It MUST Mean She's SEXUALLY Promiscuous!

In response to right-wing talk slut Laura Ingraham lying about Obama's response to the tornado situation in Missouri and the South, Ed Schultz truthfully called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut" and a "talk slut".  In response to this, right-wing sluts like Thomas Lindaman have poutrage.

Ed Schultz apologized and MSNBC suspended Schultz, which are two things Lindaman glosses over.  Naturally he would gloss those facts over, since it again shows something right-wingers don't have: accountability. 

Don't believe me?  If a right-winger untruthfully calls a Democrat a "faggot"... The right-winger would not apologize (she didn't), right wingers like Lindaman would say nothing (he didn't, check his archives), and FOX would do nothing (they didn't).

At any rate, Ingraham will never say anything good about the president, even Bill O'Reilly has called her a Kool-Aid drinker. 

Now, as for the tornadoes (which Lindaman expectedly blames on Obama, just like Lindaman unsuccessfully tried to do during the BP spill):

Eric Cantor can say a bunch of nonsense in the congress about "we're not going to send Joplin any money without cutting something else out of the budget" (thank goodness the money was finally made available) and that's somehow okay, but Obama is criticized for not flying right home from Europe --and doing WHAT, exactly?-- while the tornado is going on.

Bush was just sitting around when Katrina went down, Obama is on an official state visit and also the G8 summit. Obama was already out of the country when the tornado hit.  Everything he can do for the situation he can do anywhere he happens to be. Until things are handled, Obama's job is to have competent people on the ground. Which he can do from anywhere in the world.

Do the righties want Obama to at least make a statement?  Oh, he did that.

People were angry at Bush's handling of Katrina, but it wasn't because Bush didn't visit.  It was because there were people being trapped on roofs for 3 days without any signs of rescue or help, and Bush put a horse breeder (Brown) in charge of FEMA as a political favor, and Brown's management was piss-poor. Bush's callousness about their inadequacy pissed people off by praising Brown as doing a "heckuva job", illustrating that Bush was oblivious to the situation. Focusing on how horrible it was that Trent Lott's beachfront home was trashed didn't help either.

In this current situation FEMA actually has done a "heckuva job" so far. The right-wingers are so pissed that the government is working in this situation, they are trying to promote a fictional narrative that it is not in hopes it will gain traction.

Of course, had Obama changed his plans, canceled a state dinner with the Queen of England and flown directly to Joplin MO to survey the damage, we'd be hearing endless howls about how he disrespected our closest ally, and besides... he's just getting in the way of people trying to do REAL rescue work with his self-aggrandizing photo ops.

But back to Ed:

A Republican makes a racist term that Obama is "chugging 40's" and Lindaman says nothing. 

But a mouthpiece calls an actual right-wing slut a "right-wing slut" and he calls for his head.

Just like someone who loves posing for pictures is a "camera slut", just like someone who has a "Hey, look at me!" attitude is an "attention whore", Ingraham is indeed a right-wing slut and a talk slut.

So Ed Schultz (who I'm not even a fan of, give Maddow his time) gets suspended for truthfully calling Laura Ingraham a talk slut, yet a whitebread-mayonnaise honky like Bolling can dog-whistle Obama's "ghetto roots" to the foxtards with impunity.

These right-wingers have a problem with Obama no matter what he does. It's just incidental that they often express their dislike in racist terms.

Laura took the "high road" by accepting the apology?  What else could she do?  Ed was telling the truth.  Just like Bill Maher (who by the way is a Comedian, and a Libertarian) was telling the truth when he called Palin a dumb twat and bimbo. 

We'll call the right-wing attention tramps out for the sluts, whores, twats, and cunts that they are.  You "small government" right-wingers (who are now magically feminists) just want to control all women's uteruses and make rape justifiable if a woman dresses in a way you don't like.

Who You Gonna Call? TOAST-MASTERS!

In the latest bit of fake Republican outrage,  Thomas Lindaman lies and states Obama showed a "bizarre lack of protocol" regarding his recent trip to Europe.

This is what Republicans with Obama Derangement Syndrome actually believe, folks. 

Regarding his toast, just watch the damn video.

Obama began his toast, then the band began the anthem. The faux-pas is on the part of the bandleader, interrupting a visiting dignitary.

Then Obama continued, and at the end of his toast, joined everyone in solemnity for the rest of the anthem.

As soon as the anthem ended, everyone toasted immediately, including the Queen.

Yeah, how dare Obama not know the conductor was going to interrupt his toast by coming in early? WTF is this guy's problem??

From the BBC: The string orchestra of the Scots Guard mistakenly began playing the British national anthem before the president had finished his address during a banquet at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday night.

Outrageous!!! This is Obama's fault!  Wait... no, it isn't.  But I'm sure it serves as a nice confirmation bias for many retarded right-wingers in this country.

Someone fired up the music too early. After the song they toasted and everything was fine.

Please, Republicans, it's imperative that you all leave America and travel to the UK immediately. The British themselves have completely forgotten the arcane arts of Royal Protocol that you have so lovingly cherished during the long dark nights of American independence.

Republicans cried about how Obama bows to foreign leaders, and now they're crying about an imaginary display of disrespect? Am I reading this correctly?

But don't forget that iPod Obama gave the Queen!  Lindaman made a big deal about that "incident" too.  Because, after all, giving someone a gift they explicitly asked for is a sign of grave disrespect.

Apparently Republicans can be upset over the thought that the Queen of England might have been involved in a minor imaginary moment of social awkwardness. Perhaps it's a side effect of all that rugged individualism they're always lecturing us about?

Lindaman states this will hurt relations.  lol

The reality: UK reporter Nick Clegg (jokingly) apologized to Obama on behalf of the UK for inappropriately "crashing" the end of his speech. The BBC reporter notes that Obama "A gracious President Obama said that the opening bars of God Save The Queen gave the conclusion to his address a far more 'rousing' tone than he could have hoped for."

It's obvious to anyone who isn't utterly insane with hatred for Obama that the bandleader is supposed to wait until the end of Obama's toast before playing the anthem.

I mean, it's not that I don't like the comedic spectacle of all you tough, manly, bootstrappy Republicans having fits of vapors because of an imaginary slight against the Queen of England--but the video just doesn't support whatever bizarre spin you're trying to put on this. The "slight" here (to the extent that there was one) was against your President. And the Brits are praising Obama for his "graciousness" in laughing the slight off.  Yet again, foreigners are better Americans than right-wingers.

Republicans are so desperate, they're even falsely saying Obama didn't know toast etiquette and he himself accidentally cued the bandleader by saying "Queen."  Really.

Some other people who "don't know toast etiquette":

The President of India in 2009 proposes a toast to the Queen at a state banquet:

"Your Majesty, with these words, I now propose to raise a toast:
- to the personal good health and happiness of Your Majesty the Queen and Your Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and your family;
- to the continued well-being and prosperity of our two friendly peoples; and
- to the ever-deepening friendship between our two countries.

Long Live the United Kingdom! Long Live India!"

President Mbeki's toast at the state banquet in 2001:

"Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses. My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please accept the heartfelt message of greetings and friendship that we bring from the people of South Africa and the comfort we draw from the knowledge that in you, we have steadfast friends. Toast."

King Harald of Norway's toast in 2005:

"And now I would like you all to join me in a toast to Her Majesty The Queen, to His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, to the people of the United Kingdom and to the friendship between our two countries."

Every single time, one of those visiting heads of state used the phrase long before they finish their toast, and it didn't trigger any automatic reflex rendition of "God Save the Queen."

Yeah. Obama's totally breaking with the ironclad traditions of British state visits. That rube.

It was clearly the bandleader's fault, not Obama's.  The UK admits that. 

And the United States still has much higher worldwide approval since we lost that embarrassing Republican "leader."  Since you're apparently not aware of that, it appears it's the right-wingers that are stone deaf.  lol

And Lindaman still hasn't given us any reasons to vote Republican, nor has he given us any evidence that Obama's citizenship is "questionable."

What does it say about the Republican Party where the two highest polled people (Huckabee and Trump) both decided not to run?  It makes me smile.

Seriously, right wing, focus on something the things you do well.  Go back to clinging to your guns and Bibles. 

Don't worry. We'll let you know when something important happens.

This Old Stance Is An OUTRAGE!

Thomas Lindaman weighs in on Obama's recent speeches on Israel.

Obama stated:

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Obama has merely restated what American policy has been all along. Why should Obama or any other rational person care what the right thinks about this non-issue? You guys whined about the Olympics, you whined about his Peace Prize, you whined about arugula, you whined about mustard, you whined about flag pins, you whined about healthy food on the menu, you whined about recommending properly inflated tires, you whined about gifts to the Queen... Wouldn't someone come to the conclusion that you'd whine no matter what?

Israel's "amen" corner in America, which is the strongest and most dominant lobby in the history of the United States, will criticize Obama for defining the lines of a future settlement before negotiations have even begun, but that it is pure duplicity on their part (what else can we expect?), because Israel has been using a fake perceived ambiguity in US policy to demand more and more land, and more and more rights for Israel in any future settlement.

Now, the Republicans invite Netanyahu to speak before Congress so that he can counter the American president!  Party before country for them, as always.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is simply wrong. This is the same stance we've had for decades. Nothing has changed. He needs to stop thumping his chest and get to the negotiating table. Israel is losing what little credibility it had.

Obama's speech admonished both Israel and Palestine on some issues and supported both Israel and Palestine on others. This is the most balanced approach to try to get two hostile sides to come together.

Republicans, as usual, wanted the President to bash the Palestinians and fawn over Israel. That's great for scoring points in a campaign season, but it's poor strategy in conflict management (something the GOP knows little about).

Rational people are tired of paying both cash money to Israel to subsidize it and spending countless more dollars and blood through our military involvement there. We are constantly told that there is no money to do the things we need to do at home, yet there are limitless funds for warfare in the Middle East.

Israel receives more aid from the U.S. than any other country, and 1/3 of all U.S. aid goes to Israel and Egypt. Israel shouldn't be telling us what to do. We should be telling Israel what to do, and it needs to stop land-grabbing, end the occupation and move toward a two-state solution. Or the alternative: it could forgo U.S. taxpayer dollars and U.S. economic and military aid.

And it needs to be repeated again and again, lest people forget: The only reason right-wingers support Israel is because of Armageddon.  These unbelievably stupid retards are basing foreign policy on proven fairy tales.

Now He's Really, REALLY Concerned!

Thomas Lindaman gets even more "concerned" and writes:

With the death of Osama Bin Laden and recent news of intelligence on al Qaeda from Bin Laden's computer records, it appears we've struck a major blow to international terrorism. Yet, when taken as part of the totality in the Middle East, we may be looking at a vastly different and much more dangerous landscape soon.

If what I've heard recently is true, al Qaeda may have split in half on religious grounds with a more radical faction ignoring Bin Laden's leadership. If so, this is consistent with what we've seen in Egypt and Libya, where more radical factions have pushed for the removal of less strident or weaker leaders. Even more radical Islamic regimes, such as Iran, could be moving in that direction.

Whether international terrorist groups are leading the charge or going with the flow is immaterial. The real issue is the further radicalization of the Middle East and its impact on the war on terrorism. Dealing a death blow to al Qaeda (or a portion of it) is good, but if we leave it at that, we're setting ourselves up for failure yet again, a failure that could dwarf 9/11.

So, what are we doing about it? From what I'm seeing, not much.

We get it, you right-wingers want this country to fail as long as a Democrat is in office.  Too bad it never happens. lol

Poor right-wingers.  They have to scramble every single time in order to figure out something to blame on Obama, since they never can find anything of substance.  That's why they get hung up on birth certificates.  Oh, but Obama crushed you idiots on that, too. hehe



Even after killing Osama, Lindaman still has to trot out the usual "Obama isn't a leader" bullshit.




Just a reminder of what right-wingers think a leader is (remember, this was only six months after 9/11):

President Barack Obama can do as many victory laps as he wants,

Which he didn't. 

See, folks, this is the latest desperate right-wing soundbite that Lindaman is repeating: That because Obama is congratulating the Navy SEALs, and giving closure to the 9/11 victims, he's doing a "victory lap."

According to right-wingers, congratulating SEALs is a "victory lap."  But stomping on the corpses of the 9/11 victims is perfectly fine:


So, are you right-wingers saying that Obama shouldn't congratulate the SEAL team?  Well, to be fair, the SEALs did help Obama look good, and therefore to right-wingers, they are now enemies of America.

To summarize: Right-wingers, yet again, are proven gutless scumbuckets.

Just like their "I" counting of Obama's 5/1/11 speech, comparing it Bush's speech.  And it ended up being 1/20th of Bush words were "I" related and 1/30th of Obama words were "I" related, so their point was lost. Of course, it wasn't "lost", just wrong.  But since when are right-wingers ever correct?

Even, in some alternate universe, Obama was making a victory lap, at least he'd have a victory to have a lap about.  What do Republicans have to be proud of in the past few decades?



but he's already come out supporting the forces in Egypt and Libya, both of whom have clear ties to radical Islam. Even former President George W. Bush took his eyes off the ball in the war on terrorism by not following through once Iraq and Afghanistan were more stabilized after our military interventions.

Sure, waterboarding and Gitmo worked to nab Bin Laden, but we've wavered on those as well.

Nice failed attempt at slipping that one in there.  Waterboarding did not help, according to the United States' number one anti-terrorism expert.

Also, doesn't it bother anyone else how quickly the Obama Administration sided with the more radical elements in Libya and Egypt? It's not like those elements have hidden their agenda or their hatred of America, either. Yet, we're content to let them do the dirty work in getting rid of leaders we no longer "need" in power. If they succeed, something will have to fill the vacuum, and I don't think it's going to be filled by Muslims who want to peacefully co-exist with the West.

In Libya, Obama has support from the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League, the regional powers, and Libyan's own people.  And you hate that. lol

In Egypt, Obama did the intelligent thing and let our and Egypt's militaries talk through things and figure out what to do.  And it results in a peaceful revolution in a Muslim country. And right-wingers are pissed because Egypt tossed out a guy they were heavy supporters of.  Embarrassing for you guys, isn't it?

Then Obama kills Bin Laden. 

Three wins in a row for the United States.  But to Lindaman, this "isn't much." lol

Although we can breathe a sigh of relief at Osama Bin Laden's death, the war on terrorism isn't over by that one act. There is a bigger storm on the horizon, and if recent history and current events are any indication, we're not ready for it.

Yes, we are.  Or you wouldn't be scrambling to say otherwise, right after such a blow to the terrorist community.  Enablers, the lot of you.

From now on, when discussing matters like Libya, you may want to try this handy right-wing guide:



You right-wingers are happily praying for this country to burn to the ground, as long as you can get Republicans elected, and as long as those elected Republicans protect corporate anarchy. 

That's why Lindaman, to this very day, still hasn't been able to say why anyone but a Democrat should be elected.  Because the Democrats repeatedly prove they are the ones who actually get the job done.

2008:


2011:

That Sure Didn't Take Long

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Because I'm a Man of My Word: I congratulate President Obama for his efforts in the operation that brought Osama Bin Laden to final justice. There were a lot of factors involved in putting together the operation and I'm glad Obama, his team, and the military personnel involved were able to come together and accomplish a major goal in the war on  terrorism. Good on you, sir.

Wait for it... wait for it...

Because I'm a Man of My Word II: The speech Obama gave to the nation, to the world really, about the death of Osama Bin Laden was more than a little disappointing. Instead of focusing on those who risked their lives or those who laid the groundwork for the assault, Obama chose to talk about...himself. In a situation like that, leaders tend to focus not on taking personal credit, but spreading it around. What could have been a great speech was cheapened by his back-patting.

Right on cue.  He couldn't even wait a single post before being partisan.  I was not partisan in my Osama Bin Laden death post.

Know why he waited a little while before posting?  He had to check and see what right-wingers like Limbaugh were saying first.  Marching orders and all that.

Ah, well... since he opened the can of worms:

You say President Obama referring to himself in his speech is "back-patting"?

When discussing ordering a military attack in a foreign country, it's appropriate that the President take personal responsibility for ordering such an attack, rather than leaving that responsibility on the shoulders of his subordinates or allies and endangering them.  Obama gave the order, so the responsibility is his and his alone, either good or bad. That's called protocol, not narcissism.

Yet again, clueless right-wingers would rather put our troops in danger.

If the mission had gone badly, would the right wingnuts have blamed the SEAL team, or Bush, or the military? Hell, no. They'd have blamed Obama. And, that's as it should be because the buck stops with the president. He's the one who takes ultimate responsibility.

"If the raid went wrong, Obama would bear the blame. He had vetoed a plan to obliterate the compound with an airstrike. Obama wanted to be certain he had bin Laden, and there was no guarantee that a smoking crater would yield proof. He had asked for a bolder plan, one that would allow the U.S. to take custody of bin Laden or his body. It posed far more risk."

Wow, you mean in his speech, President Obama let everyone know that the decision to use lethal force, in a foreign country without their approval, was his? He knows that if there are repercussions from all of this, it will land squarely on his back. So stuff a sock in it, at least the President isn't passing the buck around.

And this explains the rightards who are doing the same old tired horseshit... spewing about the pronouns used in Obama's speech as a negative, even comparing it to Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. These people really can't think for themselves, can they? Complete and utter droolers and proud of it.


The Big Lie continues.

From the Obama speech:

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores."

Yes... what a narcissist this man is.

Would you prefer it if Obama had done the speech on an aircraft carrier? In a flight suit? In front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner?



An Inconvenient Truth: As much as I appreciate the sheer joy of Osama Bin Laden meeting his maker, I can't help but think about those who cheered our tragedy on 9/11
and wonder how much different we are from them. And the more I think about it, the fewer differences I see.

Wow, Lindaman agrees with Michael Moore! lol

The ideologies of extreme right-wingers and Islamofascists are frighteningly similar.  Yet you're just now figuring this out?  As far as the cheering, I would too if the financier of my oppressor were finally given a taste of its own medicine. I don't blame the Palestinians for hating us. Yes, we're all celebrating Bin Laden's death.  I know you guys secretly loved him because he was a bogeyman that helped get Bush re-elected (and endorsed McCain).  And I know you hate the fact that people are giving a Democratic President props for getting the job done (as usual).  You'll just have to get over that.

So, Who Gets Credit?: Is it George W. Bush? Is it Barack Obama? Is it Bill Clinton? At this point, there is enough credit (and blame) to go around. Leave it at that.

LOL You right-wingers sure would love it if people "left it at that" wouldn't you?

Tell you what... let's not leave it at that, shall we? 

This is coming from the guy that tried to blame BP spilling all their oil into the ocean... on Obama.

Lindaman, like most right-wingers, now suddenly want to "spread the credit." This gives a clear indication that the credit goes to Obama. lol

Let's see... Obama:

1. Made a calculated gamble even though we weren't sure Bin Laden was there.
2. Decided not to alert Pakistani authorities so Bin Laden wouldn't be tipped off.
3. Listened to all opinions from military advisers before deciding on the best plan.
4. Gambled that the mission would come off as a clean strike in minimal time.
5. Risked defining his presidency as being marked by a failed commando raid.

It's worth pointing out that Obama said he would do this before the election and at the same sitting McCain said he would not, that Pakistan is a sovereign nation, he wouldn't violate their territory to get Bin Laden.

Obama went from a lawyer to president of the USA by creating a strong political base which eventually gave him the mandate of Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Or are we to assume the intelligence and uniformed services are in perpetual motion, working at tasks they themselves wish performed? Last weekend he chose to risk his political power and quite possibly his presidency and the lives of American troops in a risky operation with no guarantee of success. Not everyone would have made that decision. Do you get that? McCain himself stated during the campaign he wasn't in favor of invading Pakistan... look it up. Another president might have chosen flattening the place (which would only make identifying Bin Laden more difficult), or doing nothing at all. Obama's decision not only added a measure of certainty that Bin Laden was killed, but also resulted in a major intelligence coup where we got ten hard drives and over 100 DVDs and thumbdrives of information, when all the authoritarians said he should have just bombed the place.

Sorry, you all-talk-no-action righties: Obama deserves huge credit for this decision.  Keep in mind, by the way, that several candidates called Obama's statement in 2008 - that he'd hunt bin Laden into Pakistan - irresponsible and naive.  How's that feeling now?

In 2006, Bush disbanded the CIA's Bin Laden Task force.  Bush didn't get the job done. All he managed to do was ignore intelligence which allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, get us into a war we didn't need to fight, and let bin Laden live a long time in a comfy villa after killing 3000 American citizens. 

But Reagan deserves some credit, too.  After all, if Reagan didn't help create Bin Laden, there never would've been a Bin Laden for Obama to take down.

The Political Fall-Out: To many, killing Osama Bin Laden has all but ensured President Obama a second term. I'm not so sure. Time will tell.

I have a question for Thomas "Obama will lose the 2008 November election" Lindaman:

Now that taxes are lower for people in your working class thanks to Obama, and Osama Bin Laden has been killed with no American troops dead thanks to Obama's leadership skills and anti-terrorism strategy, and the economy is better thanks to Obama, and you won't be denied health insurance for preexisting conditions thanks to Obama, and your credit cards are better thanks to Obama... could you please explain to me why you would vote for anyone else but Obama?

Obama gives the word to take down Osama Bin Laden, then puts on a tux and kicks ass at a stand up routine at the press dinner... and then gets to announce the death of Osama bin Laden by interrupting Donald Trump's show on the 8th anniversary of Bush's bullshit "Mission Accomplished" speech. I'm pretty sure he could teach Charlie Sheen a thing or two about winning.  Oh, but he's not a leader... right?  RIGHT?

The Biggest Mistake We Can Make Right Now: I get the feeling with the death of Osama Bin Laden, people will think we can deescalate the war on terrorism. That would be a huge mistake because the war on terrorism has never been and should never be about getting Bin Laden. Now that he's out of the picture, there are others who will step up and fill the void he left. If the situations in Egypt and Libya are any indication, we may be getting cozy with people as extreme as Bin Laden was, which means another 9/11 becomes that much more certain.

Lindaman is concerned again!  Was totally unconcerned about Iraq, of course.

If you're right, Lindaman, then we better be sure we have a leader like Obama, shouldn't we?

Oh, wait... to right-wingers, this is a leader:


Burial at Sea?: This part has me puzzled. People involved with the burial of Osama Bin Laden said they gave him a proper burial at sea in accordance with the Muslim faith. Yet, Muslim clerics have said the burial wasn't in accordance with the Muslim faith and was actually an affront to it. You know, if I were in charge of that operation, I would make sure to take extra care not to offend the Muslims any more than I did by taking down Osama Bin Laden. That's kind of something you want to be sure to get right if at all possible. Just sayin'.

Some Muslims will be offended no matter what was done with the body.  Putting Osama in a grave (unmarked or not) was not on the table.  No frigging way.  And incinerating the body would have caused massive outrage.

Do you have an alternative?

This was the best resolution as far as the body goes, and you know it.

Lindaman sure understands about taking extra care not to "offend Muslims."  Lindaman stated that he wanted to erect a Star of David and a Christian Cross on a Muslim community center (that's on private fucking property).  Fred Phelps would be proud.

Yet again, Lindaman has zero credibility.  But what else can one expect from a birther like him? Oh, and we're still waiting for Lindaman to elaborate further on how Obama's citizenship is "questionable."  lol

WE GOT HIM!

Osama Bin Laden is DEAD! Shot in the head by our own military.

Good frigging riddance!

To the men and women in the Armed Forces: CELEBRATE! You more than earned it!

The Kook We Already Knew

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Earlier this week, the news was focused around the White House finally releasing President Obama's birth certificate,

Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008, Lindaman.  Remember?

ending years of speculation about his birthplace and citizenship.

Speculation?  His birthplace was right there on the birth certificate that he released in June of 2008.  His citizenship is unquestionable to anyone with even a lick of common sense.

The media were among the loudest voices heard saying, "See? We told you he was born here and the 'birthers' were crazy!"

Loudest voices? There was never any question he was born here to anyone with common sense, which of course excludes you crazy birthers.

Others were not as convinced, however. Even Donald Trump, the "birther du joir" as it were, said he wanted to check it out further.

That's because birthers have painted themselves into a corner. They said they wanted the "long form" and no other proof could sway them. And unless they release it, Obama is a Muslim Kenyan socialist who was groomed from birth to destroy the United States.  So now we have the long form certificate. But the birthers can't back down now. So of course the long form isn't good enough.

Throughout this controversy, I've tried to keep an open mind. I've listened to both sides, weighed the evidence presented, and kept checking my premises when new data came in.

Then you threw it all out because it didn't support your preconceived notion.

How can you even "listen to both sides" when the fact that he released his birth certificate in June of 2008 seems to elude you?  After that, any "speculation" was finished to rational people.

So far, the "birthers" have presented the more convincing argument because they've at least brought forward information to be considered.

And there you have it, folks.  In spite of his previous denials, Lindaman has just proven what we already knew: That he is indeed a birther kook.

I knew that he was really a birther, because he will believe any nutty conspiracy theory that furthers a right-wing agenda.  Just like when Lindaman embraced the Swift Boaters.  Add to the fact that he outed himself as a bigot, a xenophobe, and a racist in 2010... and it was inevitable that he would eventually out himself as a birther.

"Brought forward information"?  And just how is any of that slobber going to contradict the fact that his birth certificate that was released in June of 2008 shows he was born in Hawaii?  And his newspaper announcement?

The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is thus: If you don't believe President Obama is a natural-born citizen, then you're a stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving moron.

Wow. The Left's argument is hard to refute...without laughing.

Leave it to a birther to laugh at proven facts.

The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is actually this: He released his birth certificate in June of 2008.  That is all the proof one needs that he was born in Hawaii.  That is the exact same standard that any President has.  Obama has done more to prove his citizenship than any other president.  But that's not good enough to birthers.  Because they are indeed racists that can't accept the fact that a black man with a funny sounding name got elected.

The fact that it exposes you people as the stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving morons that you are, is just icing on the cake.

Personally, I think there are enough questions to warrant a deeper investigation into Obama's citizenship,

Ohhhh please do tell us, you birther cretin.  I'd love to have another lengthy back-and-forth on that and watch another "debate" BOOM! blow up in your face again.

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on manmade global warming?  Remember how you couldn't produce a single climatologist to support you?  BOOM!

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on the BP spill and how the Administration was incompetent and BP were saints?  And how the best you could do was repeat Doug Ross's timeline while ignoring the fact that the Administration was there immediately? BOOM!

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on Media Matters, and how you couldn't refute a single thing they said, and your only source was a proven anti-semite?  BOOM!

Please, Lindaman.  Please... I'm begging you.  Please start making arguments that Obama's citizenship is questionable.  This would be the funniest proof that you are a completely clueless loony toon in quite a while.  It would be quite boomtastic.

but it's not the only issue on which to question the President. Granted, I don't think there are that many people focused solely on the "birther" controversy, and not even the Republican candidates or presumed candidates are taking it up as a serious issue. (I am excluding Donald Trump from that list because a) he hasn't officially announced he's running as a Republican, and b) I don't think he's going to run. Those are points for a later blog.) Yet, the Left seems to think the "birther" issue is the only issue the GOP has, so if they eliminate it or diminish it, it kills the Republicans' chances in 2012.

Wishful thinking on their part, I'm afraid. Even their attempts to dispel the "birther" movement have backfired on them because they have been so lackluster. Even the attempt this week was half-hearted, but it was enough to make the media try to hammer and bully the "birthers" into submission. Just check out the video of Lawrence O'Donnell's "interview" with Orly Taitz and O'Donnell's demand for an "apology."

Hahaha, now you're trying to defend Orly Taitz?  And I thought your embracing of Andy Martin was loopy.  Oh dear god... please justify Orly's arguments.  Please!

Regardless of where you stand on President Obama's citizenship, an honest assessment of the situation shows one side is attempting to present facts to support its point of view, while the other side resorts to name-calling and bullying tactics. Makes you wonder who the real kooks are, doesn't it?

Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008.  The issue was done except to racist morons.

Remember when you said Obama would be seen as a more effective leader if he released his (long form) birth certificate?  Well, he released it.  So why aren't you saying so now?  You sure are shutting the fuck up on that, aren't you?  I'm not hearing a lot of apologies from birthers. I got what I expected: a few days worth of terribly serious condemnation of the president's political missteps from professional crybabies in the blogger media. Look at them, already doubling down. Obama's made birthers look even MORE insane.  lol

As far as his recent release of the long form birth certificate:

This validates the sheer volume of birther stupidity in the Republican party. It's like having to release proof that women have a functioning brain, or that black people have feelings, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, to placate the Republican party - it shines a spotlight on the fact that the party is currently being hijacked by morons, and at the same time makes that faction shout even louder to argue the point. 

It would probably have been better to release it after a 2012 victory, but the reaction from all the racist, gutless, moronic birthers (which is, I know, redundant as all hell) should be entertaining for a while. Now they'll have to latch onto something else to justify their racism and ignorance.

Trump claimed that his investigation had found that the birth certificate was missing. He is now conclusively proven wrong.

The White House got as much mileage from this as they could from the birther racists. And by releasing the long form certificate now, they have given some measure of legitimacy to the craziest Republican president wannabe (Donald Trump). That's like an extra-sweet bonus, since the Republican power-base is going to have to go off message long enough to convince their party that Donald is not a viable candidate.  The right is so pathetic right now, aren't they?  A few weeks ago they actually floated Hillary Clinton as filling that spot. lol

So what does Obama get? He shows that he is such a reasonable man to release his confidential birth certificate, and the birthers look even more unreasonable for getting exactly what they wanted, but now saying that this is still not good enough. Thus, further birther marginalization!  Obama's basically nominating Trump for the GOP in 2012, and now the GOP has to scramble to marginalize him. I suspect Rove is about five shades of red right now!  Ta-da! This simultaneously condemns Trump to permanent nutbag status and makes it far more likely he could win the primary.

In summary: You're just pissed because you retard birthers just got pwned back into the stone age and don't have an inbred, hick leg to stand on!  Bwahahaaa!!

Because it was never about a birth certificate. It was about a bunch of simpletons who can't believe a black guy with a funny name got elected, so he must have cheated... somehow. 

Eat a bag of dicks, racists. You'll have to find another way to call him a n---er without having the guts to explicitly say it.