now he's opposed to forcing people to do something against their will. Fucking amazing. Where was this profound ideological conviction when you were cheering on the invasion of a fucking sovereign nation? Where was this deep concern for "morale and cohesiveness" when you were smearing actual combat veterans as traitors? It's a fucking joke. This fat fuck is only against the draft because he knows his own soft, doughy ass would be the first one to get a deferment while poor kids get shipped off to die in his bullshit wars.

His opposition isn't ideological; it's purely self-serving. He loves the all-volunteer military because it creates a permanent warrior class totally disconnected from the society that sends them to fight and die. It keeps the war out of sight and out of mind for comfortable, keyboard-warrior pieces of shit like him. He can sit in his greasy chair, pound out his bloodthirsty blog posts, and never have to worry that his own kid might get called up. He doesn't give a fuck about "force" versus "persuasion." He just wants to make sure that the only people who have to pay the price for his sick fucking war fantasies are people he'll never have to meet.

--LINDAMAN: The separation of church and state isn't a Constitutional concept. I firmly believe people of faith can serve in the government, and that the government shouldn't get involved in religion.--

"This is not a Constitutional concept"? Are you a fucking imbecile? Have you even read the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's right there in the fucking text, you illiterate sack of shit. It doesn't get much clearer than that. But of course, you're not interested in what the Constitution actually says. You're interested in twisting it into a pretzel to justify your theocratic bullshit. Nobody is saying people of faith can't serve in government. What they're saying is that you can't use the government to shove your specific fairy tales down everyone else's throat.

You say the government shouldn't get involved in religion, but that's exactly what you and your conservative buddies want. You want government-funded religious schools, you want prayer in public classrooms, you want judges who make rulings based on the fucking Bible instead of the law. You want a Christian nation, and you're willing to tear up the goddamn Constitution to get it. You're a liar. You don't believe in the separation of church and state. You believe in a state that serves your church, and you're too much of a pussy to just come out and say it.

--LINDAMAN: And, no, supporting faith-based organizations isn't the same as promoting a religion, so the First Amendment isn't threatened. The reason behind the support, and my support for that matter, of faith-based initiatives is because they have proven to be effective and efficient. If we really want to help people, we need both.--

Bullshit. It's a fucking slush fund for churches. It's a way to funnel taxpayer money directly into the coffers of religious organizations so they can proselytize to vulnerable people. You're telling me that when the government gives millions of dollars to "St. Bartholomew's Home for the Wayward," they're not promoting a religion? Give me a fucking break. They're buying souls with public money. And what about the organizations that aren't faith-based? Do they just get to fuck off and die because they're not sucking Jesus's dick hard enough?

"Effective and efficient"? Says who? You? Show me the fucking data. Show me the peer-reviewed studies that prove that a Catholic charity is better at feeding the homeless than a secular one. You can't, because it doesn't exist. It's a talking point, a fucking platitude you picked up from some right-wing think tank. The real goal here isn't to "help people." The real goal is to blur the line between church and state until it disappears completely. It's to create a system where the government outsources its social safety net to the church, making everyone dependent on religious institutions for their survival. It's a power grab, plain and simple, and you're cheerleading it like the good little lapdog you are.

--LINDAMAN: More like a clear flat surface. Not once have I seen a faith-based organization force anybody to join a church to get benefits.--

You are either the most naive motherfucker on the planet or a goddamn liar. They don't have to hold a gun to someone's head to force them. When you're cold, hungry, and desperate, and the only soup kitchen in town is run by a bunch of preachy evangelicals who make you sit through a sermon before they'll give you a fucking bowl of oatmeal, that's coercion. When you're a single mother trying to get a spot in a shelter, and they make it clear that your life would be a lot easier if you just found Jesus, that's coercion.

You haven't "seen" it because you've never had to be in that position, you comfortable, overfed piece of shit. You've never had to choose between your dignity and a warm meal. You sit in your ivory tower, pontificating about how great these organizations are, completely oblivious to the reality of the people they claim to serve. It's easy to be high-minded when your belly is full. But for people on the margins, these "faith-based initiatives" are just another way for the powerful to control the powerless. It's religious blackmail, and you're defending it.

--LINDAMAN: That WAS your implication in the statement you made… Nah. I'm committed to letting people speak their minds, even when they disagree. And as you can see if you read some of the past posts from people who have disagreed with me, it's been pretty vile, but I let it roll off my back. It's a small price to pay to be a consistent defender of free speech.--

A "consistent defender of free speech"? You? You're a fucking joke. You don't believe in free speech. You believe in speech you agree with. Don't fucking lecture anyone about free speech. You wouldn't know the first thing about it.

You let "vile" comments roll off your back? No, you don't. You're not a noble defender of the First Amendment. You're just another internet blowhard who gets off on arguing with people. You crave the attention. You thrive on the conflict. You're not paying a "small price." You're getting exactly what you want: a platform to spew your bullshit and a bunch of people to react to it. So cut the crap. You're not some free speech martyr. You're just a troll who runs a blog and liked the attention on the AOL Chatroom until you got called out to fight in real life, then you backed down.

--LINDAMAN: You going after me for using smileys was unreasonable and unnecessary.--

Oh, boo fucking hoo. Did I hurt the big baby's feelings? You sit here and accuse people of hating the troops, of being liars and traitors, of wanting to destroy the country, but when someone calls you out for being a passive-aggressive little shit with your fucking smileys, that's what's "unreasonable and unnecessary"? The hypocrisy is so thick I could cut it with a knife.

You use those fucking smileys as a weapon. It's a way to be condescending and dismissive without having to actually make a coherent argument. It's a way of saying, "I'm right, you're stupid, and I find your pathetic attempts to reason with me amusing. :-)" It's a chickenshit tactic, and you know it. So don't fucking cry to me about being "unreasonable." You're the one who brought a knife to a gunfight and then got pissy when you got shot. Grow a fucking pair. If you're going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

After pages of being a condescending, dishonest, lying piece of shit, you clutch your pearls because someone called out your passive-aggressive punctuation. That’s you in a nutshell. A fucking coward who can dish out endless bullshit but can't take the slightest bit of fucking pushback. You're just a fucking crybaby with a dead blog and a dangerously high BMI. Calling out your passive-aggressive smiley-face bullshit isn’t a personal attack, you oversensitive cunt. It’s an accurate description of your bitch-ass style.

You can't win on facts so you rely on condescension and deflection. When cornered on your bullshit claims about Clinton or Kerry or armor shortages, you just pivot to new lies or demand proof of negatives while never providing evidence for your own claims. You lie about what people said. You ignore direct evidence. You invents facts and sources that do not exist. You demand impossible standards of proof for others while offering none for your own insane claims. You are the perfect example of a fucking faux-intellectual right-wing blogger: all smug superiority and zero fucking substance. You are so badly lost it's not even a defeat; it’s a fucking intellectual snuff film.

Ladies and gentlemen... 'Reasonable and necessary' is a two-by-four wrapped in barbed wire connecting with that fat fuck's teeth. A good, old-fashioned fucking beatdown is the only kind of intellectual discourse a piece of shit like Lindaman understands. When you're dealing with a fundamentally dishonest animal, you don't reason with it. You fucking break it.

-------------------------------

To summarize:

The non-binding resolution was good strategy. Bush lied about Iraq, and it was an impeachable offense. Pelosi kept her 100 hours promise. Hoyer was telling the truth. The Iraq war created more jihadists, and this was confirmed by The International Institute for Strategic Studies. There was no operational link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Iraq didn't have WMDs. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq was contained. Republicans don't actually believe in providing for the common defense. Murtha was right. John Kerry was right. Durbin was right. They tortured people at Gitmo. Bush allies trashed McCain. No Democrats trashed Bob Dole or Bob Kerrey's injuries, but they rightfully pointed out their politics. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are proven liars for the GOP. Republicans Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay were all criminals protected by the GOP. By contrast, Democrat William Jefferson was stripped of all assignment by Pelosi. Rules of Engagement were the same under Clinton and Bush. The expansion of satellite intelligence was a modernization effort, not a partisan plot. Bush cut veterans' benefits. Clinton didn't lie about the ROTC. The troops didn't have enough armor. Kerry's speech was a joke about the Bush administration. Lindaman's a right-winger that thinks he's a true classic liberal. Right-wingers, and Lindaman, don't actually want small government. Lindaman doesn't give a fuck about soldiers and only cares about them as political props. Lindaman claims Clinton said he loathed the military in his "original" letter which was "changed", but provides no proof. Lindaman backs down when called out to fight in person.